Party performance at the top of the ballot: 2010 vs. 2006

Ballot Access News:

Preliminary election returns show these national totals for each party, in the November 2010 election, for the office at the top of the ballot. “Office at the top of the ballot” means Governor. If a state had no gubernatorial election, it means U.S. Senate. For the four states that had neither a gubernatorial nor a U.S. Senate election, it means U.S. House of Representatives.

The 2010 results are: Republican 49.1%; Democratic 45.6%; independent candidates 1.2%; Libertarian 1.1%; Constitution 1.0%; Green .6%; all other parties 1.4%.

By comparison, the 2006 results for the office at the top of the ballot were: Democratic 49.3%; Republican 45.7%; independent candidates 2.2%; Green 1.2%; Libertarian 1.0%; Constitution .2%; other parties .4%.

Compiling these number, totals for non-Democrat/Republican: 5.0% in 2006 5.3% in 2010.

Among those, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties did better this year than four years ago, while the other alternative choices did worse.

27 thoughts on “Party performance at the top of the ballot: 2010 vs. 2006

  1. Single Winner Districts = Neanderthal Attractor

    I’m not the only one screwing up around here, I just deleted all the ads from The USA Parliament, Inc.’s web site, and at the search engine http://www.GoNott.com (be sure to sign up on the BoD!)

    MP Richard Winger [Libertarian] , MP Ralph Nader [Independent] and scores and scores well intentioned folks at the Libertarian, Green, Peace and Freedom, American Independent and Constitution are all continually piling up more and more mistakes that are equally…well stupid.

    They’re all readying themselves for their dramatic and costly failures in the years to come.

    I can see total failure through 2014, the path these jerks are going. (Not to mention, my ad program probably won’t make a cent!) What’s the old saying “we’re all bozos on this bus”?

  2. paulie Post author

    source site get link purpose of the study dissertation source resume examples with objective statement go macbeth essay topic how do i know what generation my ipad is a1670 cheap essay writing service http://admissions.iuhs.edu/?page_id=princeton-philosophy-viagra ap biology homework help https://goodsamatlanta.org/patients/can-i-buy-viagra-in-russia/01/ professional online resume source https://grad.cochise.edu/college/thesis-builder-for-descriptive-essay/20/ go source link help with my professional descriptive essay on hillary clinton can you take nitroglycerin viagra https://thejeffreyfoundation.org/newsletter/research-paper-examples-mla-style/17/ laboratorios india cialis https://dvas.org/viagra-kopen-bij-drogist-4520/ https://campcorral.org/help/custom-report-writing/12/ go site ventolin usa follow site essay outstanding educator qualities viagra en pharmacie writer job openings real viagra online canadian pharmacy essay writing tips for gre top thesis editing site for phd Among those, the Libertarian and Constitution Parties did better this year than four years ago, while the other alternative choices did worse.

    However, I think the CP percentage Richard calculated included Nightingale in California. If we exclude California, the Libertarians were the only ones who did better than four years ago.

    https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2010/11/presidential-race-2012-third-party-stats-concerning-ballot-status/

    Greens and Libertarians improved ballot access coming out of 2010, Constitution Party lost ballot access compared with 4 years ago.

    So, the Libertarians were the only ones that clearly did better in both categories.

  3. Cody Quirk

    I think the IAP did better this year then the last. Though our Gubernatorial candidate was a disappointment.

  4. Gene Berkman

    Paulie @ 2 – Chelene Nightingale did do better than the AIP candidate for Governor in 2006, and Chelene is with the Constitution Party faction of the AIP.

    The real boost for the Constitution Party was the vote total for Tom Tancredo in Colorado.

  5. paulie Post author

    Yes, I know – my point is that there is an open question about whether her run should count towards the CP numbers or not. You are correct about Tancredo.

  6. JT

    Analyzing which alternative parties did better or worse by less than 1 percentage point? Wow. Carry on.

  7. kevin knedler

    Ohio 2006— 1 candidate with no party label. Total vote count was 71,500 votes.

    Ohio 2010— 45 candidates WITH party label.
    Total vote count nearly 1 million votes.

    Looks to be an improvement.

  8. George Whitfield

    Hi Kevin, That really is an improvement. Congratulations to you and all of the Ohio LP candidates, members and supporters.

  9. Robert Capozzi

    ADR, but 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2% are just not significant differences to draw any conclusion…at least I don’t. It all rounds to 1%.

    The 46/49 flip of the Rs and Ds makes sense. No surprise, and it appears to be an OK metric to get an overall sense of the aggregated voter party leanings.

    Microscopic data often misses the big picture.

  10. Be Rational

    Actually, there is only a small difference in the D and R voting percenages: a change of + or – 3.4 to 3.7 percentage points has resulted in major changes in outcomes.

    This means that even changes of less than 1 percentage point can be significant.

    So: (assuming the data is accurae)

    Independents showed a significant decline: from 2.2% to 1.2%.

    Greens showed a significant decline: from 1.2% to 0.6%.

    All other parties showed a major decline: from 1.4% to 0.4%.

    The Constitution Party showed a major increase: from 0.2% to 1.0%. (Although, as some have pointed out, this may be mostly due to a single candidate and partly to one that doesn’t belong in this group.)

    The Libertarian Party showed a non-statistically significant increase from 1.0% to 1.1%. However, this is the best result and the only true increase among all third parties and independents (removing the misleading outliers fromthe Constitution Party results).

    Furthermore, the LP increased the number of states in which it holds ballot status following the election.

    On top of this, there were additional 5 states where a small investment by the National Party could have won ballot status for the LP.

    And Paulie made one factual error, the ballot status count for the Greens has declined significantly according to Ballot Access News.

    The Greens have had serious declines this year.

  11. Robert Capozzi

    br, yes, 3-4 percentage points are significant when a party is near a plurality. 0.1 percentage points are IMO not significant when a party is not on the radar screen.

    Critics of Root and other “right” Ls aren’t saying, wow, 0.1%, the Root factor is working! Maybe I should reconsider my abolitionist approach!

    That would be silly, of course. Now, if the LP were to grow to the margin of 3-4% of the vote, THAT would be a huge and significant milestone.

  12. Hmmm ...

    @13 Yes. We are in agreement on the stats, I think. D and R changes were significant. The other 3rd party declines were significant. The LP 0.1% increase, not significant.

    However, this is only one stat. and one factor to look at.

    Many State LPs did have significant improvements in performance: Texas, Ohio and New York for example. And we should look at more than just the top of the ticket comparison.

  13. Paulie

    And Paulie made one factual error, the ballot status count for the Greens has declined significantly according to Ballot Access News.

    My data is from Ballot Access News. See my comment in the other thread previously referenced, I’ll transfer it over momentarily.

  14. Paulie

    Richard Winger wrote: The Libertarian Party now has an automatic spot on the 2012 presidential ballot in 26 states. If it meets the vote tests in New York and/or Utah, that will go up to either 27 or 28. Four years ago at this time, the Libertarian Party had presidential ballot status in 24 states. The changes relative to mid-November 2006, and now, are: gains in Nebraska, North Carolina, and Ohio; and a loss in Wisconsin.

    The Green Party now has an automatic spot on the 2012 presidential ballot in 14 states. Four years ago at this time, the Green Party had it in 18 states. The changes relative to mid-November 2006, and now, are: gains in New York, Ohio, Texas, and West Virginia; and losses in Delaware, Illinois, Nebraska, Nevada, New Mexico, Oregon, Vermont, and Wisconsin.

    The Constitution Party now has an automatic spot on the 2012 presidential ballot in 12 states. Four years ago at this time, the Constitution Party had it in 13 states. Changes are: gains in Missouri, Ohio, and Wisconsin; and losses in California, Delaware, Montana, and Nebraska.

    Parties with the name “Independent Party”, “Independence Party”, “Moderate Party”, “Reform Party”, or “Natural Law Party” are ballot-qualified for president in 2012 in these 13 states: Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Kansas, Louisiana, Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, New Mexico, New York, Oregon, Rhode Island, and South Carolina. This does not mean that these 13 state parties are necessarily associated with each other. They are all parties without a fixed ideology. The New Mexico Independent Party is still ballot-qualified for president because it met the vote test of one-half of 1% for President in 2008, and New Mexico gives parties that meet the vote test two elections. However, the New Mexico Independent Party appears to be defunct. The others are all functioning and had candidates on ballots in 2010.

    My analysis:

    LP: North Carolina and Ohio are big ballot access jobs. Especially North Carolina….they give you a long time to do it, but it was about 100,000 signatures.

    Nebraska is not as bad on paper, but we found the situation on the ground to be a lot more difficult…I have never in 12 years and over 30 states encountered a state where it was nearly so difficult to get ballot access signatures for an alternative party as it was in Nebraska.

    Wisconsin is an easy state, so that’s not a huge loss. LP is better off, especially if we end up getting NY.

    Greens are better off as well..NY and TX far outweigh the states they lost, and Ohio pretty much balances out Illinois.

    I would say the Constitution Party is on balance worse off, but only if they can’t get the courts to give them California back. If they do, Missouri and Ohio trump the states they lost.

    I don’t agree with Richard that all the parties in the last paragraph have no fixed ideology. Some of them have a centrist/moderate ideology.

    If the NM Independent Party is defunct, the Libertarians or Greens should take it over. It’s easier to get signatures to get an “independent party” on the ballot because many people don’t know there’s more than one “independent” alternative party. And, wherever voter registration is a criterion for permanent ballot access, having “independent” in the name of your party is a huge plus.

  15. Paulie

    I stand by this analysis. The Greens are worse off in terms of number of states, but not all states are equal. New York and Texas are a far bigger deal than the states they lost.

    Otherwise, I completely agree with Be Rational @12.

  16. Be Rational

    Paulie,

    I was indeed merely going by state count in saying that the Greens had lost ground. Your analysis of which states are more valuable is certainly correct. So, in terms of difficulty, the Greens may have gained more than they lost.

    For the LP, Wisconsin is not a big loss, since every candidate, other than president, needs the same number of signatures for each office and President is not difficult. However, it’s a disappointing loss, since any statewide candidate can win Ballot Status with 1% of the vote. The Wisconsin LP didn’t try.

    Also, the Fat Lady hasn’t sung yet in New York. They haven’t counted absentee or military ballots yet (estimated 250,000+) and they are still re-canvassing the official votes. Warren Redlich could still pick up the approximately 4,000 additional votes he needs.

  17. paulie Post author

    Acknowledged; as I said earlier LP is better off, especially if we end up getting NY

    But that is out of our hands for now (except those who are in NY or willing and able to go there to help with the vote counting and observation process), so let’s hope for the best.

    Something we *can* do in the short term:

    Maryland Libertarians have until Jan 2 to get on the ballot before they lose their 9,000 or so voter registrations to be reverted to independent.

    If they get to ~35k registrations they get permanent ballot status, but they have to start from scratch every time they lose their voter registrations.

    If we can raise $35k or so we have Libertarian petitioners ready to go.

    If Maryland gets on the ballot they have access for all races for 2012 and 2014, President as well as state/local. They can still do that later but if we don’t start soon they will lose their voter registrations.

    If anyone wants to discuss additional details, you can write me off-list if you have my email, post a comment here with your correct email address included (it doesn’t have to be publicly viewable – I can see the email addresses that are not apparent on the publicly viewed page), or call me at 415-690-6352 begin_of_the_skype_highlighting 415-690-6352 end_of_the_skype_highlighting.

    Since we are talking about Ohio, we got the bulk of the signatures in Ohio which formed the basis for the lawsuit that gave them ballot status.

    We also have done Maryland more than once before.

    Maryland Greens have already started petitioning for 2012 in anticipation of the election and are a good chunk of the way to being done.

  18. paulie Post author

    Oops, that comment about Ohio in the penultimate sentence is a non-sequitur here, I copied the comment from a previous thread. The rest still applies.

  19. AroundtheblockAFT

    Does anyone else (other than Mr. Milnes) think it is time for a wholesale soul-searching of the LP’s mission and “how it goes to market?” Where is the forum for brainstorming ways to change emphasis, direction, goals, strategy, tactics, etc. etc.???

  20. david

    Whitfield, what drugs are you on? Ohio LP candidates are basically conservative -Reform Caucus kooks like Kevin. They’re destroying the party, not building it IMHO.

  21. NewFederalist

    “Whitfield, what drugs are you on? Ohio LP candidates are basically conservative -Reform Caucus kooks like Kevin. They’re destroying the party, not building it IMHO.”

    That’s why they call them minor parties, folks.

  22. paulie Post author

    Does anyone else (other than Mr. Milnes) think it is time for a wholesale soul-searching of the LP’s mission and “how it goes to market?”

    Lots of people always think that.

    Where is the forum for brainstorming ways to change emphasis, direction, goals, strategy, tactics, etc. etc.???

    Numerous IPR threads have asked these questions, and many people have offered their opinions.

    If you would like to offer yours – don’t be shy, go for it.

  23. paulie Post author

    Ohio LP candidates are basically conservative

    Travis Irvine did not strike me as a conservative. I like his videos a lot.

    I haven’t really paid close enough attention to every Ohio LP candidate to judge your statement, but I do take into consideration that you are the same person who thinks Rachel Hawkridge of all people is a right wing GOP plant.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *