The three minor parties that run the largest number of candidates across the nation are the Constitution, Green, and Libertarian Parties. In the November 2008 election, here is the best percentage in the nation for each of these party’s U.S. House nominees (excluding races in which one of the two major parties didn’t run anyone):
Constitution Party: Jim Noorlander, in Utah’s 3rd district, polled 6.11%.
Green Party: Carol Wolman, in California’s 1st district, polled 8.54%.
Libertarian Party: Ted Brown, in California’s 26th district, got 6.92%.
I wish I knew who said it first: If a man stands with his back too close to the fire, and gets blistered, he’s the one who has to sit on it.
It’s not entirely true: We ALL have to sit on it.
People seemingly refuse to vote for an alternative, then bitch and gripe and moan about the poor quality of the candidates, meaning from the two old parties.
They continue to stand too close to the fire, and we all get blistered.
Surely, surely, surely there must be some way to get people to open their minds and consider the new parties.
As I see it, three elements are needed for any small
party or independent candidate to succeed. One is some
level of prior name recognition. This would reduce the
need for spending money introducing yourself to the
electorate. That way, whatever money one does raise is
channelled into direct mailing focused solely on the
issues the candidate is emphasizing. The second piece
is money itself. In those rare instances where for any
reason an alternate candidate can accumulate substan-
tial funding (at least 1/4 or 1/3 of the major party
candidates) they could draw at least 15-20 % of the
total vote. Still not enough to win a 3-way race but
at least most of the voters will know your positions.
Third is a unified theme. Too little is known by the
general electorate of just what the 3 small national
parties major positions are at this time. Most people
consistently vote Democrat or Republican based on the
perceived major policy positions of the party without
any regard for the individual candidate running under
that party’s banner. By more forcefully establishing
what their core positions are the 3 Alternate parties
may also be able to create a small & very loyal base
of support in the various states that they are ballot
qualified at this time.
One day, there will b a day when a third party candidate will win. I hope it happens soon.
I’m curious if there have ever been any parties in the US that had as their sole platform a reform of the political system. A Citizens for Political Reform Party, if you will. CPR–great acronym, I think, for what ails us!
Since most visitors to Ballot Access News have a good idea of the problems facing candidates from outside the two-party monopoly, I’ll get straight to what I see as the best solution. Instant-runoff voting eliminates the need to vote ‘strategically’ against your least-desired outcome. This would start to erase the ‘lesser of two evils’ conditioning that keeps Americans away from alternative candidates. IRV is a popular reform that has been enacted in such places as San Francisco, Minneapolis, and Memphis.
Political reform is needed, and it will make other needed reforms possible, but it doesn’t have enough appeal to power a political party. The best approach is for all candidates seeking an end to the 2-party monopoly is to advocate instant-runoff voting and similar political reforms along with their other issues.
The best part is that if the third-party candidate gets enough support to be blamed for causing another candidate’s loss, as happened with Perot and Nader, there’s a ready-made response: “if we voted using instant-runoff, which was part of my platform, there wouldn’t be a problem.”