2008 US Presidential Election.

BISMARCK, N.D. - A movement to essentially dump the Electoral College and give the presidency to the winner of the nationwide popular vote has been defeated in North Dakota and Montana, after opponents said it would eliminate any influence states may have in presidential contests.

Thursday’s votes represented the first legislative setbacks this year for the National Popular Vote plan, said spokeswoman Breeanna Mierop. It is a proposed agreement among states to cast their electoral votes for the presidential candidate who wins the popular vote.

“If you look at the population trends … if this were to become the law, our presidential elections would be controlled by the vote in New York, Chicago, Los Angeles and Houston,” said North Dakota state Rep. Lawrence Klemin, a Bismarck Republican. “They would decide who the president was, not the rest of us.”

North Dakota’s House voted 60-31 Thursday to defeat the plan. In the Montana Senate, it lost 30-20.

National Popular Vote supporters say they have legislative sponsors in 46 states, and have introduced legislation in 22. The Colorado Senate approved the measure last month. The California legislature endorsed the agreement last year, but Gov. Arnold Schwarzenegger vetoed it.

Yahoo! News

In a perfect world, social concerns would trump political manipulations every time. But in the imperfect world of politics in America, issues such as race and gender are routinely dwarfed by issues such as crime, taxes, war, erosions of freedoms at home, unemployment, education, and the economy. These are the issues that motivate most voters; politicians ignore them at their peril.

For many, race and gender are mere distractions and not taken too seriously. For millions of others, however, such concerns are fundamental. It should not go unnoticed, for example, that more than half of this country’s 300 million citizens are women, most of whom believe women are entitled to the authority their numbers seem to merit. Still, many lack the confidence to cast their votes for one of their own.

The first credible African American presidential candidate in our history - the first, that is, with a serious chance of winning, Sen. Barack Obama (D., Ill.) - is widely perceived as transcending color the same way Gen. Colin Powell had a decade earlier.

But Obama and Hillary Rodham Clinton, who are seeking the Democratic nomination for president, face issues of race and gender they will not easily overcome. True, a lot has changed in America since 1984, when Geraldine Ferraro and the Rev. Jesse Jackson sought their party’s support, but the question remains - just how much have our attitudes really changed?

Philly

Washington Post - Rep. Ron Paul, the iconoclastic, nine-term lawmaker from southeast Texas, took the first step Thursday toward a second, quixotic presidential bid _ this time as a Republican. Paul filed papers in Texas to create a presidential exploratory committee that will allow him to raise money. In 1988, Paul was the Libertarian nominee for president and received more than 400,000 votes.

[Jan. 11, 2007]

Third Party News

Conservative
Constitution Party - Socially conservative, economically libertarian.

Moderate
Reform Party

Liberal
Green Party
Vermont Progressive Party - Progressive party that enjoys modest success on the local (mainly in Burlington) and state levels
Working Families Party - a “satellite” party of the Democrats in New York, where candidates can get a second ballot line.

Libertarian
Libertarian Party - Identifies as fiscally conservative and socially liberal

Other Minor Third Parties
Various other minor parties are given in the list of political parties in the United States.

Carole Keeton Strayhorn- Texas State Comptroller and ex-Republican. Originally intended to challenge Governor Rick Perry in the primary but has instead decided to run as an Independent. Most polls showed her in second behind the governor through much of the election, but she ended up in fifth after, behind Perry (who retained the governorship), Democrat Chris Bell, Libertarian James Werner, and fellow independent Kinky Friedman. See Texas gubernatorial election, 2006.

Russ Diamond- A business owner and founder of PACleanSweep, an organization created to protest The Pennsylvania General Assembly’s pay raise. He is a candidate for Governor of Pennsylvania

Bernie Sanders- Independent democratic socialist holds one of Vermont’s U.S. Senate seats,

Joe Lieberman- Connecticut for Lieberman. Did return to the Democrats once reelected.

Gail Parker Independent Greens of Virginia 2006 U.S. Senate candidate. Retired U.S. Air Force officer 2008 Presidential candidate

source www.VoteJoinRun.US

James B. Weaver - He ran as the Populist candidate for US President in the 1892 elections, receiving over a million votes and 22 electoral votes.

Eugene V. Debs - Running for US President as the Social Democratic Party candidate in the 1900 election, and the Socialist Party candidate in the 1904, 1908, 1912, and 1920 elections.
Theodore Roosevelt - Ran as Bull Moose Candidate in 1912 and won 88 electoral votes.

Robert M. La Follette, Sr. - Running in the 1924 US Presidential election, “Fighting Bob” LaFollette won almost five million votes, 16.6% of the popular vote, and 13 electoral votes from his home state of Wisconsin.

John B. Anderson - Ran as an independent candidate in 1980 after dropping out of the Republican Primaries. He won 6.6% of the popular votes.

Ross Perot - Running for President in the 1992 elections, Ross Perot captured nearly 20 million votes - 18.9% of the popular vote. He ran again in 1996, winning just over 8 million votes.

Ralph Nader - His first major presidential campaign was the 2000 US election when as a Green, he won nearly 3 million votes. He is often credited with being the defining factor in the final results of the 2000 elections. He also ran as a Green in the 1996 election and as an independent in the 2004 election.

The most common argument against voting for a third party candidate has been that one’s vote is “wasted” in that one’s vote for a losing candidate won’t count for anything, whereas the same vote cast instead for a candidate who is the “lesser of two evils” and who has a chance of winning might help that candidate win the election. In 2000 and 2004, Democratic supporters commonly told potential voters for Ralph Nader that a vote for Ralph Nader was a vote for Republican George W. Bush.

There is a great deal of debate whether voters who didn’t vote for a third party candidate would have then voted for a major party candidate. It might be just as likely that the voter would not have voted at all if there had not been a third party candidate to vote for. Saying it is true, in this instance, such a vote could be viewed as wasted.

Typically, the more votes a third party receives, the more attention incumbent parties pay to the campaign issues being advocated by that third party. In 1992, Ross Perot’s main “gripe” (as he said) was the growing national debt and the budget deficit. After 1992, many political analysts say both incumbent parties paid special attention to this issue and the result was the temporary reduction in and then elimination of deficit spending and actual reductions in the national debt for a brief period. Such a vote for a third party is then viewed as an indictment of both incumbent parties that neither is doing a good job on certain issue(s) to the point where voters reject both and vote for a third party candidate. Given this, a vote for a third party can be viewed as a delayed vote for change, not affecting the immediate outcome of the current election but affecting the incumbent parties after that election as they try to address the reason why voters voted for a third party in the last election, attempting to garner the supporters of third party voters who see this issues being addressed in an attempt to influence these voters to return to or join the major party that did address those issues in the next election. A prominent historical example is the presidential election of 1892, during which the Populist Party (otherwise known as the People’s Party) achieved massive success by U.S. third party standards, picking up 22 electoral votes and 8.6 percent of the popular vote. After the 1892 election the Democratic Party adopted many of the Populist Party’s positions, so many in fact, that the Populist Party nominated the same candidate as the Democrats in the 1896 presidential election (essentially marking the end of the Populists as a separate party). The Populist Party was able to do this using the process of electoral fusion. In 1992, Ross Perot campaigned telling his supporters to “send a message” to the incumbent parties about the national debt and budget deficit, which apparently was heeded, at least temporarily. If the case for the “delayed vote” can be made to the public by third parties, third parties might be able to change their “spoiler of elections” image to a “force for change” image.
Finally, voters in a “safe state” for either major party are unlikely to influence that state’s electoral vote. These voters, if they choose to vote for a third party, will be drawing attention to that party, while if they vote for the major party they most closely agree with, they will not change the national contest. A preferential voting or instant run-off voting system could allow for more people to vote for a third party.

A growing trend in US elections is for a major party and its supporters to help a third party with the idea of taking votes that would otherwise be likely to go to the other major party’s candidates. This is the classic “divide and conquer” tactic. The idea is that if a third political party normally pulls far more voters from one major party than the other, the other major party can benefit by the third party doing well in the election. Currently in the US, the Green Party is viewed as pulling more from the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party is viewed as taking more votes from the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

Some third party advocates object to the notion that third parties “take votes away” from major parties, on the grounds that the major parties were never entitled to anyone’s vote to begin with. (See the discussion below, concerning “wasted” votes.)
In 1992, some political observers attributed the “success” of Ross Perot and his Reform Party for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton’s defeat of incumbent Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush.

In 2000, the victory of Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush over incumbent Democratic Vice President Al Gore for the US Presidency was widely attributed to the “success” of Ralph Nader, running on the Green Party’s ticket.

In 2004, both parties showed strategic interest in Ralph Nader’s presidential campaign. Concerned that Nader might “spoil” the election for their candidate John Kerry (by attracting votes that would otherwise go to Kerry), the Democratic Party attempted to deny Nader ballot access in many states. The effort was largely successful. Even where the party failed to keep Nader off the ballot, the Nader campaign had to devote resources to ensuring ballot access. It was also reported that the Republican party assisted Nader’s efforts to get on the ballot.

Nader’s 2004 run was as an independent candidate; he generally emphasized his independence from any political party. He did, however, accept the nomination of the Reform Party in several states to gain ballot access. In other states, where the laws made forming a new party easier than qualifying as an independent candidate, Nader’s campaign revived the Populist Party in order to assure ballot access.

Aside from the mechanics of winner-take-all, the Electoral College, and the use of primaries, third parties are hampered by restrictive ballot access laws that force them to spend the bulk of their resources just to get on the ballot. Such obstacles include the requirement in several states that third party candidates obtain thousands of signatures of registered voters in order to get their candidates listed on the ballot. If they manage to get on the ballot, third party candidates are often not allowed. Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquist said in 1910 that America’s presidential system has a role in hurting third party chances even further down the ticket.

In the United States the ticket handed to the voter contains the names not only of candidates for state legislature or congress, but also for all local and state officers and even for President of the United States. And since the new party rarely seems to have the chance or prospect of electing its candidate for governor of a state or president of the country, the voter is inclined in advance to consider its entire ticket as hopeless. The fear of ‘throwing away’ the vote is thus a peculiar product of American politics, and it requires a voter of exceptional strength of conviction to overcome.” (Ibid 202)

Because of the difficulties third parties face in gaining any representation, third parties tend to exist to promote a specific issue or personality, often an issue which either or both of the major parties may eventually end up co-opting. As a counterexample, H. Ross Perot eventually founded a third party, the Reform Party, but he apparently intended it to exist solely as a vehicle to support himself and his agenda and never intended it to field any Congressional or Governatorial candidates. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt made a spirited run for the presidency on the Progressive Party ticket, but he never made any efforts to help Progressive congressional candidates in 1914, and in 1916 he supported the Republicans. The next third party candidate to win a major portion of the popular vote was independent Ross Perot, who won 18.87% of the popular vote in the 1992 Presidential election.

There have been few third party governors in the past few decades. The last was Jesse Ventura, a member of the Reform Party and later the Minnesota Independence Party, who governed Minnesota from 1999-2003.

One way in which third parties can influence elections in certain jurisdictions in the United States (notably New York state) is through electoral fusion.

In winner-take-all (or plurality-take-all), the candidate with the largest number of votes wins, even if the margin of victory is extremely narrow or the proportion of votes received is not a majority. Unlike in proportional representation, runners-up do not gain any representation in a first-past-the-post system. In the United States, systems of proportional representation are uncommon, especially above the local level, and are entirely absent at the national level.

American legislators have traditionally had wide discretion to vote as they or their constituents please. A Democrat representing a rural area can be pro-life and anti-gun control; a Republican representing a suburban district can be pro-choice and pro-environment. Thus, even though there are only two parties represented in most American legislatures, there are different shades of opinion.

In America, if an interest group is at odds with its traditional party, it has the option of running sympathetic candidates in primaries. If the candidate fails in the primary and believes he has a chance to win in the general election he may form or join a third party.