Reason Magazine
- reason.com
- reason.tv
- reason.org
- Donate
- Site Search:
Reason on Facebook
Reason on Twitter
Reason on YouTube
Reason RSSGet Reason E-mail Updates!
Manage your Reason e-mail list subscriptionsadvertisements
And In Last Place...
I had predicted that, not counting write-ins, the Prohibition Party would land in last place. I was wrong: At the current count its nominee has 631 votes, with five people finishing behind him. The fellow who's losing to everyone else is Bradford Lyttle of the U.S. Pacifist Party, who presently has 97 votes. As the character in Doonesbury once said, "We must have swept my immediate circle of friends!"
Ralph Nader has outpolled Bob Barr, and it looks like Alan Keyes is beating Ron Paul as well. As for the smaller libertarian-themed candidacies: Charles Jay of the Boston Tea Party currently has 2,291 votes; Tom Stevens of the Objectivist Party has 674 votes; and George Phillies, who appeared on an alternate Libertarian Party line in New Hampshire, has attracted 433 votes. If you add up the totals for Barr, Paul, Jay, Stevens, and Phillies, you...still finish behind Nader.
|11.5.08 @ 10:11AM|#
When will that bastard just stop running?! Back in 2000, I thought all third parties had perennial candidates, since Browne was doing his second try for the Libertarians, Howard Phillips was going again for the (then U.S. Taxpayers, now Constitution) party, and what's his face was doing a second run as the head of the Natural Law Party, but they've all moved on with their lives, while ol' Nader just keeps slumming along. Sickening. I miss the days when the LP would place a distant third, instead of a close fourth or fifth.
|11.5.08 @ 10:26AM|#
If you add up the totals for Barr, Paul, Jay, Stevens, and
Phillies, you...still finish behind Nader.
We libertarians suck at electoral politics. Hey, the Lions are 0-8
so I'm kinda used to this kinda stuff.
|11.5.08 @ 10:39AM|#
I really expected Barr to do much better than that. I thought he would at least get over a million votes and 2% of the vote.
|11.5.08 @ 10:41AM|#
Let me guess, the entire reason for writing this was to leave Chuck Baldwin (whose entire campaign was billed as a continuation of Ron Paul's) conspicuously out of your list of libertarian-themed candidacies, just to annoy all us troglodytes who believe in such unlibertarian things as the Bible.
Gary McGath|11.5.08 @ 11:04AM|#
Without me, Phillies would have had only 432 votes! And they say minor-party votes are "wasted"? :)
svf|11.5.08 @ 11:24AM|#
1972: unknown philosophy professor: 3,674 (0.0%) : 1 electoral
vote
1976: unknown elector for unknown philosophy professor: 172,553
(0.2%) : 0 electoral votes
1980: unknown lawyer with wealthy running mate: 921,128 (1.1%) : 0
electoral votes
1984: unknown party activist: 172,553 (0.2%) : 0 electoral
votes
1988: barely-known TX ex-congressman: 432,179 (0.5%) : 0 electoral
votes
1992: unknown AK state rep : 291,627 (0.3%) : 0 electoral
votes
1996: unknown writer and investment analyst : 485,798 (0.5%) : 0
electoral votes
2000: same guy as 1996 : 384,516 (0.4%) : 0 electoral votes
2004: unknwon software engineer : 397,265 (0.3%) : 0 electoral
votes
2008: moderately-known GA ex-congressman : 484,147 (0.4%) : 0
electoral votes
so what have we learned?
unknown philosophy professor + wealthy running mate for president
in 2012!
We Don\'t Suck!|11.5.08 @ 11:28AM|#
It's everyone else. They aren't worthy to live in our presence. Get over it. If it bugs the shit out of you, then drink and aquiesce.
Jesse Walker|11.5.08 @ 11:30AM|#
Let me guess, the entire reason for writing this was to
leave Chuck Baldwin (whose entire campaign was billed as a
continuation of Ron Paul's) conspicuously out of your list of
libertarian-themed candidacies, just to annoy all us troglodytes
who believe in such unlibertarian things as the Bible.
You're not very good at guessing. I left Baldwin out of the list of
libertarian-themed candidacies because he does not consider himself
a libertarian and did not run a libertarian-themed campaign. He did
take libertarian stances on several important issues, and he did
have some libertarian supporters, but you can say the same things
about Nader.
The Wine Commonsewer|11.5.08 @ 11:31AM|#
Actually, although I agree with your points, Harry Browne wasn't really unknown. OTOH, he didn't have Stephen King's name recognition, either. So mayber you're right.
Franklin Harris|11.5.08 @ 11:45AM|#
Let me guess, the entire reason for writing this was to leave Chuck Baldwin ... conspicuously out of your list of libertarian-themed candidacies, just to annoy all us troglodytes who believe in such unlibertarian things as the Bible.
Have you read it? It isn't exactly Free to Choose.
Franklin Harris|11.5.08 @ 11:48AM|#
so what have we learned?
unknown philosophy professor + wealthy running mate for president in 2012!
Which will net 0.6 percent more of the vote than nominating anyone
else! Woo hoo!
svf|11.5.08 @ 11:55AM|#
Which will net 0.6 percent more of the vote than nominating
anyone else!
... and, presumably, one electoral vote! eyes on the prize!
robc|11.5.08 @ 12:03PM|#
It isn't exactly Free to Choose.
Depending on your view on certain issues, Yes it is.
:)
Geotpf|11.5.08 @ 12:12PM|#
Pure, or even semi-pure, libertarianism has clearly been a failure at the ballot box this year. Paul bombed, and so did Barr et al, although Barr did even worse (How do you finish behind Nader when there is a black liberal on the ticket-that is, who the hell voted for Nader? Racist enviromentalists?). And it wasn't a lack of money that caused Paul to lose-he had plenty.
Jesse Walker|11.5.08 @ 12:22PM|#
How many votes did Cthulhu get, besides mine?
Depends on whether you count the votes for Cthulhu's stalking
horse, Joe Biden.
andy|11.5.08 @ 12:25PM|#
re: bradford lyttle,
i don't think the grainy mug photo that says "as part of my
rehabilitation into society, i'm announcing my residence to
everyone in this neighborhood, can you sign here?" helped him
much.
|11.5.08 @ 1:05PM|#
When will the total numbers from California be available? I know
they have 28 days from poll date to count mail in ballots recieved
on election day, and I know write in votes aren't counted that day.
Since Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin were write in candidates in
California, possibly their scores will have increased above those
you mention.
Does anyone know when those numbers will be available?
|11.5.08 @ 1:07PM|#
and to someone who asked 'who voted for Nader', obviously he has his own following; however, I know a number of Ron Paul supporters who voted for him, who would otherwise have voted Libertarian, had it been a different candidate this year. Many wen't to Baldwin, but there was a fair sized number who weren't comfortable with the Constitution Party platform.
svf|11.5.08 @ 1:12PM|#
When will the total numbers from California be
available?
Not sure, but if
this article is any indication, it might be at least a month
from now until we know anything about write-in totals...
|11.5.08 @ 1:15PM|#
svf -
Thanks, that is exactly what I was looking for. Oh, well. By the
holidays, I guess.
|11.5.08 @ 1:38PM|#
I wonder what Barr's totals would have been if the party hadn't
fragmented during the convention, and if most of the libertarian
pundits hadn't been campaigning for Obama?
p.s. I still haven't found out yet, does anyone know how loud the
cheering was last night at Reason Headquarters when Obama won?
svf|11.5.08 @ 1:49PM|#
I wonder what Barr's totals would have been if the party
hadn't fragmented during the convention, and if most of the
libertarian pundits hadn't been campaigning for Obama?
oh, about the same I imagine.
the big WHAT IF for me is what if Ron Paul stayed in the race as an
Independent and/or dual LP/CP nominee... based on that 2% in MT
without even wanting to be on the ballot, well that could have been
mighty interesting.
damn him.
Craig|11.5.08 @ 4:35PM|#
Since Keyes was on the ballot in California and Paul was not,
it's not surprising that AK ended up with more votes. Paul's
percentage where he was on the ballot (MT and LA) was higher than
that of any other third party candidate.
Full results here:
http://election.cbsnews.com/election2008/president.shtml
Craig|11.5.08 @ 4:38PM|#
It would be interesting to see how Ron Paul's 1.2 million
Republican primary voters voted in the general election.
Obviously not many of them took him up on his endorsement of
Baldwin, and the excitement and money Paul generated last year
didn't help Barr improve over Badnarik's totals to any significant
degree (given that Barr was far better known to begin with.)
|11.5.08 @ 4:38PM|#
Did anyone except the terminally deluded think that ANY Libertarian presidential ticket would get more than .5% of the vote? I almost feel guilty collecting on the bets that I made. The only reason that Barr got as many votes as he did is from the reverse coattails effect of the few down ticket candidates with some credibility that were also running.
|11.5.08 @ 5:55PM|#
The LP should either get out of the vote business - and instead
focus on using their membership to stop bad legislation, repeal
laws, etc...
Or, get back to having a truly radical platform. Be aggressive and
passionate in arguing for ending drug prohibition, ending
centralized banking, legalizing prostitution, etc... something Barr
seemed hesitant to do.
If the LP is going to exist - and if it isn't going to win a lot of
votes anytime soon either because of major party dominance or the
LP's own incompetence - then at least have a radical platform and
argue for marijuana & adult entertainment just as passionately
as they do for guns & free markets.
Site comments/questions:
Media Inquiries and Reprint Permissions:
(310) 367-6109
Editorial & Production Offices:
3415 S. Sepulveda Blvd.
Suite 400
Los Angeles, CA 90034
(310) 391-2245