In the midst of all the hoopla and jubilation surrounding the historic win for President-elect Barack Obama comes some sobering numbers for third party presidential candidates, who took on issues the two major parties wouldn’t touch.
None of the leading third party candidates received even one percent of the approximately 123 million votes that were cast on Tuesday.
The largest third party vote total went to Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader. With 99 percent of precincts reporting, he has received 672,000 votes, according to CNN, or 0.55 percent of the national vote.
Nader, whose aides told the Washington Post “he would not be surprised if he garnered 2 million,” exceeded his 2004 vote total of just below 500,000. But his 2008 vote total paled in comparison to the 2.7 million votes he received in his 2000 run, when he was widely derided as a “spoiler” for the Democrats.
In a statement on the Nader campaign’s website, the campaign wrote, “our hands are clean…we made the moral choice,” in reference to the hundreds of thousands of votes they received.
Bob Barr, the Libertarian Party Presidential candidate, received almost 500,000 votes in his first presidential run.
Chuck Baldwin, the Constitution Party candidate, won almost 180,000 votes, while the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney (http://votetruth08.com) garnered 145,000.
Two other third party candidates on the ballot in New York State, Gloria La Riva of the Party for Socialism and Liberation and Roger Calero of the Socialist Workers Party both received 7,333 and 7,182 votes respectively.
The third party results in New York tended to reflect the national vote totals, with Nader capturing the most, followed by Barr, McKinney, Calero and La Riva. Baldwin was not on the ballot in New York State.
On election day, Nader engendered some controversy when he questioned whether Obama would “be Uncle Sam for the people of this country or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations."
“Uncle Tom,” a term dating back to pre-Civil War America, is often used to describe African-Americans who are perceived as being subservient to whites.
Third Party candidates also struggled to break out of the low single digits in Congressional races, though antiwar activist Cindy Sheehan did manage to get 17 percent of the vote in her race against House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). Sheehan has vowed to run again in 2010.
See below for the national vote count for the top four third party presidential candidates, according to CNN.
Ralph Nader: 672,774
Bob Barr: 497,206
Chuck Baldwin: 179,035
Cynthia McKinney: 145,725
For more coverage of the third party presidential candidates, visit:
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/10/24/third-party-alternative-vote/
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/09/11/chat-with-green-party-ticket/
http://www.indypendent.org/2008/07/19/nyc-hip-hop-activist-joins/
Comments
Nader's run was pathetic. After 8 years of Bush, his ideological assumption that a vote for Bush or Gore or Kerry were the same proved terribly wrong. Nader should join the democratic party, and like Kucinich, change the democratic party ideas from within. Short of that, he's just another pundit, without an audience. I suspect he runs only to cash in on Public Election Funding.
No, Franck, what's pathetic are the lemmings who lap-up the pablum spewed out by the corporate-controlled mainstream-media; the millions who blindly and idiotically vote for candidates that will do nothing to bring America back to it's rightful Constitutional Foundation.
It's pathetic how the third party candidates, any one of which would have been superior to the banker-financed McObama twins, got so little support.
And it's pathetic how the Obamatons will find out, sooner than later, how the "change" they voted for will not be the change they'd hoped for.
What is pathetic is that there were less than 2 million Americans who voted to change our country. When a McCain/Obama voter says they want change, they are either a liar or they are woefully uninformed.
McCain and Obama are almost exactly alike on continuing to spy on Americans, perpetuate foreign aggression, and steal from our children and grandchildren in order to prop up corporations that have already had a chance to succeed rather than giving new entrepreneurs a chance to take their place.
We now have a single party government not unlike Russia or China. Rather than wait for 2012, we need to start running for local offices today. Most uninformed voters stay home in non-Presidential years, so we should be able to make a big difference in 2010. The Libertarian Party, despite a candidate so awful conspiracy theorists say he was a Neocon plant, continue to earn the most votes of any third party because they field the most candidates in local races. Some states are so one-sided that a third party could become the second party within that state if it can get organized and field candidates in every uncontested race.
The night could not get much darker than this. Let's make the dawn happen in 2010.
What is even more pathetic is when the dough-heads come out in full force tearing something down just for the sake of destruction. Oh, yeah he is just in it for the campaign funds.
Correct me if I'm wrong, but he would get public funding ONLY if he gets FIVE PERCENT of the vote - the only third-party candidate I recall doing so within the last 20 years has been ROSS PEROT.
Check your facts before you spew trash. I can't wait for you to get all you asked for in a Prez and more....
PS: It's not an ideologic "assumption," it's cold hard fact.
The two main parties told everybody that this election was so important that nobody could risk throwing their vote away on a third party candidate.
So important to vote based on party, that actual issues we should care about didn't matter. This election was less about the United States than it was about the Republicans vs. the Democrats.
They duped a lot of suckers this time.
You 3rds party people provde to be uniformed brats that would not know a fact if it bit you. It sounds cool so you say it. And because you are not mainstream you do not have to actually garner the scrutiny of fact checking.
McCain and Obama are so far apart on ideology except for the Environment indepedent groups rate them on opposite scales.
People did not vote for Obama because they really wanted Nader. Polling showed a wide lead in Obama's votes that if they wanted to in several states they could have felt free to do so.
By the by, us Dems do not want Nader in our party.
Nader can and should continue to run and syphon off as many wack jobs as possible. If the Republicans trimmed the fat in their party they would have performed better.
"People did not vote for Obama because they really wanted Nader. Polling showed a wide lead in Obama’s votes that if they wanted to in several states they could have felt free to do so."
People voted for Obama because they thought he would be different, and they wanted to make history voting for him, but this will be a history where their lofty expectations of him will not be realized. They also voted for him because the two major parties told everybody that this election was so important that nobody could risk throwing their vote away on a third party candidate. It's all politics of emotion instead of pragmatism.
But you still don't get it. You think people should only vote third party if the election isn't close in their states. That shows that you still don't understand the uniqueness and fundamental differences in principles that many third parties offer.
Third party platforms aren't just small modifications of the same platforms the Republicans or Democrats have. Real political theory isn't a bipolar entity like most Americans have assumed. Most third parties have well thought out, substantially alternative platforms that are quite realistic, and would actually more naturally encompass the American people's viewpoints than the major parties' platforms, but people don't have the foundational knowledge to understand this. There is a steep learning curve, because most people have grown up in America only learning about politics within the context of Democrats and Republicans, so most people choose to "remain safe" by sticking with what they already know, instead of learning about something new and bettering themselves.
"McCain and Obama are so far apart on ideology except for the Environment indepedent groups rate them on opposite scales. "
Actually, on the issues that really matter, to right the sinking ship, the two major parites are more the same than different. They create distractions to split the populous with issues like abortion, same sex marriage, etc, but substantially agree with each other on the issues that really matter, like the bailout plan, policing the world, interventionism, the federal reserve, the national debt, privacy, and civil liberties.
As past experience has shown, these numbers are likely a bit short of the actual totals, as many states, counties and precincts do not bother recording the votes for minor candidates in the flash results, and write-ins are rarely recorded before the official tallies that come out in several weeks. Even then it can be difficult to get the numbers. Under counting is greater the less well-known a candidate is.
I expect that in final results Nader and Barr will break 1%, McKinney and Baldwin will break 0.5%, and several socialist candidates will be into 5 digits. Unfortunately, the results are not broken down by state, so one can do a quick estimate of where the under counts are greatest.
Where did you find this link to cnn results for all candidates? I scoured cnn and other sight, but came up empty.
<<>>
These "Independent Groups" only count a few votes in each congress of the thousands cast. Both supported the $700 billion bailout with no restrictions on the banks, absolute unaccountability for the Treasury Secretary. Neither one spoke up that The Treasury Secretary worked for Goldman-Sucks (which got disproportionatly more money than any other bank). Note he was in charge of it when they made all those bad investments. Both favor continuring and stepping up the war in Afganistan. Both support NAFTA, GATT, and the WTO. Both support increased funding of the UN, as well as more control given to them, both support Obamas bill to give $950 billion in Africa Aid. Both want to give tax breaks to the top 1% of 1% of taxpayers. Both favor a 'stimulus package", both favor bailing out mortgage holders in some way. Both want to increase spending. Both support the creation of a US Nazi youth program of forced "volunteering" and indoctrination. Both support the "Cap and Trade" ripoff. Both want to spend hundreds of billions on "infrastructure" and "energy independence" while at the same time opposing "manufacturing independence", "capital independence", and "worker independence". Both support Bush's "North American Union", North American "Highway", and North American "Security". Both support the fascists "Real ID" program. Both support Amnesty for crimaliens. Both voted for the "bankrupcy reform act" which eliminated all laws to protect consumers from predetory lending, it also allows the government to seize your home to pay your credit cards when the bank can raise your rates to 30% or more with only 30 days notice.
Yeah Kylie, big difference.
http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/results/president/allcandidates/
CNN link to election results
It is a shame that our own laws diminish democracy.
I'm sure legitimate reasons are given for establishing minimum vote thresholds in order to qualify for public funding. However, it seems to me that the only way more ideas, more candidates, more party platforms can gain any traction, any consideration by the public at large would be for all political parties to receive public funds. Level the playing field.
Let's face one fact most are ignoring about this election. Obama bought it. His ability to raise dramatically more money [by not taking public funds] allowed him to raise 2-3x more money than McCain, and purchase advertising anywhere and everywhere.
If the US required all presidential candidates to run on public funds only, and supported all legit parties with public funds, you would have 5-6 candidates/parties to choose from, all with the resources to communicate their differences and the options voters have, and an electorate that would be much more versed on ALL their options.
How do you determine who the legit parties are? I'm not that smart, but I do know that the current law setting minimum thresholds is completely unfair. Theres such an uneven playing field that no one else can succeed enough to get the funding that could put them in the current game.
I wanted to vote for Barr or Keyes but also wanted Sarah Palin to get as much credit as possible to set the stage for 2012. So I held my breath and also voted for McCain.
I wonder what would have happened if either or both of them had issued a public statement instructing their electors to vote Palin for VP if any of them carried a state. Wouldn't a temporary Palin administration have been fun while the House of Representatives had to choose the Prez.
Jim, you bring up a valid point about democracy.
I firmly believe that one of the least discussed side effects of Obama’s landslide victory is the further marginalization in the United States of third parties, which are a vital part of the democratic process.
As someone that lives in Europe, it is hard to not notice that the United States seems isolated among Western democracies in its determination to head to a further entrenchment in a bipolar political landscape. The United States’ political system seems to deliberately hinder pluralism by limiting the exposure of third party candidates to media.
For more: http://www.ilpodesta.org/2008/11/forgetting-face-of-pluralism.html
So long as it is thought that only major candidates have a chance at winning, it will be same o same o politics.
This year more than before I have heard more people raise concern about the lack of choices. People, it is not about lack of choices.....it is about lack of GUTS..
I voted for Baldwin. I thought he represented very similar stances on American politics. I slept soundly Tues. evening knowing that I voted my conscience.
McCain is weak, he sounds weak, he looks weak, he acts weak. Without his 'gimmicks' of 'Sarah Palin and Joe the plumber' this would have been a landslide. Afterall, it is all about tv ratings. McCain's congressional record is his resume'. Period. What is or would he do as President that he has not had an opportunity to at least be involved with for the past 30 years. He is a professional politician.
Many of you made some good points...In short, the bottom line for third party candidates to flourish is very simple: 1) campaign earlier and more often at the grass roots level...2) and more importantly, voters themselves need to take the time and responsibillity to make better decisions in casting their vote toward a candidate's stance on issues/ideals that match up w/ their own rather than toward a party. I
'm proud to say that I voted third party in 2008 for President for the first time since 1992 (Ross the Boss!)...Voting Republican or Democrat in our society today is essentially voting for one party- and more so than at anytime in our nation's history. By nature, I tend to vote conservative, but have become so disenfranchised w/ the Republican party, that it'll be a long time before they get a vote from me for President (which they have since 1996.)
People so desperately need to get out of the two-party mind set mode and realize there are other alternatives.
In closing, nonetheless, I'm proud American serving in the military overseas, and take great pride in defending our rights to vote, freedom, liberty, etc. I will support the President regardless of ideals or party lines, but wake up, America! There are choices out there that the media won't tell you about...Take care and God bless! --K.T.--
Touche to many of you. It's good to know that many out there are acknowledging the absurdity of the stranglehold that the 2 party system, enforced by a majority of the media, has on our election process.
This is not only a great article, it's the ONLY article I've managed to find about the complete media blackout of 3rd party election results. Another election or 2 and voting 3rd party will probably be illegal. How come, in our DEMOCRACY, the power elite only allows 2 choices, while they allow 50 choices for the Miss America contest.
There may still be hope for a third major politicial party in the United States...
"Hope For A Third Political Party In U.S. Politics, Part 1"
http://www.boom2bust.com/2008/11/04/hope-for-a-third-political-party-in-...
"Hope For A Third Political Party In U.S. Politics, Part 2"
http://www.boom2bust.com/2008/11/05/hope-for-a-third-political-party-in-...
Ralph, you ego-centric idiot! hearing your own voice has become more important than clear thought...
What about the United Third Party who entered the FEC to insure all third party ballots were counted even the the votes exempted from dem or gop votes?
The Money Free Party entered By Write In Candidate ( Larry J Schuetter).
The Candidate's main issues were Life line Legislation, and the 90-100 year mortgage with 2/3s reduced payments and interest to stimulate the economy with out the fed.
WARNING: QUESTIONING THE DEMOPUBLICAN PARTY CAN BE DANGEROUS TO YOUR HEALTH.
OBEY
OBEY
OBEY
Or, support your local Constitution Party/Libertarian Party!!
Thank you, Bulldog! God bless you, brother!
Add new comment