The journey from there to here

As the public continues to grow disenchanted with the "Big two" parties, one would think they would be increasingly drawn to third parties. Yet, despite the HISTORIC numbers posted by Libertarians in the great state of Texas in 2006, third parties aren't electing candidates in numbers that would reflect that disenchantment. This despite the fact that the cost to run a grassroots campaign is actually DROPPING rather than climbing. Responsible members of these third parties would be doing their parties a favor if they asked themselves WHY.

I believe that the answer is simply because third parties do not take themselves seriously enough. They don't try to win, but rather they attempt to garner a "protest vote" and in some way prove that enough people are fed up to actually do something.

I first discovered this in 1992, my first encounter with the Socialist Party. I suggested rallies outside the courthouse, pamphlets protesting the electoral college system, and it was all well and good until it was time to head to the courthouse. It was eerily like the scene in "Old School" where a drunken Will Ferrell finds himself streaking to the quad...by himself.

Not surprisingly, the Socialist Party rallied the same level of excitement as a Haircut 100 reunion tour.

Then, several members of the Libertarian Party jumped on to the Free State Project. I was among them. The idea was to move enough activists to a selected state to begin making effective change. We opted out of New Hampshire if it was chosen because of their draconian homeschool laws, and as a result, while we are still FRIENDS of the FSP, we're no longer active with them.

FSP members will note the impact they're making, of course. It makes for good publicity. However, they moved to a state with an independent enough mindset that they actually REFUSED to enact a mandatory seat belt law, and, in doing so, have not received federal funds to maintain their roads. In other words, the state was pretty independent to begin with. Any success they might have had was easily offset by the fact that in 2004, they were one of only two states who failed completely to get Michael Badnarik, the Libertarian Presidential candidate, on the ballot of their state (Oklahoma was the other), despite having relatively easy hurdles to overcome, especially for a state that claims to have a large number of activists who have already relocated.

Fast forward to 2006. The Libertarian Party mounted a fairly valiant effort...for a third party, in the state of Texas. But as a candidate I can tell you, while the media support was there, the money and supporters were, well, NOT.

Until third parties take THEMSELVES seriously, it remains unlikely that voters will. To be successful, party leaders need to stop reaching for the 5-10% "protest" vote and start reaching for 50% + 1 VICTORY votes. Until they do that, they're simply grinding their wheels.


Comments (Page 2)
2 Pages1 2 
on Jun 06, 2007
Third party candidates do not fare well because the parties are unwilling to put in the efforts to win at the lower levels of government. To win mostly uncontested elections is not a real barometer of party support. Third parties do not want to put in their dues. They want to win the Presidency and complain when they're left out of debates when they haven't won a single congressional seat or even come close to winning one. They are not willing to build from the grass roots level.
on Jun 07, 2007
They are not willing to build from the grass roots level.


That's the old paradigm, whoman, but some of us are working to change that.
on Jun 07, 2007
Third party candidates do not fare well because the parties are unwilling to put in the efforts to win at the lower levels of government


but they DO win at lower levels in some places, where the organization is good and the people involved are active beyond rhetoric and lame "demonstrations." it is only at he national level where the playing field is fixed against them.

but as long as the commission on peresidential debates exists to serve the 2 majors and keep their stranglehold on national politics, not much will change. and unfortunately, most people don't even know of it's existence. and the few who do only get reminded of it after the debates are all set up.

on Jun 09, 2007
FYI: the Sir Peter link is no longer good.
on Jun 09, 2007
FYI: the Sir Peter link is no longer good.


Yeah, I just haven't edited my sidebar in awhile. I'll have to change it to his myspace link when I get the time.
on Jun 09, 2007
there are ways to force the hands of this group and it has been done in the past
on Jun 10, 2007
Third party candidates do not fare well because the parties are unwilling to put in the efforts to win at the lower levels of government


but they DO win at lower levels in some places, where the organization is good and the people involved are active beyond rhetoric and lame "demonstrations." it is only at he national level where the playing field is fixed against them.

but as long as the commission on peresidential debates exists to serve the 2 majors and keep their stranglehold on national politics, not much will change. and unfortunately, most people don't even know of it's existence. and the few who do only get reminded of it after the debates are all set up.



Winning uncontested elections is not helping them out.

Should the commission on presidential debates let every party in the debates, including those who are not even polling at 1%? Let them earn a spot at the debates. Whining about not getting into the debates when they have zero state legistators and zero national congressman is idiotic. A standard has been set and Perot was able to meet that standard.

Democrats and Republicans are generally going to be between 33-37% of registered voters in each state. That still leaves 33% independents. If a third party could shave 5% off each major party then they would be a force, at least in the public mind. Most would be lucky to win 5% in an election.

Problem is they are widely across the spectrum, and considered on the fringe of politics. Most are not moderate and most are formed as a one issue party, Greens for the environment, Libertarians in a laissez faire type government and so on.
2 Pages1 2