Posted in IPR comments by Aaron Starr, treasurer, Libertarian National Committee:
The Dems and Reps invested a lot of resources these past couple of election cycles in boosting turnout amongst eligible voters who rarely vote. So, if you are going to use percentages, it would be better to use percentage of eligible voting population, rather than percentage of turnout. And even if you use percentage of eligible voting population, you would need to adjust for those states where the LP’s nominees were on the ballot.
I actually analyzed all the elections going back to 1980 based on that, using data from US Elections Project.
In 1980 Ed Clark received 921,299 votes. He was on the ballot in all 50 states plus DC and the eligible voting population was 159,635,102. He received 0.58% of the vote.
In 1984 David Bergland received 228,705 votes. He was on the ballot in 40 states (including DC). The eligible voting population in those states was 125,361,039 (167,701,904 nationwide). He got 0.18% in those states.
In 1988 Ron Paul received 432,179 votes. He was on the ballot in 47 states (including DC), not getting on the ballot in IN, MO, NC and WV. The eligible voting population in those states was 164,071,681 (173,579,281 nationwide). He got 0.26% in those states.
In 1992 Andre Marrou received 291,627 votes and was on the ballot in all states (including DC). The eligible voting population was 179,655,523. He got 0.16%.
In 1996 Harry Browne received 485,798 votes and was on the ballot in all states (including DC). The eligible voting population was 186,347,044. He got 0.26%.
In 2000 Harry Browne received 384,431 votes and was on the ballot in all states (except for AZ). The eligible voting population in those states was 190,973,735 (194,331,436 nationwide). He got 0.20%.
In 2004 Michael Badnarik received 397,265 votes and was on the ballot everywhere except for NH and OK. The eligible voting population in those states was 199,806,005 (203,483,455 nationwide). He got 0.20%.
In 2008 Bob Barr received 523,713 votes and was on the ballot in all but six states (CT, DC, LA, ME, OK, WV). The eligible voting population in those states was 201,753,869 (213,005,467 nationwide). He got 0.26%.
Personally, I believe that in the case of a Libertarian Party Presidential campaign, the number of votes is a better metric than a percentage of turnout or percentage of eligible voting population.
No LP presidential candidate is ever going to be given exposure on the same playing field as the Dems and the Reps, so his vote is pretty much limited to those who have heard and agree with his message or more likely by those who simply dislike the major party candidates that year and want to lodge a protest vote. It’s helpful if there are fewer other third party candidates competing for the vote. As well as Ed Clark did in 1980, I believe he would have done better had John Anderson not been on the ballot.
However, an even better metric than number of votes is the number of new donors who support the party during the Presidential contest. That’s far more valuable to us at this stage of our development because after the campaign you can engage people who join the party. You can’t engage people who vote for our candidate because secret ballots prevent us from discovering who they are.
I do not have data readily available to tell me where Bob Barr would rank according to this metric, but I suspect that Ed Clark would rank #1, followed by Harry Browne and then Bob Barr.
Since Libertarians don’t offer any “perks” to anyone if they get elected, there isn’t much reason to contribute. I believe the whole concept of campaign contributions is just thinly veiled influence buying. Since Libertarians want to drastically shrink government there isn’t much point to bribing them. Just my humble opinion.
Ok…I am converting to Libertarian as their concepts and ideals fit neatly into mine for the most part.
However, it looks like there is no growth rate for this party. It should not be this way after this many years since inception. Why?
I realize that exposure for the big two is the excuse, but I see that as an excuse. Something is wrong. I have no clue, but something is wrong.
I am sure it is a combination of things. Individuals I talk to view the party as “not serious”, oddities, a joke, not a professional portrayal. I don’t see it this way and would like to attempt an argument.
Shouldn’t this party have more money with the business platform ideals? I would think corporations would be pouring money into this party, even if they need the Republicans.
I can understand the party being an extreme underdog but I cannot understand why this party cannot gain any votes at all in the presidential elections. 2008 should have been their biggest given the fact many a people are sickened by both parties.
Libertarian party needs some type of change in strategy on how they portray themselves, send the message or who they endorse……something….I don’t know, but I will vote for ya.
“Libertarians were given assurances that there would be wholesale change in our fortunes as a result of the new candidate and platform.”
Nobody on my watch was allowed to promise that platform reform was a silver bullet, instead of the removal of one roadblock. On May 17, 2007, I posted on LPplatform-discuss: “We don’t need to make the Platform into a marketing silver bullet, we just need it to stop being a poison pill.” On June 3, 2007: “Making the Platform be ecumenical among the principled brands of libertarianism is not a silver bullet and won’t have immediate impact on membership numbers, but it will remove a significant roadblock to our effectiveness.”
And remember what we told you at the Reform Caucus booth in Denver:
We know you Radicals are out there. We see you online. We know that you’re afraid. You’re afraid of us, you’re afraid of change. We don’t know the future. We didn’t come to Denver to tell you how this is going to end. We came here to tell you how this is going to begin. It’s going to begin by us showing these delegates what you don’t want them to see. We’re going to show them a Platform without exclusivism — without litmus tests and laundry lists, without personal secession or private WMDs. A Platform that makes LP unity possible. Where we go from there is a choice we leave to the delegates.
And to the voters. Note that the Reform Caucus never once took a position on who to nominate in Denver.
P.S. I will cop to making one implicit promise: that uses of the LP platform to attack the LP would essentially stop. As far as I’ve noticed, that’s what has happened.
I said:
This wasn’t clear. What I meant to say was that the 1996 Browne campaign followed the Marrou 100% sharing model, and the results were similarly good.
Sigh. It sure would be nice to have an honest discussion on level, solid ground, rather than on shifting sand.
Can you please quote any section of anything I said that implies I believe in cheating people out of what they are due? If so, please cite it. Otherwise, you should understand that it’s quite rude to put words in the mouths of others.
If you’re arguing that a presidential campaign should be run so poorly and sloppily that it breaks its word to its staffers, then I don’t agree with you. It isn’t the LP’s responsibility to subsidize poor financial management. In any case, sharing the database with the LP is not related at all to whether any campaign pays down its debt.
I was a national staffer in 1991-1992 while the Marrou campaign was going on. Right after the nomination, Marrou hired a single staffer and rented an office in LPHQ’s building (when it was in its old row house at 1528 Pennsylvania Ave SE in DC). Their single computer was networked directly with LPHQ’s system. Every time a new prospect was found by the campaign, their staffer placed the new name on the LP’s database system. Likewise, if anyone on either “Marrou’s” or the “LP’s” list gave money to the campaign, the staffer simply entered the contribution with a special code that indicated it was a campaign contribution rather than an LP contribution, and they filed their own FEC reports based on that information.
For the year and a half of the campaign, **every** name acquired by Marrou was shared with the LP the instant it was acquired, and vice-versa. There was none of this amateur-hour “let’s wait until the end of the campaign to see if we still need to raise money to get out of debt, before we give our precious list to the LP” BS.
It was the Marrou campaign’s tight integration with the LP database that was a major factor in the LP’s steady increase in size between August 1991 (remember that the nominating convention was the prior, rather than the year of, election) and April 1993. The steady stream of new inquiries coming in from the campaign over that period were cultivated by a steady direct mail program by LPHQ, and as a result, membership set a new record by the end of March 1993, at 12,400. I note here with interest that then-ED Nick Dunbar shortly thereafter was sent packing, and all of the direct mail procedures that had been developed were promptly shut off. The predictable result was that LP membership rapidly slumped — dropping to 8500 or something in late 1993 or early 1994.
The Browne campaign in 1996 did the same thing.
The way to grow the LP has been amply demonstrated. It seems that Libertarians have a determination, however, to ignore past successes and to refuse to accept what have been proven to be “best practices”.
tk, yes, but my understanding is that industry practice is that lists are turned over AFTER debt is retired. The organization is less likely to do so if they impair their asset.
Robert,
No, Marc isn’t saying that staff shouldn’t be paid what they contracted for. He’s saying that staff should be paid what they’re owed by the organization that owes it to them (the campaign which hired them and contracted with them) rather than by a separate organization (the party).
Anderson was up on network TV arguing against the two-party duopoly.
[1980] was almost 30 years ago, [Opinion] “Mostly he didn’t like Reagan, and was a media darling who seemed to relish the national limelight for the first time in his career.”
Well, on the candidate’s side, Mister Anderson spent the 1980s TRYING to work with officials all over the political spectrum.
On the field operations, his print media and tele vision attention came after tons of ‘boots on the ground’ efforts to SUCCESSFULLY register the National Unity Party on all fifty electoral districts [states]. The two sides of the coin played into each other.
At the local [Phoenix] mall, we were interviewed on air numerous times in 1980.
mm, sure, I’m with you. An L prez candidate should aim to party build.
But are you saying that staff shouldn’t be paid what they contracted for? If one “likes” how the campaign was run, they should be paid, but if one doesn’t like it, they shouldn’t?
Seems kinda un L to me 😉
There shouldn’t be any “consideration” at all.
The presidential campaign is not about the candidate, nor is it about his future plans to run for congress or some other office, or even about covering up for sloppy campaign money management. Instead, LP presidential campaigns should be about recruiting new members into the LP so that our cadre will be larger in the next presidential election. If the candidates do not understand that they’re not going to win and that this election is not about this election but the NEXT election, then they have no business seeking the nomination.
I will support nominating a candidate who might actually excite and invigorate new libertarians enough so they would join the LP and add to our efforts. I will not support a candidate who is intent on not making waves so they can appeal to the so-called “mainstream” and has no visible plan to recruit more members.
It just so happens that I have one of Anderson’s campaign commercials online.
And it just so happens that I didn’t re-watch it before posting that comment…and you’re right. He didn’t really rail against the duopoly.
I still think, however, that his comments about voting his conscience instead of his party may have helped shake people lose from the two-party candidates.
jy: Anderson was up on network TV arguing against the two-party duopoly.
me: 1980 was almost 30 years ago, but I don’t recall Anderson saying that. He was a sitting R congressman, as I recall. Mostly he didn’t like Reagan, and was a media darling who seemed to relish the national limelight for the first time in his career.
On the other hand, Anderson was up on network TV arguing against the two-party duopoly. I’d guess that helped Clark quite a bit. Barry Commoner’s Citizens Party ticket also did very well for a new party that year, racking up 0.3% of the vote nationwide despite being on the ballot in only 29 states.
JY, possibly. The ex.s you cite were in the pre-TV era, which may or may not be applicable.
Impossible to know. Uncontrollable circumstances are what they are. When the Clark campaign started, they didn’t know Anderson was going to go independent.
I disagree with Aaron that Ed Clark would have done better if John Anderson hadn’t been running in 1980. Historically, third-party candidates tend to do better when other third-party candidates also do well. The best showings of the Prohibition Party (1892) and the Socialist Party (1912) came when there were other very strong third party candidates on the ballot (James Weaver and Theodore Roosevelt, respectively).
My theory for why this is the case is that a large part of third-party campaigning involves convincing people to vote third party rather than for one of the major parties. A well-funded campaign like Anderson’s can shake loose a lot of voters who don’t really want to vote for Anderson, and who may then vote for another candidate like Ed Clark.
Around, it might be wise to have such a contract. The campaign and the LNC would need to address what the consideration would be for retiring outstanding debt that the campaign may have.
It would appear, from Mr. Montoni’s analysis, that the LP has a real problem (except for 1989-92) overcoming the Presidential candidate’s failure to share the donor list. Maybe every candidate under consideration for the nomination has to pledge to execute a binding contract that gives the LNC immediate and full access to their list if they receive the nomination.
Delegates could then vote accordingly.
As to measures of support, why not adopt the one used by most retailers: change in “same store” sales? That is, for states that allow voter registration as a Libertarian, track it annually.
It shows how well the label is doing and is an additional marker on how well the state’s LP leadership is doing. Mr. Boaz’ poll or Liberty’s or whomever’s may show who thinks like a libertarian but registration as a Libertarian is much more indicative of the health of the LP
sure, votes are important too, but are always clouded by things such as uncompetitive races,
particularly nasty opponents where “throw the bums out” takes hold, lack of publicity, non-partisan races, and unimportant offices being sought.)
I do believe another typo needs fixing in the next to last ‘graph:
“…Presidential content.” should be “…Presidential contest.”
New donors is a great metric for measuring party building.
Peak national polling seems a great metric for the campaign’s effectiveness.
I happen to agree that this is probably our most important metric for now. However…
Not even close on guess #3.
If one researches Party history rather than engage in self-congratulatory speculation, 2008 was a year when the LP lost ground on the major metric (membership/donors) for only the second time in a presidential year. Take a look at month-to-month LPHQ membership reports since 1987 and even earlier. Typically, election membership “bumps” begin a few months before the date of election, then end when the trend is no longer “up” for more than a couple of months. Understandable — success builds on itself, and so does failure. Once momentum is lost, it takes something new to get it spooled up again, perhaps like a new membership drive, or a successful fundraising tour by the national director, etc — or the beginning of the next presidential campaign.
Granted, figures are not available for every month in the early years. But anyway, according to membership statistics published by the LP:
LP membership went from 6954 in November 1980 and rose fairly constantly until peaking at 8124 in August 1981 (source: LPNews). Almost 9 months of post-election growth. Clark shared his list fully with the LP.
LP membership went from ~7000 in October 1984, and rose fairly constantly until peaking at 7923 in May 1985. ~ 6 months of post-election growth. Bergland shared his list fully with the LP. (source: LPHQ membership report)
LP membership went from 6253 in December 31, 1988, and rose fairly constantly until peaking at just over 12,000 by February 1992. Over three years of post-election growth. And this despite the fact that Ron Paul did NOT share his contributor list with the LP. As an aside, I attribute this period of steady growth to rather excellent steering of the national office’s direct mail operations, tight expense controls, and generally excellent management under then-ED Nick Dunbar.
LP membership went from 11416 as of December 31, 1992, and rose fairly constantly until peaking at about 12,400 by April 1993. 4 months of post-election growth. Marrou shared his list fully with the LP.
LP membership went from 21580 as of October 31, 1996, and rose fairly constantly until peaking at a hair under 34,000 in May 2000. Over three years of post-election growth. Browne shared his list fully with the LP.
LP membership went from 32771 as of October 31, 2000, and rose to 33194 in November, and stayed within a few dozen of that number until March of 2001 — an interesting feat considering that a significant nastytarian campaign against anyone in the LP who actually **did** anything was in full swing… Browne shared his list fully with the LP.
The 2004 membership reports were fudged, and the database was largely hosed by a very clumsy changeover, so no analysis is possible nationwide; however, I audited the membership list in Virginia (which has historically tracked national trends rather closely) and found that membership declined steadily between September 2004 and … well… basically the end of 2007; with the exception of occassional bumps upward for a month or two at a time. Badnarik did NOT share his list with the LP as a whole but did offer it to the state parties.
In 2008… well, the Barr campaign probably can be credited with some of the growth between May and November, but membership began declining right away, in December 2008 — a far more immediate downturn than was once the case with past LP presidential campaigns. Barr has NOT shared his list with the LP (at least if he has, it hasn’t been publicized).
So the 2008 after-election downturn is new. Prior to 2008, the LP would run out of steam months or years after the campaign. This time, membership and fundraising decline began even before the campaign ended. Has it really turned around yet?
It **could** be argued that the 2004 & 2008 campaigns have set a new model where the presidential campaign does not contribute significantly to LP growth and does not share its database.
Libertarians were given assurances that there would be wholesale change in our fortunes as a result of the new candidate and platform. Change there has indeed been; and the results are as obvious as the nose on one’s face.
It doesn’t matter how much money you have, it matters how you spend it. Who ever our candidate is needs to be seen and heard everyday on the Net, television, and in print. What Wayne Allyn Root is doing is perfect for the Libertarian Party. We need to keep the Party in the thoughts and minds of American voters.
This looks useful. But I understand that eligible voters is an innaccurate figure in e.g. Florida, where at various times anywhere from about 10% to 30% of the information is incorrect.
The money was really not that helpful to Clark. What was very helpful was a lot of time from nomination to election to build a program of speaking to some 500 colleges and local groups. This has never been repeated exactly in the US.
JF @ 4
I believe both money and activists are necessary.
“number of new donors”?
As long as the LP operates as a fund raising organization, it can probably sustain itself in perpetuity.
If it ever wants to actually reduce the size and scope of government it will need political activists, not hired help, arm-chair philosophers or petty bureaucrats.
I believe that both the supporters and detractors of Bob Barr overreach when it comes to drawing their conclusions, at least when it comes to vote totals as a percentage of the eligible voting population (i.e. excluding non-citizens and many convicted felons).
Ignoring the Ed Clark campaign, which had the benefit of billionaire VP nominee David Koch pouring millions of dollars into his own race, the data suggests that Bob Barr did no better (and no worse) than the two best campaigns we ever had — Paul 1988 and Browne 1996.
fixed
Can someone insert the word “Presidential” so that it reads “No LP Presidential candidate” in the third paragraph from the bottom?
Thanks.