We all should be worried. As of Monday night, Gore is trailing Bush by three percentage points in the MSNBC/Reuters poll and other polls put Gore one percentage point ahead. Why is the race so close? Yes, a part of it is personality politics. But overall most Americans want campaign finance reform and want to help the environment. Most Americans are pro-choice and support civil rights. So why isn't Gore crushing Bush, then? The answer is Nader.

While the race is in a statistical dead heat, it shouldn't be. The states of Minnesota, Pennsylvania, Washington, Oregon, and Tennessee-all Democratic strongholds-are leaning toward supporting Bush. Nader is estimated to be stealing nearly eight percentage points in Minnesota. How ironic would it be if Bush won these states?

In California, where Gore was leading Bush by double digit percentage points, Nader began an aggressive campaign of newspaper ads and commercials. Now, Gore is ahead by only a few points and Bush is heavily campaigning to win California. Nader even pulled his ads out of the newspapers when he saw the effect they had on Californian voters.

Clearly, this indicates a lot of American people are upset with the two parties. I know many people vote for Nader, not because they want him to be President, but because they want to send a message to the Democrats and Republicans. Nader's goal is not to win the presidency but to garner at least five percent of the vote so the Green Party can obtain federal funding in four years.

But a vote for Nader is still a vote for Bush. Gore has been forced to work harder in states like Minnesota, where he should be very much ahead. There is the real possibility that votes for Nader will lose Gore major states like Florida and Wisconsin.

Nader is bringing to light a lot of issues about our political system that cannot be ignored by future presidents. However, a Bush presidency will not help. Bush does not care about campaign finance reform or the environment. He ignores crucial foreign policy and Social Security information. Also, the Supreme Court is at stake and I, for one, don't want to Bush to be President of the United States.

Keep in mind how close this election is. As Gore so often points out, "John F. Kennedy won by an average of one vote per precinct" in his race against Nixon. This is the closest election since. Gore, with the backing of many newspapers, teacher groups, and civil rights organizations, has been building momentum in this last week. We're in the final push. Vote for Gore.

Ben Baum '03

Amherst College Democrats

<b>Nader Pamphlet is Misleading</b><br>To the Editor:

Last Monday, each student received a mailing from Amherst Students Acting Politically (ASAP) which contained the following analysis of the 2000 presidential election: "In most states, the election is already decided ... If you're from ... these states, your state's electoral votes are as good as cast: you can vote for [Ralph] Nader without inadvertently contributing to [George] Bush's chances." On its reverse side, the leaflet provided a full list of the 50 states, judging each state as either already decided for Bush or for Al Gore, or as a "Toss-Up."

Of the 50 states, remarkably and completely erroneously, only 12 were listed as "Toss-Ups." The flier baldly awarded to Gore such tightly-contested races as Pennsylvania, Illinois, and Minnesota (areas where polls throughout October have shown no candidate consistently holding a lead more than 1 or two points higher than the margin of error), and made no allowance for a Bush comeback in states as important as California and New Jersey, where Gore holds a slim lead but is certainly not an uncontested victor.

Of course, practically speaking, not every state is a real toss-up, and in certain clear-cut cases a vote for Nader is extremely unlikely to hurt Gore (Massachusetts, Hawaii, and the District of Columbia, for example).

However, to assert confidently that a candidate holding a lead of five points or more in a state's polls has already clinched all of its electoral votes is to betray a fundamental misunderstanding about the way elections work. Polls are notoriously fickle and unreliable, and when just one source is consulted (the leaflet names only MSNBC), it is foolishness to deduce clear winners from such modest leads.

Equally erroneous is the leaflet's contention that Nader isn't a real threat to draw voters away from Gore in large numbers. In each of the states listed as "decided" for Gore, Nader's potential to turn the tide to Bush is as strong as ever. In Minnesota, for example, <i>The Washington Post</i> reports a state poll last week (the same week given by the leaflet's MSNBC source) showing Gore trailing Bush, 44 percent to 41percent, with Nader coming in at eight percent. In this and several other cases, a vote for the Green Party candidate is, in direct contradiction to ASAP's claims, a clear threat to weaken Gore.

On the whole, this leaflet, whether an astonishing display of ignorance by ASAP or a deliberate manipulation of students unfamiliar with the latest poll data, does a great disservice to anyone who is genuinely interested in making an informed vote. Students have a right to expect better from Amherst's political organizations than this irresponsibly oversimplified contribution to political discussion on campus.

Matt Karp '03

<b>Valentine Sit-in: A Call to Action</b><br>To the Editor:

As a black man at Amherst, I am aware of myself as being both a part of and yet outside of the mainstream of Amherst life. I know that on one hand in order to survive here, I must speak the language and effectively navigate the predominantly white, Anglo-Saxon culture of Amherst. Yet on the other hand, I represent a socioeconomic and cultural background that not only does not reflect the norm, but also does not necessarily have to be acknowledged or appreciated by the campus majority. W.E.B. Du Bois describes this as a "double-consciousness," i.e., of myself as both an Amherst student and as a black Amherst student.

What the Valentine sit-in represented to me was a visible expression of the frustration that people like myself often feel at the condition of our existence here. Framing this as an attack on athletes or as an accusation of non-affinity students of some indirect form of oppression denigrates the issue, creating greater ignorance and unwarranted angst. I believe that all that was desired was acknowledgement and respect: the same that I have always afforded those privileged enough to not have to worry about feeling "invisible."

Is there a solution to this "problem?" Not in the arithmetically simple and straightforward understanding of the word. It takes forcing ourselves, marginalized or otherwise, to take possession of Amherst as our space, as representative of all of us. While it is painfully true that this place was designed originally for the comfort of white males, it does not behoove us to sit idly by and allow ourselves to be convinced that this place is not meant to represent us all. Nor does it warrant those who feel adequately represented to remain oblivious or indifferent.

I am an Amherst student, and as such, claim my right to a high-quality education and an enriching college experience. When these conditions are not met to my satisfaction, I then claim the right to act to effect necessary change with the acknowledgment and support of all students at Amherst. Because when I leave here, I will be the face of Amherst that others will see, and just as I feel privileged to represent Amherst, Amherst had better feel privileged to represent me.

Patrick Egeonu '01