a few final thoughts on Florida, third parties, and the winds of change

Florida still has not certified Obama’s win in that state. But it’s almost certainly his, and once again, the specter of third-party spoilers is being raised.

As of this writing, Romney trails Obama in Florida by 49,890 votes. That gap is more than filled by the votes received by the Libertarian Party’s Johnson (43,919) and the Green Party’s Jill Stein (8,764). And that’s not including the votes taken by the Constitution Party’s Virgil Goode (2,559) and independent comedian-turned-politico Roseanne Barr (8,030)….

The votes from these four third-party candidates alone (there were six others in the state who received votes) total 63,272….

But is it reasonable for analysts to consider third-partiers as a single bloc? The Libertarians and the Constitutionalists are center-right parties, but the Greens (including Barr) are firmly on the Left. Could they ever collectively swing an election in favor of one candidate?

“Absolutely,” says [Adrian Wyllie, chairman of the Libertarian Party of Florida]. “If Ron Paul had won the Republican nomination, he probably would have pulled in the [mainstream] Republican vote, all of the Libertarian and Constitution Party votes, and several Green votes, too. That could have turned the state of Florida to a Republican victory.”

There’s a bit of a bait-and-switch here — the article goes from asking whether third-party candidates cost Romney Florida to asking whether third party candidates could influence some hypothetical election. Even in the latter scenario, I have my doubts about Wyllie’s confident assertion that even Ron Paul would pick up “all” libertarian voters. Many libertarian voters actually lean left. I voted for Johnson, but probably wouldn’t vote for Ron Paul. (I don’t like Paul’s stance on abortion, I think his gold standard ideas are ridiculous, and I think Johnson’s tax plan is close to what I’m looking for, in shape if not necessarily in the details.)

But what about the actual election? Did third party candidates swing Florida? Someone will have to crunch the numbers, but my guess is no, for exactly the reasons Nader didn’t swing it in 2000 — third party voters simply aren’t a coherent bloc. Some wouldn’t have voted for either candidate (i.e., would have stayed home), and history shows that almost every third party candidate picks up votes from both sides. As the numbers above show, Romney would have had to pick up more than three-fourths of the third-party votes to win Florida. That’s a very unlikely scenario.


Two stories involving third parties interest me more, in terms of the long term health of the democracy. First, Johnson picked up more than 1% of the vote in almost every state west of the Misssissippi. (Except Oklahoma, where he was not on the ballot, Iowa, and Louisiana.) It’s not surprising that he got 3.5% in his home state of New Mexico, where he was a successful and popular governor. But he also picked up 2.9% in Montana, 2.2% in Wyoming, 1.8% in Kansas, and 1.6% in each of the Dakotas — all traditionally considered Republican strongholds in presidential races. In 2004, every state west of the Mississippi went for Bush except Minnesota and the three on the West coast. This year and in 2008, though, Nevada, New Mexico, Colorado, and Iowa all went for Obama. The West has always adhered to a more libertarian, egalitarian, and less intrusive form of conservatism than the South, and I wouldn’t be surprised if the increasingly rightward direction of the Republican Party drove a wedge between those two constituencies.

Second, in Missouri, which went for Romney in the presidential election, even Republican and Republican-leaning voters abandoned Todd Akin in droves. Clare McCaskill won her re-election handily, but Libertarian Jonathan Dine also picked up 6% of the vote. (The same dynamic also played out in Indiana, where Richard Mourdock lost to Joe Donnelly, with Libertarian Andrew Horning taking, again, about 6% of the vote.) This suggests that, even in “red” states, there are limits, and those candidates’ awful views on rape simply made them unelectable. But given that Akin and Mourdock’s views are also the views of much of the Republican Party, this looks like long-term demographic death for the GOP unless it can figure out a new message.


Finally, one more story having little to do with third parties, but again suggesting that the ice is cracking up for the Republican Party: in Maricopa County, AZ, the ultimate outcome of a close race for Sheriff Joe Arpaio may be determined by the hundreds of thousands of provisional and early ballots yet to be counted. Protesters have essentially occupied the parking lot of the elections office to demand that the provisional ballots be counted, given what appear to be massive irregularities in the voter records that necessitated the use of the provisional ballots in the first place.

All this points to another hopeful trend — namely, that despite the stereotype of the apathetic American voter, we are actually quite determined to use our franchise when someone threatens to take it away. It may be too much to say that Republican officials’ attempts at outright voter suppression actually changed turnout enough to swing the election to Barack Obama. But could they have motivated some people who were on the fence about voting in the first place (it’s not exactly convenient), making some of the Democratic Senate and House victories more decisive than they otherwise would have been? I’d believe that.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to a few final thoughts on Florida, third parties, and the winds of change

  1. Eric says:

    It may be too much to say that Republican officials’ attempts at outright voter suppression actually changed turnout enough to swing the election to Barack Obama.

    An article in Harper’s repeats allegations that electoral machine shenanigans in 2004 cost John Kerry Ohio, and speculates that there may have been a similar effort in 2008 that failed because the responsible parties didn’t lean on the table hard enough and underestimated how big the turnout for Obama would be–in short, they cheated, but not enough. I don’t know. I firmly believe in Hanlon’s Razor and its British corollary, “cock-up before conspiracy”. And there have been reports this year of voting machines pushing votes towards Obama, too. Could just be lousy software and/or hardware.

    But, you know, even though I don’t believe in conspiracies, or at least I don’t make them my first default (after all, they do occur sometimes), it couldn’t but cross my mind when I saw the YouTube clip of Karl Rove’s meltdown on Fox News over the channel’s decision to call Ohio for Obama, what if Rove wasn’t so much upset at the result or even the $300 million his superPAC threw down the tubes, but, instead, thought the election had been properly rigged this time round, only to be slapped in the face with the discovery that someone in Ohio screwed up again and underestimated how hard to lean on the table without tilting it again, and what if Rove was insistent on seeing what the rest of the votes out of Ohio would be because he thought he already knew what they were supposed to be? And then, dammit, because of the heavy-handed efforts of Republicans in Pennsylvania and elsewhere to suppress the vote, and because the Republicans overestimated how unpopular Obama was and keep overcounting the angry white male population, more opposition voters turned out again and swamped the margin they’d tried giving themselves, and it was their own damn fault on top of that.

    I’m not trying to push this hypothesis, mind you. Not saying I’m ready to strip-search myself and check my teeth out before heading down to the bunker with Frohike, Langly and Byers. I’m just saying it crossed my mind. I do try to write fiction and those kinds of things cross your mind, right?

    I just wish you could unwonder something like that once you’d wondered it, though.

    • thehandsomecamel says:

      Well, the DailyKos wondered, jokingly, whether Romney waited so long to concede because he was expecting the exact same thing.

      Heh-heh. “Jokingly.”

      But this does seem to be one of those cases where stupidity is enough. I mean, don’t get me wrong — there’s been plenty of skulduggery about, what with Husted and others essentially willing to risk contempt of court to keep people from voting. I’m just not sure if anybody’s gotten sophisticated enough to pull off a computerized attack.

      But anyway, let’s just watch that video again, shall we? Because what I really enjoy is when that anchor goes back to the nerd-room and demands answers… and, uh, gets them. From a surprised but calm nerd. I really enjoyed that.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s