How are the third parties doing?

According to Ballot Access News:

Independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader is on the ballot, so far, in 46 states.

The Libertarian Party’s Bob Barr: 44 states.

The Constitution Party’s Chuck Baldwin: 37 states.

And the Green Party’s Cynthia McKinney: 32.

29 Responses to “How are the third parties doing?”

  1. Donna Miller Says:

    Regardless of how his court cases turn out, Bob Barr will be on the ballot for more than 90% of voters; Ralph Nader, 85.2%; Cynthia McKinney, 70.5%; and Chuck Baldwin, 59.8%.

  2. Richgriffin Says:

    I continue to be so torn as to whether to vote for Ralph Nader or Cynthia McKinney (can’t i please have two votes?). I’ve actually been campaigning for both of them as they will both be on my state’s ballot.

    But i’m curious: why will Bob Barr be on more than 90% of the voters’ ballots? Why would anyone vote for such a hateful thug?? (I hate libertarians MORE than Democrats or Republicans).

  3. Green in Brooklyn Says:

    Richgriffin,

    I wholeheartedly endorse Ralph’s appearance on the ballot, and hope he (and Cynthia and Bob) get in the debates, but if it comes down to a choice between Nader and McKinney, the difference is simple – Nader is running on issues, McKinney is running on issues AND to build a party. I think she is in it for the long haul, and therefore a vote for her is better spent, in my opinion.

  4. Jonathan Says:

    Barr will be on 90% of the ballots because he is on large states like Texas, California and North Carolina .
    You are the first person I ever heard to say they hate Libertarians more than Republicans and Democrats but it’s free country.
    Personally, I’m torn between Barr and Nader. I won’t know until I’m in the voting booth.

  5. DIAMOND DAVE Says:

    voting for McKinney and the rapper is a wasted vote, not only have they done a terrible job at ballot access but they are not showing up in any polls. I have spoken to the Florida Greens and down here they are voting Ralph Nader . He has the best chance to shake up the Duopoly this election cycle. It is Nader’s final run and He has shown up in every poll and is on more ballots (46) than when he ran in 2000 or 2004.
    What attracts people to Nader is he walks the walk, just look at the histroy of his accomplishments and more important, he always tells the truth and exposes corruption without using racism. MicKinney and her VP rapper tend to blame the white man for everything and uses this tool everychance they get.

  6. Richgriffin Says:

    I have voted for Ralph Nader the past 3 times (I had to write-in his name at least once, perhaps twice – can’t remember if he was on the ballot in 2004 in my state). I think both arguments are correct. I am disappointed the greens only made it on to 32 state ballots. The problem is $$ and a bit of disorganization. But it’s unfair to expect Greens to get the $$ which pays for better organization. I wish Ralph Nader would spend his remaining time really building a progressive party for those of us who are commited to creating a progressive majority in the future. Both arguments are compelling ones as far as who I should vote for this time. (I am a registered Green).

  7. Green Dad Says:

    I think Ralph after this election will use the success he will recieve from the some of the state ballots which are under a Party to move on the agenda. You know Ralph, he will work until his last breath. He has given up his personal life to serve the public. Although I do not hold many of his positions, you gotta admire the man. Our country is and has been better off thanks to Honest Ralph

  8. joell Says:

    Richgriffin
    “The problem is $$ and a bit of disorganization. But it’s unfair to expect Greens to get the $$ which pays for better organization.”

    problems have to be acknowledged before they can be rectified. many Greens, especially the “leaders,” view 32 state ballots and the 08 campaign a resounding success.

    for them, Nader 2k is not on their yardstick for measuring success. it begins with the post Nader era, when they were “on their own”

    and modest gains since 2004 (5 more state ballots & likely similar increases in $$$ & votes) means the “party is growing”

  9. R. Lincoln Says:

    Are Barr, Nader, McKinney, and Baldwin the only candidates (besides Obama and McCain) to be on ballots equal to at least 270 votes? Has anyone calculated the total electoral vote coverage for each of these four candidates? Is anyone else even close? Who is the next closest?

  10. Green Dad Says:

    The Green Party made a mistake in not having Nader run for them in 2004 and now. Evidence is David Cobb who said he would not campaign in battleground states. With a philosophy like that why even have a Party?
    So for the Greens the Post Nader era began when the 2000 election was over as they bought into the myth that Nader cost Al Gore the election. The Greens are their worst enemy.

  11. Jonathan Says:

    Several readers have been asking about the dilemma in Texas (background here and here). The campaign has filed a lawsuit today seeking to remove Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama from the ballot.

    You can view the press release here. Bob will participate in a press conference at the Texas Supreme Court on Thursday at 11am.

    Here is an excerpt from the press release:

    Texas election code §192.031 requires that the “written certification” of the “party’s nominees” be delivered “before 5 p.m. of the 70th day before election day.” Because neither candidate had been nominated by the official filing deadline, the Barr campaign argues it was impossible for the candidates to file under state law.

    “Supreme Court justices should recognize that their responsibility is to apply the law as passed by the Legislature, and the law is clear that the candidates cannot be certified on the ballot if their filings are late,” says Drew Shirley, a local attorney for the Barr campaign, who is also a Libertarian candidate for the Texas Supreme Court.

    A 2006 Texas Supreme Court decision ruled that state laws “does not allow political parties or candidates to ignore statutory deadlines.”

    Orrin Grover, attorney for Bob Barr and Wayne Root, said that he believes that the Texas Secretary of State is bound by Texas law to remove the Republican and Democratic nominees from the November ballot. “Either we have rules and deadlines, or we do not,” Grover said.

    The Chairman of the Texas Libertarian Party, Pat Dixon stated, “Libertarian principles require personal responsibility for your acts and failures. Obama and McCain failed to meet the deadlines. They must follow the law like everyone else.”

    The petition also alleges that the Democratic Party’s late presidential filing falsely claimed under oath that Senator Obama had been nominated hours before the nomination actually occurred.

    “The facts of the case are not in dispute,” says Russell Verney, manager of the Barr campaign. “Republicans and Democrats missed the deadline, but were still allowed on the ballot. Third parties are not allowed on the ballot for missing deadlines, as was the case for our campaign in West Virginia, yet the Texas secretary of state’s office believes Republicans and Democrats to be above the law.”

    Please come by the press conference on Thursday if you are in the Austin area.

  12. Nancy Says:

    I respect Cynthia McKinney, but I still can’t get over her punching a security guard. I don’t care if she thought he was racist or not – that was not very presidential. But on top of that, I think Ralph certainly has more experience – remember, he worked with White House administrations prior to the 80’s – and the “star power” to pull in bigger numbers.

  13. Donna Miller Says:
    1. Green Dad Says:
      September 16th, 2008 at 6:10 pm

    “The Green Party made a mistake in not having Nader run for them in 2004 and now. Evidence is David Cobb who said he would not campaign in battleground states. With a philosophy like that why even have a Party?
    So for the Greens the Post Nader era began when the 2000 election was over as they bought into the myth that Nader cost Al Gore the election. The Greens are their worst enemy.”

    Nader made his own decision to run as an independent. Many Greens wanted him to seek the nomination, and he could have had if he wanted to. Cobb ended up campaigning in swing states, BTW, and support for his nomination came from numerous Greens who opposed a “safe states” strategy. Most Greens reject the idea that Nader was responsible for costing Gore the election.

  14. Jonathan Says:

    DONNA MILLER:

    actually Nader wanted the nomination in 2004 and lost it although the voting went several rounds during the convention.

  15. Donna Miller Says:

    joell Says:
    September 16th, 2008 at 5:07 pm

    “problems have to be acknowledged before they can be rectified. many Greens, especially the “leaders,” view 32 state ballots and the 08 campaign a resounding success.”

    “for them, Nader 2k is not on their yardstick for measuring success. it begins with the post Nader era, when they were “on their own””

    It’s a step forward, although not as big as we would have liked. We’ve had a lot of problems with Destructo-Greens on our National Committee who spend their time falsely attacking other Greens as tools of the Democratic Party. The Destructo-Greens also spend as much time as possible staging disruptions and arguing about procedural trivia instead of finding ways to increase our membership, recruit more candidates, and raise more funds.

    Success without Nader is an important measure. Dependence on a single individual (even someone as great as Nader) is dangerous. Just ask the Reform Party.

  16. Jonathan Says:

    Reform Party destructed when Factions of Buchanan fought with factions of Hagelin. This was post Ross Perot.

    The Liberarian PArty won’t got hat far in being desimated like the Reform, but will shoot themselves in the foot by the crying that goes on right now from the purists who democratically lost and would like to be an authoritarian Party by removing Barr.

  17. Donna Miller Says:
    1. Jonathan Says:
      September 16th, 2008 at 6:50 pm

    “DONNA MILLER:

    actually Nader wanted the nomination in 2004 and lost it although the voting went several rounds during the convention.”

    Nader never asked for the nomination; he asked for our endorsement as an independent. Special interest groups make endorsements for President. Political parties make nominations. Up until the second round of voting, Nader could have had our nomination if he filled out one piece of paper stating his intention to do so. It was his refusal to seek our nomination that convinced some delegates to support Cobb.

  18. Jonathan Says:

    you may be right about the technicallity Donna but the end result was not supporting Nader and the greens shot themselves in the foot once more with Cobb. The good thing or bad thing about History is that it tells us if that was a good or bad choice and it turned out to be a bad choice for the Greens. But someohow, the Greens out did themselves by picking a worse candidate yet in 2008. Thank goodness we have Nader as a choice

  19. Donna Miller Says:

    Johnathan, Nader ended up with a little under 0.4% of the vote in 2004. We still would have lost most of the ballot lines that we did with Nader as our “endorsee” instead of Cobb as our nominee. Anybody But Bush was a force that was far beyond the control of Nader or the Green Party.

  20. Derek Says:

    Here’s a question: What if Aaron Russo were nominated the Libertarian nominee in 2004? Do any of you think that he would’ve fared well?

  21. Richgriffin Says:

    I’m a Green party member because I like the platform the best of any party, but the constant squabbling gets to be too much – it’s the reason I stopped going to meetings. But I think to call Cynthia McKinney a terrible candidate is simply wrong! Her acceptance speech at the Green party convention was the best speech I’ve heard throughout this entire election cycle. The security guard should have known that she was a congressperson, and it was a racist thing on his part. Bush is a murderer; which is worse?

    I would love for all the left-leaning parties to combine and call themselves “progressive party”.

  22. joell Says:

    Donna Miller
    “We’ve had a lot of problems with Destructo-Greens on our National Committee who spend their time falsely attacking other Greens as tools of the Democratic Party.”

    does this include the top two Colorado Green “leaders” who threatened Mckinneys state ballot status because of their disapproval of the protest demonstration she agreed to speak at?

    “Success without Nader is an important measure. Dependence on a single individual (even someone as great as Nader) is dangerous.”

    you’ve simply replaced Nader with Mckinney and this modest success (over 2004) is attributed to the state & national parties. as with Nader, Mckinney’s supporters are mistaken for Green Party supporters; and as with Nader, without her, they wouldn’t be there.

    if you want a true measure of the current GP, substitute either of Mckinney’s two main challengers for the nomination. Kat Swift, who actually debated Mcknney, raised a total of $232 , according to her website.

    The GP is just as dependent on Mckinney as it was on Nader in 2000; without her, there would be a david cobb repeat or worse.

  23. Cody Quirk Says:

    Looks like the CP will be on a extra state this year then 2004.

    FYI though, Baldwin has write-in status in Texas, California, Arizona and even Pennsylvania. While I’m hearing mixed news on Georgia, people in a total of 48 states should be able to vote for, or write in Baldwin’s name.

  24. Catholic Trotskyist Says:

    What are the four states that Criminal Ralph Nader does not have ballot status on?

  25. disinter Says:

    But i’m curious: why will Bob Barr be on more than 90% of the voters’ ballots? Why would anyone vote for such a hateful thug??

    Good question.

  26. disinter Says:

    I respect Cynthia McKinney, but I still can’t get over her punching a security guard.

    Good for her!

  27. Stefan Says:

    Nader won’t be on the ballot in TX, GA, NC, IN and OK. They are on the ballot in 45 states, not 46 states (the info here is thus wrong). The CP would not be on the ballot in 13 states. Barr will be on the ballot in 46 or 47 states, but no more they lost out on OK, ME etc.).

  28. Richgriffin Says:

    I think the 46th is the state that isn’t a state, Washington D.C., in regards to Ralph Nader.

    I disagree that the Greens are dependent on Cynthia McKinney. Most people have no idea who she is, what her positions are, and at most all they know about is the security guard incident (but they don’t know what it was all about). For me, the platform – the actual policy decisions – always trumps any and all personality issues. I have voted locally for progressives who I personally dislike because I know they will vote my best interests once they are in office. The only thing I am interested in working on is working towards a progressive majority in the United States.

  29. joell Says:

    Richgriffin
    “I disagree that the Greens are dependent on Cynthia McKinney. Most people have no idea who she is,”

    there’s a huge difference, in name recognition levels, between “most” people and no people, in terms of media coverage, petiton volunteers , donors,etc.

    04 GP nominee David Cobb held a one man protest in front of the entrance door to the New York Times building, and he failed to generate any media coverage; even nearby derelicts either ignored or laughed at him.

    i fail to see how things would be different with Kat Swift,and her $232 campaign fund, and Cobb04

Leave a Reply