From: bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)
Subject: Re: Previous Libertarian showings (was Re: New poll results)
Organization: (none)
Date: Mon, 14 Sep 1992 22:32:41 GMT

In article <1568@cogsci.ucsd.EDU> you write:
>bam@bnlux1.bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin) writes:
>...[I wrote:]
>In fact, since 1976, the Libertarian vote has always been the highest 
>>of any other party besides the Demoblican/Replicrat party.  In 1980, 
>>Ed Clark got MORE THAN 1% (and Marrou will probably beat that percentage).  
>
>One pretty big nit: in 1980, John Anderson received 5,719,437 votes,
>which is about 7%, and which was *definitely* greater than Ed Clark's
>share.  Anderson, in fact, came surprisingly close to winning at least
>one state (Massachusetts).

I said "highest of any other party".
Anderson said he was running with no party.

Actually, Anderson was a Republican.
(I think he was still a Republican member of the House during his campaign.)

Either way, my statement was technically correct.
However, I should have said "higher than anyone else except Dems. & Reps."
(or those who had been Dem. or Rep. until just before declaring themselves 
"independent" candidates).

The point is that the Libertarian party candidate in EVERY election
from 1976 onward has gotten more votes than anybody else other than
politicians who were elected as Dems. or Reps.  

>
>The interesting thing about the 1980 election is that Reagan hardly
>won the rousing majority of the popular vote that people assume he
>did.  In fact, he didn't win an outright majority of the votes cast!

I believe Reagan DID win an outright majority of the votes cast in 1980.
(That's because the platform he ranm on was mostly libertarian!  ;-)

Reagan's 1980 popular vote was 43,899,248.  
Carter got only 36,481,435.
Anderson's 5,719,437 plus Clark's 921,000 or so don't quite close
the gap, and I'm sure that the the Fourth parties's vote was much 
less than Clark's total.  Let's see, that's 36.5+5.7+0.9 (=43.1) +?.

It's close, and I don't have exact figures.  Can you supply them?

Perhaps you're thinking of 1976, when Jimmy Carter did fail to
get even 50% of the total votes cast.  (Some reports excluded
the None-of-the-Above and Mickey Mouse votes, then recook the
books to give Jimmy just over 50%.  However, he was definitely 
a minority Pres. when you count ALL votes that were cast for Pres.)

>
>Further, while Marrou might well get better than 1% of the vote, do
>you really think he'll do substantially better than Ross Perot, who is
>quietly on the ballot in a large number of states?

I really don't know what will happen to the Perot vote by November.
However, he is NOT a candidate.  (So he has said.)
Given the unpredictablility of his polls in the past, I won't even guess.

However, when Perot was a candidate he was definitely an "independent".
He insisted that there would be no "Perot" party, and prohibited other
candidates (besides Vice Pres.) from running "with" him.  Even if he
plays Lazarus next month, I don't think he'll create a "Phoenix" party.
He's either a non-candidate or an independent -- no third party.

(BTW, I'm all in favor of independents.  If I wasn't a libertarian,
I'd probably favor outlawing political parties, since they have 
corrupted much of the intent of several Constitutional mechanisms.
My preference is for only independent citizen legislators.  
For one thing, parties foster corrupt, log-rolling, patronage-peddling
incumbency-machines.  Ah, but that's another thread.)

>
>>In 1988, the Libertarian candidate got more votes than ALL OTHER 3rd 
>>PARTIES PUT TOGETHER!  This was also true in 1980.  (I'm not sure about 
>>1984.)
>
>Again, I think this statement is *bizarre* if made in reference to
>1980 when the Libertarians finished fourth.  

Not at all "bizarre".  
Yes, Clark finished fourth, behind a Reagan, Carter, and Anderson
who were classified either as a Republican, a Democrat, and an Independent,
or as a D & 2 Rs.  Either way, Anderson was not classified as a "third
party" candidate.  Clark's vote total exceeded all other third party 
totals put together.

>And, actually, whether
>this was true in 1988 depends on how you define "3rd parties".  The
>broadest definition would include all votes *not* cast for Bush or
>Dukakis, in which case we find that the Libertarians didn't quite make
>it, winning 432,116 votes out of the total 899,522 votes cast for the
>following:
>
>...[List of other 3rd party candidates deleted]...
>Write-in
>None-of-the-above (Nevada option)

Ron Paul's vote total also exceeded all the THIRD PARTY vote totals
put together, but just barely I'll admit.  Yes, his total was less 
than the total of all third parties PLUS independents PLUS write-ins
PLUS None-of-the-Above (PLUS voids).  Still he beat all third party
candidate totals put together.  Anyhow, 1988 was so close that we
are both picking nits.  

Anyhow, the following statements about 1988 are indisputable:
In 1988, the Libertarian Party Presidential ticket, Ron Paul & Andre Marrou,
beat all other third party candidates by a wide margin.  Their closest 
competitor (Fulani & ?) got just over half his total.  Their vote total
was as much or more than the total of all other third party candidates
put together.

>... but you'd have to ignore his and at least 3 other
>people's votes to make the claim true.  What's up?

Some were independents (not third party).
Some were write-ins (also no party).

OK.  1988 was close.
Can we agree that Ron Paul got approximately as many votes
as all other third parties put together?

>...
>Just wondering though: aren't there many more than 100 "Independents"
>... in offices where partisan affiliations are >allowed?  

Sure.  Non-partisan elections are common in my state (for School Boards,
village Mayors, etc.).  There must be hundreds, maybe thousands in NY.
Nothing to do with largest third "party" claim.  (BTW, most of these
elected "nonpartisans" are still registered D or R.)

>
>>The Libertarian Party is America's third-largest party BY ANY MEASURE.
>>Comparison with the New Alliance Party in this regard is downright 
>>ludicrous!
>
>They certainly got more votes in 1988, and I expect they enjoy a solid
>lead in voter registrations, but we all know that the fortunes of
>political parties wax and wane.  The American Independents under
>Wallace were the last third party to win electoral votes, and while
>they haven't done diddly since then, rumor has it that their
>membership is up this year.  

Agreed.  However, Wallace himself was really a Democrat.

One spinoff from his effort was called American party,
and their candidate John Schmidtz got a million votes in 1972.
(However, the Libertarians beat them in the electoral college,
with one electoral vote for Prof. John Hospers and Ms. Theodora Nathan 
-- only 16 behind McGovern/Schriver. ;^)

>...  Right now the Libertarians are running
>third, but when the third place share hovers around the 1% level and
>you finish no better than fourth in 2 of the last 6 presidential
>elections, you've certainly got some building to do.

Yep!!  We're definitely falling behind the Republicans,
who took about half as long to elect a President.
Thanks for the reminder -- we're working on it.

>
>jking


bam@bnl.gov (Bruce A. Martin)         BAM    [My opinions belong to me only,
Master of the Tripods of Hephaestus.  ~~~    and they represent no one else.]
# include discaimers.h+copyright.h    ~o~  Repeal the Sixteenth Amendment now!
# delete BUSHLIPS&&SlickWillie        /|\  Marrou/Lord in '92.  (800) 682-1776
Newsgroups: alt.politics.elections,talk.politics.misc,alt.politics.marrou,alt.politics.bush,alt.politics.clinton,alt.politics.perot