Under the headline “Wallace, Perot — And Barr?” the Raleigh News and Observer reports Libertarian presidential nominee Bob Barr “was a spoiler in North Carolina after all.” While Barr “received a minuscule number of votes in November, he still got more votes than the margin of difference” between Barack Obama and John McCain. Barr’s “25,722 votes were more than one-and-a-half times the 14,192 margin that made Obama the winner of the state. Put another way, Barr had about 0.6 percent of the vote, while the margin was about 0.3 percent.”
The newspaper says that “puts Barr into elite company in North Carolina: Only five third-party presidential candidates earned enough votes to affect the outcome in North Carolina since 1908. They are: George Wallace in 1968, Theodore Roosevelt in 1912, Ross Perot in 1992 and in 1996 and John Anderson in 1980. (Technically, Roosevelt did not earn more than the margin of Woodrow Wilson’s win, but he came in second, so we count him.)”
I doubt Badnarik would write a love letter to Jess Helms. Maybe that made a difference.
This suggests that a real libertarian candidate could have earned even more votes
Like Michael Badnarik?
Oh wait….
Rock on!
Do you have that kind of breakdown for all the states?
Barr did well in North Carolina. His .60% in that state is the best in the party’s history for president in North Carolina. The NC percentage for the Libertarian presidential candidate has been: 1976 .13%; 1980 .52%; 1984 .17%; 1988 not on ballot; 1992 .20%; 1996 .35%; 2000 .48%; 2004 .34%.
I voted for Baldwin as a write-in in CT. If he had not been a registered write-in I would have probably voted for Nader. If I had to choose between BO and JM, I would either not have voted or possibly flipped a coin or something.
I do think Chris’s point, that Barr was unpopular among libertarian voters, is significant. This suggests that a real libertarian candidate could have earned even more votes.
I was going to suggest that Strom Thurmond, in 1948, probably covered the spread…but he didnt…
<i.Chris Cole – B.S. Using simple math to refute a preposterous assertion is “overanalyzing”?
Barr was no such thing, and it serves no purpose to believe in stupid hypothesis.
You are overanalyzing this. “Balance of power” merely refers to the hypothetical possibility that the voters for the “spoiler” candidate could have tipped the election the other way, in the absence of that candidate. That is certainly the case with barr’s vote in North Carolina. However, the other statewide LP candidates, while not gaining balance of power, received five- to six-times as many votes here, and Barr was very unpopular among NC Libertarians, because of his continuing support of Republican candidates, even with Libertarian opponents.
Absolutely ridiculous assertion. Do the math.
First, assume that none of the persons who voted for Barr would have written-in a presidential choice. (highly unlikely)
Obama won by 14,192 votes.
Barr got 25,722 votes
For a tie, the Barr voters need to have chosen McCain by a margin of
19,957 to 5,765;
OR
77.6% to 22.4%
Again, this is only if persons voting for Barr would have voted for either McCiain or Obama in his absence from the poll, and not written in another choice, which is very improbable.
This article had four authors: Rob Christensen, Ryan Teague Beckwith, Mark Johnson and Ben Niolet. The question should be whether the four graduated all the way from 6th grade at Bugtussel Elementary, or whether the Bodine/Clampet families home-tutored them in ‘rithmetic. Ciphering is tough, even with your shoes off, when the numbers are greater than 20.