Electoral Strategy for Bob Barr: stay away from swing states!
Voters return 'home' to their home party in direct proportion to the expected closeness of the vote by Tully
(libertarian)
Saturday, June 14, 2008
I am not so starry-eyed as to believe that Barr can win. But what he can do is continue a movement embodied in Ron Paul that may actually result in the realignment of two-party politics down the road. The question for thsi campaign is how to make the greatest, sustainable impact.
Several different strategies are being discussed for the Barr campaign:
1) Go for the swing states. Often a third party candidate can gain more votes than the difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates. It is for this reason that Gore-ites still blame Ralph Nader for Gore's loss, reasoning that if the Naderites voted for Gore, Gore would have taken more electoral votes and won the election. The strength to this strategy is that it generates media coverage: it forces politicians and the media to notice the strength of the 'tail wagging the dog.' But the danger here is borne out in history: whenever an election is close, whenever votes really count, those who say they will vote for a third party candidate "come home" in the last 36 hours of the campaign. We saw this repeatedly in New York State, when a viable Conservative Party candidate would be drawing up to 18% of the vote in the polls in some districts. Then, on election day, that total would fall to 9-10%, or less, because voters saw how serious their vote was, and they 'came home' to their traditional Republican or Democratic roots.
2) Go for "safe states." In the safe states, there are two advantages: first, no one feels that if they switch from their traditional party to the Libertarians, that they will 'throw the election,' because everyone knows that the Republican will win Alabama and the Democrat will win Rhode Island. Voters can 'make a statement' with their vote and not feel 'irresponsible.' Plus, fewer voters in all show up at the polls when the outcome is assured. That means the Libertarian Party would have an opportunity to draw more votes in a smaller turnout, resulting in a large percentage of the vote. That could draw media attention...or maybe not, because people are bored with hopelessly red or blue states.
3) Go for a few states where the libertarian organization and voter base is strongest. In other words, rely on existing ground troops. All campaigns need dollars and footsoldiers, people willing to carry the signs and go door to door and show up at rallies. If the Barr campaign can focus on a few states where the ground troops are ready to roll, they may find themselves actually creating competitive, three-way races which will most certainly draw attention.
Personally, I like the third option best, with the second option as "Plan B."
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 7
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Tully only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Tully is solely responsible for the contents
of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated
with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Right now, the perfect storm is brewing in US politics. The rise of the third party is very possible this year if we make it happen. What makes this the perfect storm, you ask?
First, Obama and McCain are shifting closer and closer to each other on nearly every major issue. They both support the continued exploitation of illegal workers, they both support "free" trade that benefits other nations, they both support big corporate interests over those of the American people. Both want to raise taxes and increase federal spending along with the size and scope of the federal government. Even on Iraq, the one isssue on which they differed, they've moved closer together, Obama now saying that decisions will be made based on conditions on the ground, rather than setting a safe time table for withdrawal. The fact is, there's no real choice at all.
Add to this the Libertarian party running a man who's been on the national stage, is well-liked by a good number of Republicans as well as independents, thanks to some good changes in his stances on a number of issues. Even many liberals love the idea of a return to personal liberty over the invasive government looming over their heads to protect them from themselves.
Invoking the change, getting people to break this failed, two-party cycle is not going to be easy. Most of society seems brainwashed into thinking that a vote outside of the two major parties is just a waste. The media repetitively tells people that if you vote for Barr, you're stealing votes from McCain, as if McCain owns the vote and you're taking it away from him. It's far easier to do that than for them to admit that McCain is actually losing those votes because his platform is unappealing to the vast majority of Americans. Then, on the Obama side, you have a whole lot of fun rhetoric and nothing but the status quo laying behind it. Once people start thinking about the hard issues, they start to realize that neither of these people is the answer.
There you have it, the perfect storm. The question is, will we ride it to victory, or will we whimper and hide?
I think Ralph Nader is a fine alternative for Ron Paul supporters.
Paul speaks against BIG GOVERNMENT. And contrary to what news bites and propaganda would have you believe, Nader is also against big government. Consider the enormously bloated military budget which accounts for nearly half of the government's total operating budget. This is a tremendous waste of taxpayer money going to imperial wars based on lies.
And as part of this war, we have more BIG GOVERNMENT in the form of citizen surveillance. The PATRIOT Act (which Barr VOTED FOR) grants the government unprecedented powers to watch over American citizens without the need to prove probable cause in the court system.
Nader is against big government when it is fraudulent, wasteful or illegal. He calls for end to the intrusive PATRIOT Act and a massive reduction in the military budget. He wants to put an end to the excess of corporate welfare and put and end to the intrusive, failing drug war.
Nader is against maximizing government and sees its role as simply protecting the rights and interests of citizens and society as a whole.
Posted By: Jonathan Cymberknopf
Date: 2008-06-15 12:42:06
The money is coming very slow to Bob Barr. We need your help to get on the ballots. Please Please donate to www.bobbarr2008.com and help continue Ron Paul's work. Please email friends, call friends, talk to collegues, get the word out , we have a choice in November, but we need your help !
The real issue is not how well Obama or McCain might do in the closely divided battleground states, but that we shouldn't have battleground states and spectator states in the first place. Every vote in every state should be politically relevant in a presidential election. And, every vote should be equal. We should have a national popular vote for President in which the White House goes to the candidate who gets the most popular votes in all 50 states.
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC). The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral vote -- that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The major shortcoming of the current system of electing the President is that presidential candidates have no reason to poll, visit, advertise, organize, campaign, or worry about the voter concerns in states where they are safely ahead or hopelessly behind. The reason for this is the winner-take-all rule which awards all of a state's electoral votes to the candidate who gets the most votes in each separate state. Because of this rule, candidates concentrate their attention on a handful of closely divided "battleground" states. Two-thirds of the visits and money are focused in just six states; 88% on 9 states, and 99% of the money goes to just 16 states. Two-thirds of the states and people are merely spectators to the presidential election.
Another shortcoming of the current system is that a candidate can win the Presidency without winning the most popular votes nationwide.
The National Popular Vote bill has been approved by 18 legislative chambers (one house in Colorado, Arkansas, Maine, North Carolina, Rhode Island, and Washington, and two houses in Maryland, Illinois, Hawaii, California, and Vermont). It has been enacted into law in Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, and Maryland. These states have 50 (19%) of the 270 electoral votes needed to bring this legislation into effect.
I strenuously disagree with the 'national poplar vote' movement (more bluntly, the Mob Rule Movement).
The US is NOT one huge Democracy. It is a Republic of constituent states. *Everything* about the US is set up with checks and balances: different branches of government, federal vs. state rights, a Bill of Rights to protect the citizens from government power. And the Electoral College is one of the provisions that protects - and amplifies - minority rights in the face of mob/mass hysteria.
Nationally, Cuban-Americans count for less than .05% of the vote. But in Florida, you don't ignore them. The same goes for Mormons, Jews, Arabs, Gays, American Indians, and Amish.
On a national level, these groups get 'swallowed' by the majority, and in a popular vote contest, politicans only need to pander to the 'great middle.' In an electoral vote contest, minorities concentrated in a city or state get to flex their muscle and get attention. It is one way to insure that minority rights are not trampled by a majority.
And if you think elections are only decided by a 'handful' of battleground states, your knoweldge of history is very short. I predict that this year's election is going to see some interesting changes in the red-blue state scenarios that we have become to accustomed under the Clinton-Bush dynasties.
Posted By: J. C. Bernard
Date: 2008-07-12 21:11:03
If a candidate for president has limited funds he must campaign vigerously in the top ten most populated states. Then in the next ten most populated states. If he can carry 12 of the most populated states he will then have a better chance in therest of the states. It is about electorial votes, not the popular vote.
Chose your battles, the rest is up to the voters and we all know they vote their wallet.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
