PDA

View Full Version : Why Third Parties "Won't Win Anyways"




Morgan Brykein
12-23-2009, 01:42 PM
I noticed that third party and independent candidates routinely win elections for things like mayor, city council, county clerk etc. This year, many Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, and independents were elected to local office. This seems at odds with the fact that third party candidates routinely loose races for the state legislature, Congress, and other "higher" offices.

This is attributed to the fact that at a local level, a candidate's platform is scrutinized less, and that might be true, but there is a greater reason why third party and independent candidates don't get elected to higher office. Most of the time, these candidates do not climb the political ladder.

If you look up your Congressperson, you'll most likely see that he or she was a mayor, a city councillor, or a state legislator before being elected to Congress. Of course, there are exceptions. But overall, voters like to vote for people with experience. On top of that, a local newspaper would have to mention a Libertarian candidate for Congress, if that Libertarian is the mayor of a town served by the newspaper.

I know most of the third party candidates who currently serve in local office probably have no intent of running for higher office. But if some of them do, and keep their third party title (instead of running as a Republican or Democrat, like what the Libertarian mayor of Costa Mesa is doing), they have a good chance of winning. These "vanity campaigns" for president and other high offices don't really help with the credibility of the third parties.

The Libertarian Party and others should completely abandon their presidential nominations, and put all their focus into getting their candidates elected to things like the state legislature and Congress. They could always do write-in campaigns.

Derek Johnson
12-23-2009, 01:55 PM
The Libertarian Party and others should completely abandon their presidential nominations, and put all their focus into getting their candidates elected to things like the state legislature and Congress. They could always do write-in campaigns.

Agreed! The federal positions are still a few election cycles out, but they will come too.

I'm a state rep candidate, for the party the actually does agree with 100% of Ron Paul's positions.

Anyone else?

Morgan Brykein
12-23-2009, 01:57 PM
I'm a state rep candidate, for the party the actually does agree with 100% of Ron Paul's positions.

What party is that?

Derek Johnson
12-23-2009, 02:00 PM
What party is that?

Besides Rockwell and Rothbard, he has done more for the party than anyone else.

Hint: 1988

Imperial
12-23-2009, 02:01 PM
Morgan, I agree in sentiment but for two reasons. First, a good LP presidential ticket gets it attention down the ballot and legitimizes those down-ballot campaigns. Second, sometimes a presidential campaign is the only effective way to achieve ballot access, like in ridiculous Arkansas or some other states.

TCE
12-23-2009, 02:03 PM
The LP and all other third parties need to start small.

1. Pick a few state legislature races, potentially in New Hampshire or another liberty-friendly state, and spend a ton of money on winning those.

OPTIONAL 2. Have these state legislature members present bills to relax the restrictions on third parties competing.

3. Take one of those people and have them run for Congress. Again, make sure you heavily outspend the two major parties. It shouldn't be hard considering there will be an entire party apparatus behind them.

4. Rinse and repeat.

Eventually, whichever third party does this will have a base, until then, they will be a laughing stock. As a bonus recommendation, stop spending any money on Presidential, Gubernatorial, or Senate races. Seriously, at this point in the game, spending money on these ventures is about equivalent to flushing it down the toilet.

Morgan Brykein
12-23-2009, 02:06 PM
Besides Rockwell and Rothbard, he has done more for the party than anyone else.

Hint: 1988

Libertarian Party. I wasn't sure if you meant that or the Constitution Party.


1. Pick a few state legislature races, potentially in New Hampshire or another liberty-friendly state, and spend a ton of money on winning those.

New Hampshire would be the easiest state for a third party candidate to win, since each representative in the state House only represents around three thousand people.

mello
12-23-2009, 02:10 PM
I thought that 3rd party candidates are pretty much screwed when it comes to running for President
because some states require more money & signatures to get on the ballot compared to Republican
or Democratic candidates. Does anyone know which States are the most unfair when it comes to
getting on the ballot?

Imperial
12-23-2009, 02:10 PM
Isn't it hard for Libertarians to get on the ballot in New Hampshire though?

Uncle Emanuel Watkins
12-23-2009, 02:10 PM
I noticed that third party and independent candidates routinely win elections for things like mayor, city council, county clerk etc. This year, many Libertarians, Greens, Constitutionalists, and independents were elected to local office. This seems at odds with the fact that third party candidates routinely loose races for the state legislature, Congress, and other "higher" offices.

This is attributed to the fact that at a local level, a candidate's platform is scrutinized less, and that might be true, but there is a greater reason why third party and independent candidates don't get elected to higher office. Most of the time, these candidates do not climb the political ladder.

If you look up your Congressperson, you'll most likely see that he or she was a mayor, a city councillor, or a state legislator before being elected to Congress. Of course, there are exceptions. But overall, voters like to vote for people with experience. On top of that, a local newspaper would have to mention a Libertarian candidate for Congress, if that Libertarian is the mayor of a town served by the newspaper.

I know most of the third party candidates who currently serve in local office probably have no intent of running for higher office. But if some of them do, and keep their third party title (instead of running as a Republican or Democrat, like what the Libertarian mayor of Costa Mesa is doing), they have a good chance of winning. These "vanity campaigns" for president and other high offices don't really help with the credibility of the third parties.

The Libertarian Party and others should completely abandon their presidential nominations, and put all their focus into getting their candidates elected to things like the state legislature and Congress. They could always do write-in campaigns.

The two party system was devised to interpret the Constitution. You see, in the beginning, the Supreme Court did not do this. The high court did not rule on Constitutionality but wrote writs of mandamus thinking somehow it would be significant when telling certain states "shame on you! and then declaring them "very bad states!".
The two party system still plays its part in interpreting the Constitution which is a good thing because it helps protect its sanctity.
A party is never pure like extremists want it to be. It takes in many little weird parties and cults becoming an entity much like the other party it opposes. In the end, this becomes a good thing because it represents Americans as mostly moderates.
If Obama has decided to run off and represent the extremist left, then he is to blame if such folly causes him to lose the next election.
Indeed, unlike Europe which is a collection of nations with political systems that cause left and right extremism, the United States has a system that causes political moderation.

TCE
12-23-2009, 02:14 PM
I thought that 3rd party candidates are pretty much screwed when it comes to running for President
because some states require more money & signatures to get on the ballot compared to Republican
or Democratic candidates. Does anyone know which States are the most unfair when it comes to
getting on the ballot?

To run for President with a third party, you need to Ross Perot it and spend a minimum of $125 million to even stand a chance. The LP, CP, etc will never raise that much for one race, so it's pointless for them to try.

To answer your question: Yes, there are around five states or so where you need a ton of signatures to even get on the ballot.

Imperial: They could party crossover and make it easier. http://www.lpnh.org/Welcome.html If anyone runs as a Libertarian in NH, recruiting around 100 FSP'ers to help get everything settled is pretty simple.

mello
12-23-2009, 03:18 PM
To run for President with a third party, you need to Ross Perot it and spend a minimum of $125 million to even stand a chance. The LP, CP, etc will never raise that much for one race, so it's pointless for them to try.

To answer your question: Yes, there are around five states or so where you need a ton of signatures to even get on the ballot.

Imperial: They could party crossover and make it easier. http://www.lpnh.org/Welcome.html If anyone runs as a Libertarian in NH, recruiting around 100 FSP'ers to help get everything settled is pretty simple.

Do you know which States? I thought there were some States that also required a lot
more money to get on ballots as well.

Morgan Brykein
12-23-2009, 03:28 PM
Do you know which States? I thought there were some States that also required a lot
more money to get on ballots as well.

Oklahoma and Rhode Island are two of them, IIRC.

mello
12-23-2009, 03:55 PM
I found this online:

Ridiculous USA Ballot Access Laws designed to discriminate against third parties

Among the world's democracies, the United States has by far the worst ballot access situation. Each state writes its own ballot access laws, even for federal office. Sometimes these laws clearly are intentionally written to force one- or two-party domination. Since there is no single standard for the whole nation, the public and even the media are generally ignorant about ballot access laws.

Georgia:
Georgia in 1943 required new party and independent candidates to submit a petition signed by 5% of the number of registered voters in order to get on the ballot for any office! Previously, any party could get on the ballot just by requesting it. (And all petition signers are subject to subpoena to determine if they actually signed.) Result: since 1943, zero third-party candidates have ever managed even to get on the ballot for a Georgia U.S. House of Representatives seat (in about 800 races total).

Florida:
The ballot access laws for third parties and independent candidates have been very severe since 1931. Since then only two third party candidates for the U.S. House of Representatives and only one for the U.S. Senate have managed to get on the ballot. (And there has been no third party or independent candidate on the ballot for Governor of Florida since 1920.) As of 2005, a filing fee of 7% of the annual salary of the office is also required unless the candidate is a pauper, while a third party or independent candidate for any statewide office (other than US president) needs 196,255 valid signatures – beyond what any independent candidate in any state in the USA has ever obtained.

Texas:
To run for Texas Governor as an Independent in 2006, Richard S. "Kinky" Friedman had to acquire 45000 signatures in a short time, all of them notarized. He accomplished that, but found it almost impossible and claims it had never been done before.

Arkansas:
New parties, to get on ballot, require by 1971 law a petition signed by a number of voters exceeding 7% of the last vote cast. A court held that unconstitutional in 1977, so they changed it to 3%. Also, the petition must be completed in four months during the odd year before an election year. No political party has ever succeeded in getting on the Arkansas ballot, under either rule.

West Virginia:
This one is an elegant "catch-22." Third party and independent candidates for office (other than US president) must circulate their petition before the primary. It is a crime for any petition circulator to approach anyone without saying "If you sign my petition, you cannot vote in the primary." Furthermore, it is impossible for third party or independent candidates (not running for US president) to ever know in advance if they have enough valid signatures because if anyone who signs a candidate's petition then votes in a primary, the signature of that person is invalid. For candidates, it is impossible to know who will actually vote in the primary, and it is too late to get signatures after the primary. Also: petition circulators cannot leave their home precinct.

Minnesota:
1961 law requires petition to be completed within a 2-week period.

Maryland:
1941 law requires all petition signers to be published in one newspaper in each county in the state, by the collector of the petitions.

Massachusetts:
Richard Winger of Ballot Access News says, "Massachusetts ballot access procedures for members of small qualified parties to get on their own party's primary ballot are a disgrace, the worst in the nation. They are so bad, they even injure Republicans in MA. In 2008, out of the 10 U.S. House races in MA, there was no Republican in six of them."

Grimnir Wotansvolk
12-23-2009, 04:00 PM
The green and libertarian parties would have a chance at winning if they merged

Southron
12-23-2009, 04:23 PM
I thought that 3rd party candidates are pretty much screwed when it comes to running for President
because some states require more money & signatures to get on the ballot compared to Republican
or Democratic candidates. Does anyone know which States are the most unfair when it comes to
getting on the ballot?

Here in NC ballot access is insane. Its going to take almost 100,000 signatures to get the LP on the ballot during the next election cycle.

Morgan Brykein
12-23-2009, 04:26 PM
The green and libertarian parties would have a chance at winning if they merged

There's some major ideological differences. The Libertarians have a good chance if they can bring libertarians in the Republican and Democratic parties to their side. Like if they had some electoral success.

surf
12-23-2009, 04:31 PM
Washington State passed a "top 2" law a few years ago that reads that only the top 2 vote recipients in the primary will be allowed to move on to the general election. not only does this not allow the party to choose for itself who its representative will be in the general election (primaries are a waste of taxpayer funds, imo), it also means that the "top 2" can be from the same party.

i believe this was passed because the LP won "major party" status in 2000 - i.e. one at least one of our candidates for statewide office received more than 5% of the vote.

as may have been previously pointed out in this post, many local elections are "non-partisan," which is probably why many libertarian-minded candidates fare better than in paritisan elections

mello
12-23-2009, 04:44 PM
Here in NC ballot access is insane. Its going to take almost 100,000 signatures to get the LP on the ballot during the next election cycle.

So what would be involved to get this crazy stuff changed?

Would you need to get a pile of signatures to have it put up on a ballot measure?
Would you need to sue the state?
Would you need the legislature to pass a bill?

Southron
12-23-2009, 05:01 PM
So what would be involved to get this crazy stuff changed?

Would you need to get a pile of signatures to have it put up on a ballot measure?
Would you need to sue the state?
Would you need the legislature to pass a bill?

I think the NC LP already challenged it in court and lost. They keep track of their fight at www.lpnc.org.

Essentially in the past I believe we needed those signatures just to get on the ballot and if a LP candidates didn't get a certain percentage of the vote LP is off the ballot till we get the signatures again. I think they need 2%.

MN Patriot
12-23-2009, 05:36 PM
The LP and all other third parties need to start small.

1. Pick a few state legislature races, potentially in New Hampshire or another liberty-friendly state, and spend a ton of money on winning those.

OPTIONAL 2. Have these state legislature members present bills to relax the restrictions on third parties competing.

3. Take one of those people and have them run for Congress. Again, make sure you heavily outspend the two major parties. It shouldn't be hard considering there will be an entire party apparatus behind them.

4. Rinse and repeat.

Eventually, whichever third party does this will have a base, until then, they will be a laughing stock. As a bonus recommendation, stop spending any money on Presidential, Gubernatorial, or Senate races. Seriously, at this point in the game, spending money on these ventures is about equivalent to flushing it down the toilet.

Obviously you haven't been involved with any third parties.
Ballot access is one major hurdle third parties need to overcome, but collecting signatures can be used to increase awareness. Many states need to have statewide candidates achieve a certain percentage of votes, having a full slate of candidates increases those chances.

I've been saying for years the LP needs to run a unified national campaign with as many statewide candidates, and congressional candidates as possible. Have a "Contract with America" type of platform to support these campaigns with a common blueprint of how to restore a constitutional republic.

If reforming the Republican Party proves to be impossible, then all the Tea Party people need to go the third party route and put the Republicans out of business.

speciallyblend
12-23-2009, 05:42 PM
The green and libertarian parties would have a chance at winning if they merged

if the gop doesn't shape up soon, you will have indys,ron paul republicans,ron paul dems and cp/lp/tp/green leaders and supporters and ron paul supporters across the political spectrum left,right ,up and down and center;) uniting under a Ron Paul Platform and new brandname such as a Liberty Party or whatever the leaders agree on. this is very viable and would make this new party a second party overnight in many states such as Colorado(where i will pay for the fee to create this new party). never say never;) the gop might make history ,like the whigs and be history..

speciallyblend
12-23-2009, 06:09 PM
Obviously you haven't been involved with any third parties.
Ballot access is one major hurdle third parties need to overcome, but collecting signatures can be used to increase awareness. Many states need to have statewide candidates achieve a certain percentage of votes, having a full slate of candidates increases those chances.

I've been saying for years the LP needs to run a unified national campaign with as many statewide candidates, and congressional candidates as possible. Have a "Contract with America" type of platform to support these campaigns with a common blueprint of how to restore a constitutional republic.

If reforming the Republican Party proves to be impossible, then all the Tea Party people need to go the third party route and put the Republicans out of business.

I 100% agree with you, our movement will move forward with or without the gop. the gop will alienate themselves if they do not change to the ron paul platform..

Grimnir Wotansvolk
12-23-2009, 06:19 PM
I have to question why third parties opt to be political parties, though. With all the energy and money they've dumped into a hole attempting to gain ballot access, they could actually be building alternative institutions that can compete with the state for power.

Instead of whining to the legislature about how it's wrong to harass teenagers for possessing pot, we could be forming militias that keep cops from touching innocent civilians.. Instead of trying to reform the tax code, we could simply scare any tax collector away from setting foot near your property.

catdd
12-23-2009, 06:22 PM
if the gop doesn't shape up soon, you will have indys,ron paul republicans,ron paul dems and cp/lp/tp/green leaders and supporters and ron paul supporters across the political spectrum left,right ,up and down and center;) uniting under a Ron Paul Platform and new brandname such as a Liberty Party or whatever the leaders agree on. this is very viable and would make this new party a second party overnight in many states such as Colorado(where i will pay for the fee to create this new party). never say never;) the gop might make history ,like the whigs and be history..

I agree and I like the sound of Liberty Party, though right now the Tea "Party" is getting a lot of attention.

Morgan Brykein
12-23-2009, 06:46 PM
If reforming the Republican Party proves to be impossible, then all the Tea Party people need to go the third party route and put the Republicans out of business.

Reforming the Republican Party would only push one faction out of power, and put another one in control. The people would still be stuck with the "lesser of two evils." I seriously don't think whoever came up with that Republican "limitus test" had voter choice in mind.

speciallyblend
12-23-2009, 06:53 PM
I agree and I like the sound of Liberty Party, though right now the Tea "Party" is getting a lot of attention.

I agree with the tea party. i think we could get their leaders and ron paul and the lp/cp/tp/greens and other various leaders into a room ,hammer out a new Liberty Minded Platform under a new brandname(ex. Liberty Party) Ron Paul can bump some heads together and make it happen. If we took the true leaders from all these parties and movements and made sure the neo-cons are left out, overnight the failed gop would be a 3rd party and our new party united together under a Ron Paul Platform would surpass the gop. imagine the msm couldn't ignore. If this was done in many states such as colorado nevada and many others. then the gop and their big government platform would be dead overnight and any real ron paul republicans would be knocking down the door to our movement to save their political careers:)

i just remind everyone to say never say never. not to many options left since the gop really is doing nothing that shows them coming even close to what Ron Paul is saying.. Ron Paul 2012 is all i see worth a dam in the gop

speciallyblend
12-23-2009, 07:09 PM
what we should do is continue to build support within the gop. if the gop does not wise up. then we take all the ron paul republicans and new republican supporters and walk away from the marginalized gop..... hold them all accountable!!!

catdd
12-23-2009, 07:20 PM
I agree with the tea party. i think we could get their leaders and ron paul and the lp/cp/tp/greens and other various leaders into a room ,hammer out a new Liberty Minded Platform under a new brandname(ex. Liberty Party) Ron Paul can bump some heads together and make it happen. If we took the true leaders from all these parties and movements and made sure the neo-cons are left out, overnight the failed gop would be a 3rd party and our new party united together under a Ron Paul Platform. imagine the msm couldn't ignore. If this was done in many states such as colorado nevada and many others. then the gop and their big government platform would be dead overnight and any real ron paul republicans would be knocking down the door to our movement to save their political careers:)

i just remind everyone to say never say never. not to many options left since the gop really is doing nothing that shows them coming even close to what Ron Paul is saying.. Ron Paul 2012 is all i see worth a dam in the gop


"make sure the neocons are left out"

Morgan Brykein
12-23-2009, 07:25 PM
"make sure the neocons are left out"

More specifically: Make sure they can't hijack the party, like what they did to the GOP.

speciallyblend
12-23-2009, 08:36 PM
More specifically: Make sure they can't hijack the party, like what they did to the GOP.

oops typo oo well

speciallyblend
12-23-2009, 08:42 PM
More specifically: Make sure they can't hijack the party, like what they did to the GOP.

i think our liberty minded platform, would keep those neo-cons out. ending the drug war and legalizing marijuana is a good way to puff out the neo-cons. if they are against legalizing marijuana or against ending the failed big government drug war against our citizens. then their is no way they can say they are one of us, foreign policy is another one that the neo-cons could not hide behind in a new party platform. the platform itself will make sure the neo-cons stay alienated in the gop or whatever party they try to flee to.... the clock is ticking faster and faster

Austrian Econ Disciple
12-24-2009, 04:43 AM
i think our liberty minded platform, would keep those neo-cons out. ending the drug war and legalizing marijuana is a good way to puff out the neo-cons. if they are against legalizing marijuana or against ending the failed big government drug war against our citizens. then their is no way they can say they are one of us, foreign policy is another one that the neo-cons could not hide behind in a new party platform. the platform itself will make sure the neo-cons stay alienated in the gop or whatever party they try to flee to.... the clock is ticking faster and faster

If you want a true litmus test, it should be: Do you support ending the income tax and replacing it with nothing? Yes or no. If no, then toodaloo. :D