Agence France Presse makes the rather odd assertion today that, in addition to John McCain and Barack Obama, there are “11 other candidates running for president.” Where AFP got that number is unclear — at most, only Constitution Party nominee Chuck Baldwin, Libertarian Bob Barr, Green Cynthia McKinney, and independent Ralph Nader stand a real chance of qualifying for enough state ballots to theoretically achieve 270 electoral votes. And beyond those four, there are dozens of other candidates of various levels of seriousness.
In the article, AFP’s Alain Jean-Robert says Barr “could end up being a thorn in the side for both” McCain and Obama, while “mere mention of Nader’s name still triggers howls of fury from Democrats” angry over 2000. Barr, “a leading conservative voice and champion of individual liberties,” faces competition “from another former Republican,” Chuck Baldwin, whose party “has an election manifesto very similar to the Libertarian’s.” McKinney’s candidacy “could handicap Obama by slicing into his support among women and pacifists against the Iraq war.”
As for the rest of the “11” candidates, “at least three of the others who have thrown their hats into the ring are standing under a Socialist ticket, including Gloria La Riva who is the candidate for a pro-Castro party defending the interests of Cuba. There is also a former sports agent standing for the conservative Boston Tea Party, as well as pastor Gene Amondson who won’t be quaffing any champagne on election night. He is the candidate for the temperance Prohibition Party.”
Based on this Associated Press analysis, the electoral college race is very close.
http://ap.google.com/article/ALeqM5gNDbDicihHi8TCaFuY1V9A5VYuwwD92O4U6G0
110 electoral votes seem to be up for grabs:
Colorado (9), Florida (27), Michigan (17), Nevada (5), New Hampshire (4), New Mexico (5), Ohio (20), Virginia (13), Wisconsin (10)
We are likely to have Charles Jay qualified in Colorado and Florida. Could be fun!
I’m confused about this 27o electoral votes thing. So, let’s parse it a bit.
Yes, to be elected by the electoral college, the candidate would need 270 electoral votes. But, with six candidates (Obama, McCain, Barr, McKinney, Baldwin, Nader), to prevent anyone else from winning, the total needed to throw it to the House of Representatives (and therefore disrupt the election, clearly carving out a role in changing the party platform of the likely victor in the House (Obama)) is 269 votes divided among 5 losing candidates.
So, any candidate able to gain 54 electoral votes in a six-way race would be doing their part to send that message. Something to think about.
If the Boston Tea Party qualifies Jay in Louisiana and Florida, and as he is already qualified in Colorado and Tennessee, we can claim access to some part of 56 electoral votes. (Winning any electoral votes, much harder.)
Now, with the 54 electoral votes standard, how many candidates are significant? And, of course, what happens when you take that number and divide it into the 269 “no victor” number? If we use AFP’s number of 13 (2 plus 11 other), we get a much lower total of 21 electoral votes to be significant. (Tennessee and Colorado add to 20, so Jay is almost significant now with no further states.)
Of course the party lines are not geographical, and the electoral votes are. Other than Barr, who should do well in Dixie, I can’t see a significant sectional preference for any of the candidates. Which means there probably won’t be any electoral votes outside the Repugnant and the Demolisher.
It would definitely be fun to see minor party candidates get enough electoral votes to throw the election to the House.
Incidentally, it is possible to be a conservative socialist (for example, my grandfather was one before he left the USSR, which he only did because my dad and uncle already had).
It’s also possible to be a libertarian socialist: I was for a short while.
“Because as we all know, if you’re not a socialist, you’re a conservative.â€
And the inverse is: “Because we all know, if you’re not a libertarian, you’re a socialist.â€
Both dumb.
“Because as we all know, if you’re not a socialist, you’re a conservative.”
And the inverse is: “Because we all know, if you’re not a libertarian, you’re a socialist.”
“…the conservative Boston Tea Party…”
Because as we all know, if you’re not a socialist, you’re a conservative.
He’d be sitting on his ass. During his Republican Primary campaign—he raised 200k. And went to 2 debates and did one Campaign swing through East/North Texas.
Had Keyes won the CP nomination, would he likely have campaigned or would he still be sitting on his ass?
My mistake. 800, but still… that’s one of the easiest ballot lines. There’s no excuse not to get it if you’re serious.
Well Chuck Baldwin wrote in a column that he was a Democrat until 1980 when he headed the Florida Moral Majority and joined the GOP. He left the GOP when Bush became president so both things are correct.
Is Baldwin really a “former Republican” — I thought he was a former Democrat.
Gotta love the AFP for their editorial choices in photographs though.
Nothing new.
Of course Keyes isnt trying. Trying means spending some of that money he’s gotten for his “campaign”. Instead,he’s going to use it to pay his handlers and himself.
New Jersey? 600 signatures?
800
What the hell happened with Alan Keyes, he had decent name recognition, he’d raised more money than a lot of third party candidates, including McKinney and Baldwin, but he can’t even get on the New Jersey ballot?
New Jersey? 600 signatures?
I mean, I didn’t expect him to get on the New York ballot or in Ohio, but I expected him to at least have his shit together to get the ballots that required 1,500 sigs or below like Iowa, Washington, Mississippi, Vermont and so on…
It’s embarrassing that someone so relatively well known could prove to be so inept at this sort of thing.
Maybe it just shows how rare Nader is in third party politics in that he can get on even large ballot lines as an independent candidate without having a national third party behind him with experience with ballot access and third party politics.
The PSL is rather impressive with what it’s managed to accomplish this year, but it’s like Keyes isn’t even trying.
Sure, anything can happen.
Call me crazy–but I see Nader’s Ecology Parties forming up with the Peace and Freedom Party.
According to BAN
Socialist Workers: likely to be on in Colorado, Delaware, D.C., Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, Minn., Miss., New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont and Washington.
Party for Socialism and Liberation: Ark., Colo., Florida, Iowa, Louisiana, New Jersey, New York, Rhode Island, Utah, Vermont, Wash., and Wis.
Socialist: likely on in Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, Rhode Island, Tennessee, Vermont, Wisconsin, and possibly Ohio.
Prohibition Party: Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, Mississippi, and Tennessee.
America’s Independent Party has Alan Keyes on the ballot in Colorado and California, although California could be upset by a lawsuit.
State units of the Reform Party that support Ted Weill for president are on the ballot in Louisiana and Mississippi.
The Boston Tea Party’s presidential candidate is on the ballot in Colorado, and that party is qualified in Florida.
Ralph Nader’s Independent/Ecology Party is on in Florida, Hawaii, and New Mexico (these are included on the chart).
http://www.ballot-access.org/ballot-chart.html
He may have been one of the eleven.
Keyes is going to be on less state ballots than the Party for Socialism and Liberation.
Its not THAT weird that he didnt get mentioned.
Its likely he’ll be kicked off California and only be on in Colorado, Louisiana (hurting my percentage here), Florida, and Tennessee.
Yep, that makes sense too.
They probably got that number here:
http://www.politics1.com/p2008.htm
No. They are not on the ballot in any state.
I wonder if that number includes Imperato and Milnes.
Where AFP got that number is unclear
Possibly from
http://www.ballot-access.org/ballot-chart.html
That lists eight parties in addition to GP, CP, LP, and Nader, but one of those eight is running Nader, for a total of eleven that are on in more than one state.
All the rest are on in one state only, or not at all.
Leave it to the French press to have a more cogent, complete coverage of the presidential race in the US than the MSM. Reuters, AP, NY Times, Time WSJ, ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, & MSNBC should all be ashamed of themselves.