Darn You, Third Parties! (It happened with Bill Clinton, and it happened again this year)

National Review ^ | 11/03/2010 | Jim Geraghty

[WebFocus]

Off the top of my (very groggy) head, I cannot think of too many cases where a Democrat lost a winnable race because of too many left-of-center votes drifting to a liberal third party, other than Ralph Nader’s role in the 2000 presidential election.

Last night, a withdrawn third-party bid ended up costing Republicans at least one key victory. I’m starting to think the New York 23rd district is cursed. Doug Hoffman, Conservative-party candidate, inspiring figure of 2009′s special election, made a remarkably mature decision to drop his Conservative bid this year and back the Republican, Matt Doheny. Last night, 6 percent of the district voted for Hoffman, even though he had withdrawn. Democrat Bill Owens is ahead by 2.4 percent.

In Oregon, Republican Chris Dudley is hanging on in the governor’s race; his 1.1 percent lead is less than the share of the vote that went to the Constitution-party candidate (1.4 percent) and the Libertarian-party candidate (1.3 percent).

Harry Reid will win reelection with 50.2 percent of the vote, but Sharron Angle only won 44.6 percent.

Tim Cahill cost Charlie Baker his shot at the Massachusetts governorship.

In Indiana, one of the cycle’s promising Republicans, Jackie Walorski, has fallen short by 1.4 percent while the Libertarian candidate took 5 percent.

Massachusetts Republicans are bummed this morning. In the 10th district, Democrat Bill Keating is going to win with a mere 46.9 percent of the vote.

In Rhode Island’s 1st district, a lot of Democrats worried about their man David Ciciline; he won 50.6 percent of the vote but is six points ahead of John Loughlin.

In Colorado’s governor’s race, we saw a strange reversal: the surprising 11 percent who backed Republican Dan Maes probably cost conservative independent Tom Tancredo a victory, or at least a chance to take Democrat John Hickenlooper down to the wire.

Late in this cycle, we saw desperate Democrats doing everything they could to promote little-known third-party options. Sometimes it didn’t work (Alan Grayson, Tom Perriello). But clearly the Democrats will go back to this option, time and again, until right-of-center voters realize that if you want to throw out an entrenched liberal Democrat incumbent, there is only one real option. Every vote has to be earned, but sometimes you have to be willing to take someone less than ideal if you want to throw a bum out.

[WebFocus]

Clinton won in 1991 getting just 43% of the vote. REASON: Ross Perot ( Not sure if Theodore Roosevelt sabotage William Howard Taft, but that was too long ago for me to remember ).

There were a few races in 2010 where third parties ruined the chances of Republicans to gain more seats.

[samtheman]

There’s more than one way for a Moron to vote for a Democrat.

[ivyleaguebrat]

And this is why, for better or worse, we will always have a two-party system.

[Jemian]

Message to the republicans: IF YOU WANT MY VOTE YOU MUST RUN A CONSERVATIVE. I WILL NEVER, NO NEVER VOT FOR A RINO AGAIN.

It is their own fault if they don't get my vote. They must run someone I can support. Period. No compromise. I've done that schtick before and it got us Caligula beating McLame. I ain't going down that road again. Get it?

[MNDude]

You forgot Minnesota’s governor race with Independant Hoffman.

[goldstategop]

There are a few things I didn’t like in my state and other things I did like.

The main thing is the Rats are no longer the majority in the Mountain West.

[PGR88]

The problem with this argument
- 3rd parties also take votes from Democrats

- No 3rd parties means people like Arlen Specter get elected again. What use is that to the Republicans? Indeed, its harmful.

- 3rd parties (he doesn’t dare say Tea Party, but that’s what he means) are the REASON Republicans won big this election. No Tea Party means no real debate, no turn-out, and no difference between the beltway Dems and RINOS.

[rellimpank]

—I’m not that old either but ,yes, Teddy Roosevelt —the original RINO—gave the country Woodrow Wilson—IMHO the cause of most of the problems of the twentieth century-—

[perfect_rovian_storm]

Clinton won in 1991 getting just 43% of the vote. REASON: George H.W. Bush’s RINOism and betrayal of Reagan’s agenda.

[Question Liberal Authority]

He forgot Arizona 7, where Raul Grijalva, who called for a boycott of his own state beat the rocket scientist by 500 votes and change. The libertarian got about 900 votes.

[Kahuna]

Why not play the same game by funding 3rd party minority liberal candidates? IE. Rainbow party

[MNDude]

nevermind, you mentioned it.

[ZULU]

What has happened to the National Review? Are they no longer a conservative magazine? Is their interpretation of victory installing another Demcorat who just HAPPENS to call himself a Republican?

Perhaps Carl Rove and Dana Perino are on their editorial board.

[USFRIENDINVICTORIA]

You could have numerous parties; if you also had run-off elections, until someone was elected with 50% + 1 votes.

[muawiyah]

The math behind results in a single-member district system with first past the post voting CONTROLS.

The voters cannot afford to have more than 2 parties.

Some have proposed two stage voting where you do a follow-up with the top three candidates from the first stage.

The theory is the "second most popular" might well be "the most popular" if all the outliers are given a shot at voting for a more popular candidate.

That's theory.

[Ol' Dan Tucker]

Clinton won in 1991 getting just 43% of the vote. REASON: Ross Perot ( Not sure if Theodore Roosevelt sabotage William Howard Taft, but that was too long ago for me to remember ).

Of course, GHW Bush is blameless, right?

Do you remember his famous quote, "Know New Taxes"?

[sourcery]

Winner-take-all elections mean there can be ONLY two viable, "major" parties. That's a mathematical fact. Third parties, and those who vote for them, hurt their own cause. Taking over one of the major parties from within--by running candidates in the primaries and participating in primary elections--is the only strategy with any reasonable chance of success. How do you think the anti-Constitutionalists got where they are today? Not by forming any third party!

If you don't want to compromise your principles—not even as a tactic of political war—then democracy with winner-take-all elections will not work for you. At all.

[misterrob]

The bipolar choice is unacceptable. People should have the right to choose whomever they want to vote for. If voting Libertarian, Green or Constitutional is what you want then have at it. Remember, Nader played a huge role in Gore losing FL.

[a fool in paradise]

I cannot think of too many cases where a Democrat lost a winnable race because of too many left-of-center votes drifting to a liberal third party, other than Ralph Nader’s role in the 2000 presidential election.

The dirty little secret in the Florida vote wasn't "just" that Nader got enough votes to push Gore over the edge, even without Nader, if you combined up the different Communist parties there (Socialist, Socialist Workers, Workers World) WITHOUT the Green (reds), it would have been enough.

The Democrats strive to get "enough" of the hardcore communist vote while masking their agenda enough to appeal to church going yellow dog democrats without them getting wise.

We are told the terms "socialist" and "communist" are divisive, but it is very clear that the Democrats seek their vote. No Republican seeks any "fascist" support. I don't even see a "fascist party" on the ballots.

[businessprofessor]

“It is their own fault if they don’t get my vote. They must run someone I can support. Period. No compromise. I’ve done that schtick before and it got us Caligula beating McLame. I ain’t going down that road again. Get it?”

I do not get it except in very exceptional situations such as the clown Dan Maes in Colorado. In almost all situations, a vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the rat. Third party candidates may have cost Republicans control of the state legislatur and a senate seat. In most cases, the Republican candidate is reasonably conservative such as Ken Buck in Colorado.

We need to make a pact with third parties. It is insanity to lose elections because of third party candidates.