2004 3rd Party performance

Here's the 3rd (1st and 2nd) report from Adam Tondowsky on the 2004 election, which deals with 3rd Party performance overall for the Libertarian, Green and Constitution parties candidates:
3rd Party Votes

Total:                     2,668,992
Libertarian:               1,056,582 (145 candidates)
Green:                     361,394   (45 candidates and 1 Ohio 1st CD write-in)
Constitution:              182,849   (43 candidates)
Write In:                  50,087
Others and independents:   1,018,080
Libertarian Party Overview:

The 145 Libertarian Party candidates received 1,056,582 votes. This is down from 2002 when 217 candidates received 1,165,618 votes. The Party ran congressional candidates in 27 states- Alaska, Arizona, California, Colorado, Delaware, Florida, Hawaii, Illinois, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Kentucky, Michigan, Missouri, Montana, Nebraska, Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Dakota, Texas, Utah, Washington, Wisconsin and Wyoming.

17 Libertarian candidates ran in districts where either a Democrat or a Republican did not run, and did far better than their compatriots. Those 17 candidates received 437,542 votes (an average of 25,738 votes). The 128 candidates that ran in districts where both a Democrat and a Republican ran received 619,040 votes (an average of 4,836 votes per district).

Green Party Overview:

The Green Party ran 45 candidates and 1 write in candidate and received 361,394 votes. This is an improvement for them over 2002 when 58 candidates received 306,819 votes. The Party ran congressional candidates in 16 states - Alaska, California, Colorado, Connecticut, Maryland, Michigan, Minnesota, Nebraska, New Jersey, New York (as Peace and Justice Party), Ohio, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Washington and Wisconsin.

Like the Libertarian Party, the Green Party did better in districts where either a Democrat or Republican did not run. 5 Greens ran in districts with either no Democrat or Republican and received 84,115 votes. The 40 remaining candidates (excluding the right in candidate) received 277,081 votes. An average of 6,927 votes per candidate.

Constitution Party Overview:

The Constitution Party received 182,849 votes in 2004. I did not track the party in 2002. The party ran 43 congressional candidates in 15 states - California, Colorado, Connecticut, Florida, Kentucky, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Nebraska, Nevada, Oregon, Pennsylvania, South Carolina, Utah, Wisconsin.

They ran under the American Independant Party in California, the Concerned Citizens Party in Connecticut, The U.S Taxpayer's Party in Michigan, the Nebraska Party, The Independent American Party in Nevada, and the Constitution Party everywhere else.

The Party ran in 4 districts where either a Democrat or Republican did not run and received 41,225 votes in those districts. The remaining 39 candidates received 141,624 votes (an average of 3,631 votes per district).

Other:

Formerly 'major' 3rd parties like the Reform Party, the Natural Law Party and the various socialist parties barely registered. The Reform Party only ran candidates in Mississippi and 1 candidate in Kansas, the Natural Law Party ran 1 candidate in Michigan.

Note:

It should be noted that many people who voted 3rd party don't necessarily support the Party, but voted for them because one of the two major parties did not run a candidate in the district.

Here are how individual candidates performed for the three 3rd parties where both a Democratic and Republican candidate were running:

Top 10 Libertarian candidates by percent of vote
in districts where both a Dem and a Rep ran: 

1.Kelley Ross, California 28, 5.7% 2.John Crockett, Arizona 1, 5.2% 3.Herb Peters, California 27, 4.7% 4.Mark Stroberg, California 13, 4.3% 4.Dave Kaplan, Arizona 7, 4.3% 6.Gary Fallon, Arizona 4, 4.2% 7.Jake Witmer, Illinois 4, 3.9% 8.Brian Holtz, California 14, 3.6% 8.Randall Weissbuch, California 26, 3.6% 10.Robert Anderson, Arizona 8, 3.4% 11.Richard Kahn, New Hampshire 2, 3.4% Top 10 Green Party candidates by percent of vote in districts where both a Dem and a Rep ran are (6 of the top 10 ran in California. The party ran 11 candidates in the state): 1.Patricia Gray, California 12 9.1% (This is Tom Lantos' district. Almost certainly part of her vote was a protest against his vote in favor of going to war) 2.Larry Mullen, California 19, 6.7% 3.Jay Pond, Minnesota 5, 5.7% (Jay Pond ran for either governor or senate in 2002. He is becoming a bit of a 'star' for the Green Party in Minnesota) 4.Pamela Elizondo, California 1, 4.8% 5.Theresa Dudley, Maryland 4, 4.5% 6.Eric Carter, California 27, 4.4% 7.Bob Kinsey, Colorado 4, 4.2% 8.Timothy Feller, Alaska, 3.8% 9.Thomas Lash, California 46, 3.7% 10.Patrick Driscoll, California 5, 3.4% Top 10 Constitution candidates by percent of vote in districts where both a Dem and a Rep ran: 1.Dean Wolf, Oregon 1, 3.9% 2.Janie Hanson, Nevada 2, 3.6% 3.David Horn, Michigan 7, 3.0% (this is the district where a moderate Republican won the Republican primary over a number of conservative opponents) 4.Clyde Harkins, Colorado 7, 2.5% 5.George Lilly, Colorado 1, 2.2% 5.Gordon Mego, California 35, 2.2% 7.Dale Winegarden, Oregon 3, 2.1% 8.Dick O'Dell, Nevada 3, 2.0%



Display:


Green Growth (3.00 / 1)

Interesting to see the steady Green growth.  Going back to 2000, Greens ran 46 candidates for about 275K votes total, depsite Nader gaining 10 times that number nationally.  In 2004, Green congressional candidates got close to the number of votes that Cobb got in his non campaign campaign.

Less encouraging, tho, is the fact that Greens are far from challenging for an actual seat - although I imagine that Northern California will see the first real Green opportunities over the next few years, given their gains at the local level, and the concentration of Green leaders (David Cobb, Peter Camejo, Matt Gonzalez).

Vote for a true progressive in November: Cynthia McKinney (GRN) for President!
by brooklyngreenie on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 11:36:02 AM EST

Re: Green Growth (3.00 / 2)

Less encouraging, tho, is the fact that Greens are far from challenging for an actual seat

this is what drove me from the Green Party. for all their bluster about grassroots democracy and whatever, they still insist on challenging Congressional seats that they know they'll never win, rather than building up their support in local races that they can win. it seems to me that they're more about making noise and empty, grand gestures than actually effecting change.

I know the Democratic party doesn't often work the way I want it to, but at least it does some of the time.

by johnny longtorso on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 12:58:10 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Is it the party . . . (none / 0)

Or is it idealistic individuals who decide they want to skip the state level and jump straight into national politics? The GP doesn't seem like a very disciplined party, I don't get the feeling they're telling their people what to run for.
Yeah, I'm cynical.
by catastrophile on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 04:22:35 PM EST
[ Parent ]

i might add... (none / 0)

that this rule under "others":
It should be noted that many people who voted 3rd party don't necessarily support the Party, but voted for them because one of the two major parties did not run a candidate in the district.

can probably apply to people voting for greens or libertarians as well.  for example, here in texas the dems don't challenge every race, and a large part of the ballot i received on november 2 had (for ex) a republican versus a libertarian, or a republican versus a green, etc.  almost always without fail, if a republican is running against a third party candidate, i'll vote for the third party just to send a message to the lone republican candidate.

Visit us at TexasKAOS, where we're taking Texas back!
by annatopia on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 12:25:24 PM EST

Re: i might add... (none / 0)

Thanks, that's the way it's meant, and took it out of "other" to relay that understanding more clearly.
by Jerome Armstrong on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 08:09:51 PM EST
[ Parent ]

I never vote for Republicans (none / 0)

There have been individual Republicans I would vote for, but as luck would have it, they've always been primaried out.  But otherwise, I vote for the Libertarian or the Green (or the Peace and Freedom canidate, an active, lefty party that is California only) if there is no Dem running or if I have a problem with the Dem running.
by Geotpf on Sun Jan 09, 2005 at 06:00:32 AM EST
[ Parent ]

Interesting (none / 0)

The conventional wisdom has been that since 9/11, the country has divided more firmly between the two major parties, and has turned away from third parties.  In the 1990s it looked like third parties, especially Green and Reform, were poised to become minor powerhouses.  But if this is any indication, third parties have become more attractive to voters.  The only parties to really decline were Reform and Natural Law, which I think was inevitable for both since they were largely single-issue or personality-based.

The Libertarians ran fewer candidates, down to 145 from 217, but received almost the same vote total.  The Greens ran fewer candidates, 45 as opposed to 58, but got more votes.

It also looks like the Libertarian strongholds right now are California and Arizona, and the Greens likewise strongest in California.

I'm not quite sure what this increasing third party support means for Democrats.  One thing that sticks out is both the Greens and Libertarians took strong stands against the Patriot Act and the Iraq war, while the Democratic Party, for the most part, did not.  This made third party votes more attractive to some voters.  

I'm saying this as somebody who is a "yellow dog" Democrat, but wished the party had acted as a true opposition party instead of lending bipartisan support to the war and the Patriot Act.  I'll vote for the Democrat, not for a third party.  The only exception is if the race is between a Republican and a third party, then and only then will I vote for the third party candidate.  

But there are many who are alienated from both parties, who believe that neither party speaks for them.  This is apparent not only in votes for third parties, but also in the large number who don't bother to vote at all.

Somehow, the Democratic Party needs to widen its tent, reach out to Green and Libertarian voters, moderate Republicans, former Perot and Reform party supporters, and non-voters.  The party has to convince these people that we do speak to their issues and will address their concerns, if only given a chance.  Right now, I'm not sure how this can be done so long as the only difference the Democratic Party can show from the Republicans is one of degree rather than substance (e.g. "we support the Patriot Act but think it could be modified; we support the Iraq war but not the way Bush went about it; we think No Child Left Behind is a great law and the only problem is it isn't being fully funded", etc.)

by ACSR on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 03:11:57 PM EST

Re: Interesting (none / 0)

The reform party seems to have been folded into the Republican party, at least with the current president.

I agree 100% - open the doors to Libertarians.  We have so much in common and if you really believe all of the horrible things against Bush - it only make sense to go that way.

"There have existed, in every age and every country, two distinct orders of men - the lovers of freedom and the devoted advocates of power"
by Classical Liberal on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 07:35:44 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Agreed (none / 0)

I can't consider myself a Libertarian - there are too many areas where regulation is needed (wage and labor laws, trade) or government does a better job than the private sector could (national parks, roads, police).  That's why I'm a liberal.  However I can completely agree with where you are coming from and think liberals and libertarians do need to reach out and at least work together where we agree.

Some libertarians are already reaching out in our direction, for example:
http://www.lewrockwell.com/gregory/gregory54.html
We can do likewise.  Beyond labor and environmental issues and taxes, there is a lot of overlap in liberal and libertarian positions otherwise.

Even more important might be for Democrats to seriously take up real fiscal responsiblity as an issue.  The Republican right has for too long claimed to be the party of smaller government, but then they get into office and increase spending at a faster rate than ever, while mortgaging our future by running up the federal debt.  We can make a serious effort for Democrats to become known as the party of fiscal restraint - including looking for areas to cut government spending.  I don't mean defunding important programs or deregulating business, but cutting a lot of the unnecessary pork.  

A couple of groups I've found that approach this issue from a perspective that bridges the liberal-libertarian gap:
http://www.greenscissors.org/
http://www.taxpayer.net/

The Republican right has been using "cut government pork" as a talking point for too long, and getting away with it.  That should rightfully be our talking point, not theirs.

I also think the Democratic Party would do well to drop gun control and affirm support for the Second Amendment, and work to end the drug war and decriminalize drugs, at least with regard to marijuana.  Those are issues where the libertarians have something we could learn from.

It goes without saying that the Democratic Party should be the party of civil liberties and social tolerance.  That's another area of common ground.

Another group that I don't know much about, but looks like a promising effort to bridge the gap between liberals and libertarians, and to do so by working within the Democratic Party:
http://www.progress.org/dfc/

I've also said in other posts that I think the Perot/Reform Party voters, Reagan Democrats, and populism more generally, should be a natural constituency for the Democratic Party (in fact, at one time, roughly 1932-1978, they were), but we dropped the ball and the Republicans won them over during the 1990s.  We cannot afford to drop the ball anymore.  I support a big tent approach for the Democratic Party, with room for many different caucuses and viewpoints, including those with libertarian leanings.  That doesn't mean we shouldn't be an opposition party and oppose the Republican agenda; we should.  But an influx of many new ideas will help a long way with that, because it is obvious that the narrow DLC approach isn't working.

by ACSR on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 09:05:42 PM EST
[ Parent ]

Many Thanks (3.00 / 1)

For Parts 1-3 and the hard work needs to generate these numbers.

George Phillies

by phillies on Sat Jan 08, 2005 at 04:10:16 PM EST


You are not logged in.

In order to post a comment, you must be logged in. If you have a member account, please log in to comment.

If not, you can make an account right here. It's quick and free.