Libertarian candidate Garrett Michael Hayes smartly put down the spoiler accusation this way; "I'm in this to win. Whether or not that's a realistic goal, I don't care. This country was founded by people whose goals sounded unrealistic at first."
Though Democratic control of the House was a clearer victory, it should be noted that there were six races where votes for third party candidates exceeded the margin of victory. In five of the six, the Republican candidate won.
Looking at a larger scale, how many Americans voted for third party and independent candidates in the Senate and House races? In the House races almost 1.6 million Americans went outside the two-party choices, and in the Senate races the total was almost 1.3 million conscience voters. These numbers are typical of past elections. Even though a majority of Americans expressed dissatisfaction with both major parties in many opinion surveys this year, they did not vote at all, were very motivated to get rid of Republican control by voting for Democrats, or did not know enough about minor party candidates.
Of the 33 Senate races, 26 had third party and independent candidates, or nearly 79 percent, with Libertarian Party (the nation's largest minor party) candidates in 16 states and Green Party candidates in 9 cases. In the 435 House races there were third party and independent candidates in 193 of them, or just over 44 percent. Libertarian Party candidates were in 112 races and Green Party candidates were in 37 races. Unsurprisingly, there was no winner.
Obscene Money Defeats Heartfelt Money
Shamefully, obscene amounts of money go to the two major parties, maintaining their grip on the system. Paltry amounts go to third party candidates, mostly small contributions from individuals and financing from candidates themselves. This makes it incredibly difficult for them to inform citizens about their positions and qualifications. Usually, for senate races, major party candidates spend millions, while third party candidates spend in the low thousands. In Montana, Jones spent less than $2,000 on his campaign, compared to $3.8 million spent by the winner Tester. In Virginia, Parker raised just $1,200 in donations and financed much of her campaign through an $18,472 personal loan, compared to over $12 million raised by the loser Allen. In California, Todd Chretien, a losing Green Party Senate candidate, raised $58,000.
Recall that nearly $3 billion were spent by the two major parties on the congressional races this year. In contrast, the nonpartisan Center for Responsive Politics found that the 74 federal third party candidates still in the running this election cycle raised a total of just $3.1 million, according to campaign finance data available Oct. 19. (This includes only those candidates who would be new to Congress and who have reported raising at least some money to the Federal Election Commission. It excludes pseudo-third party candidate Joe Lieberman who raised about $15 million.) That $3.1 million amounts to just one-tenth of one percent of what the major parties spent.
Those 74 candidates received 39 percent of their contributions from individuals, compared to less than 1 percent from PACs and 58percent from their own pockets. Note that Federal rules require candidates to file detailed reports of their contributions and expenditures if their campaign raises or spends $5,000 or more, which many third party candidates do not exceed.
Michael Badnarik, a Libertarian House candidate in Texas noted: "In order to win an election, not only do I have to convince voters I'm the best candidate, I have to let them know I'm a candidate at all." He raised more than $393,000, the second-largest third party fundraiser remaining in the midterm elections. In first place was Bruce Guthrie, a candidate for the Washington Senate seat, with $1.2 million, mostly his own money. That leaves about $1.5 million for the other 72 candidates nationwide.
Into the Future
Despite the enormous challenges facing third-parties, there are two newer energetic efforts that merit attention. One is the Populist Party of America (www.populistamerica.com). Here is its general statement of purpose:
The Populist Party promotes, and strives for, Common Sense solutions; Democracy as a tool to reign in the power of the federal government and ensure a greater responsibility of all public servants to the People. Populism, as espoused by the Populist Party, is a federal system of government where the final check and balance on the power of the politicians is directly in the hands of the people; with the Constitution and Bill of Rights serving as legal boundaries to protect the rights and liberties of all citizens. The other effort is the Centrist Party (www.uscentrist.org). Here is its mission statement:
To achieve common sense solutions that have at their heart, a tone of balance and fairness. To create a strong foundation for mainstream America that is not prone to undue influence from left/right arguments. To move away from character assassinations and toward solution oriented campaigns. To empower people, and the vote, with a strong position not confused by one-sided agendas, or special interests. To formulate policies and solutions that regard short, medium and long term considerations at all levels.
If more established third-parties have not attracted you, for whatever reason, you may want to look into these newer efforts.
What is really needed by third parties is a shift away from all the usual issues that the majors talk about. Instead, what would resonate with the public is an emphasis on structural or systemic political and policy reforms to revitalize our democracy. This requires acknowledgement that our system is broken, has become a plutocracy, and no longer serves ordinary people. Something the majors can't admit, because they broke it. Why fix a system that they control?
Also, some collaboration among third-parties would be useful, such as working together at times to back a candidate to create a better chance of success. This year, for example, Kevin Zeese was listed in many places as a Green Party candidate for the Senate from Maryland. In fact, he also was backed by the Libertarian and Populist Parties and ran a "unity for change" campaign. He reportedly had only about $60,000 to compete against the intense multi-million dollar campaigns of his Democratic and Republican opponents, so his message never reached many people.
Joel S. Hirschhorn is the author of Delusional Democracy - Fixing the Republic Without Overthrowing the Government (www.delusionaldemocracy.com). His current political writings have been greatly influenced by working as a senior staffer for the U.S. Congress and for the National Governors Association. He advocates a Second American Revolution, beginning with an Article V Convention to propose constitutional amendments.
This issue of campaign finance is probably the greatest long term problem that our nation faces today. People just don't "get it" when we explain how corporate and special interest money has actually "bought" our democracy. Unless you are funded by the Democrats or Republicans (and they are financed by the Corporacracy), the chances of winning a seat in congress or the Senate are practically nill. There is a simple solution and you touched on it. Deny Corporate and Special Interest money to finance politicians. I have one more article up my sleeve that I've been working on for days that I think I'll have ready before tomorrow. Maybe someday we will hit on just the right combination of words that will spur people to action. You would think that what you just wrote would convince most Americans. I don't know what it's going to take for people to realize that all of the problems we have been dealing with come back to this same problem...billion dollar campaigns financed by institutions that don't have America's best interests at heart. In fact, many contributions are not even coming from Americans! They are financing politicians for profit, not because they would do the best job for the country.
by
Timothy V. Gatto (348 articles, 177 quicklinks, 38 diaries, 575 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 1:10:26 PM
They work in parliamentary systems but not in our system which relegates far too much power to the Presidency. Our consitutional system is not going to change. Third party activists are much better off working within one of the main political parties. As far as dealing with campaign finance and our "bought democracy", way too little attention is being paid to voter education as a solution. The money goes to ads and the ads only affect the uneducated.
by
Patrick Coony (0 articles, 0 quicklinks, 0 diaries, 6 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 1:20:25 PM
then, in my opinion, you are giving up on ever truly rennovating our democracy, government and economy. There simply is no conceivable way that either of the major parties will ever take responsibility to fix what they have broken. There is no constitutional or structural reason why third parties cannot play a key role in improving things. To give up on third parties is to be defeatist and nihilistic.
by
Joel S. Hirschhorn (114 articles, 20 quicklinks, 46 diaries, 430 comments)
on Monday, November 20, 2006 at 2:53:56 PM
Joel has reiterated this main idea on several occasions, and I don't see how anyone with a few functional brain cells can honestly disagree.
I try to vote my conscience, I guess believing on some deep level that the Universe will ultimately respond when we all "come clean."
And if this presumption is false, then I guess on some even deeper level my inner being says, "Fuck this show--it's a pile of dogshit and why should anyone in their right mind lift a finger to make a difference anyway?"
I realize that's grist for a whole 'nother article, or perhaps several books, but it's the essence of how I see my voting choices. (The only other option I can imagine is that homo sapiens outgrows the need for "leaders," which we just might to in another two or three billion years.)
Thus I voted for Nader, I think twice, and I probably would have done the same had I lived in Floriduh, rather than Utarh.
In any event, I agree 100% with Joel that election reform is a top priority and that the two party system has been bogus since the get-go.
Ironically, however, the best ideas I've seen for voting reform come from deep within the Democratic Party--so deep, unfortunately, that they never see the light of day.
I wish the author had not used such a negative view of the effects of the Libertarian votes on the outcome of the election because I believe that it reinforces an incorrect stereotype that third party votes are negative ones, and plays into the hands of those who lack the vision and call Nader's two candidacies a reason for the defeat of Gore and Kerry, such utter nonsense, really, as if votes are obligations to any candidate, or as if those who voted Nader would have automatically voted Democrat, or voted at all.
It is my contention that the single most important issue facing America today is the myth of the two party system and the real allegiance of these parties to corporate monies.It is obvious, at least to me, that both parties are quite comfortable with this duopoly and will absolutely never consider the very real reforms necesary to end the stranglehold of money on elections.
The only way to reenfranchise those who are alienated from the process and to make very real and necesary reforms to the process is through the intercession of third party ideas and ideals on the system,and one that enumerates several important reasons for voting third party. I have often noted that the key to changing our corporatocracy back to a democracy lies with the 60% of the electorate that chooses to alienate herself from the process. Third Party politics gives that non voter a way to reinvest in the system, and by reinvesting changing that system for the better.
by
ardee D. (6 articles, 4 quicklinks, 1 diaries, 2388 comments)
on Tuesday, November 21, 2006 at 7:11:21 AM
As a Green since 1992, I would suggest that discussion begin to be focused on the structure of political entities and the form of their representation if this discussion is to move beyond campaign finance reform. I am an advocate of bioregionalism and that necessarily means that local politics be determined by local people. Water management, urban planning, mass transit, energy transition and growth decisions have long been dominated by the two parties and economic interest groups because third parties are handcuffed by the process AND the entities themselves are not designed to represwent a wide range of stakeholders. Real estate interests and home builders have an inordinate influence in urban land-use policies because there are no representatives sitting who represent urban water users, water specialists, water managers, agricultural users and environmental advocates. Adaptive governance mandates that all stakeholders have a proportionate role in working with others in resource management issues and land-use matters. This is not a revolutionary concept but is one that is utilized in many localities around the world.
Although I am not a Green, I am proud that Rich Whitney, Green Candidate for Governor in Illinois garnered 11% of the vote in the 2006.
Joel, you was speaking of funding, Whitney had $110,000 to the Republicans 3.6 million, but the Democrat Rod Blagojevich won not so much because he had more money, but the Republican couldn't connect with the people.
Ron
Founder/CEO, WeDemocrats.org
by
Ron (5 articles, 0 quicklinks, 6 diaries, 9 comments)
on Monday, January 8, 2007 at 6:42:10 PM
