Most people are aware now that Governor Gary Johnson received over 1% of the vote, including over 1.1 million raw votes. However, it has been harder to find information about the Presidential candidates who did not perform as well.
Jill Stein currently has 396, 684 votes–she is expected to clear 400k easily once all votes are in, including write-ins.
Virgil Goode currently has 108,195 votes–he is expected to clear 115k votes in total, including write-ins. That number could go as high as 130k.
Roseanne Barr, without any write-in votes included, has polled 49,412 votes, which will likely be good enough for sixth place. With write-ins and remaining votes to be counted, Barr is expected to get over 50k.
Rocky Anderson’s vote total currently stands at 34,521. With remaining votes and write-ins, he might reach 40k.
Thomas Hoefling scored 28,593 votes so far, with 94.6% of those votes coming from California.
So far, no other candidate has received more than 15k votes. All of this information is from Google (except Goode’s numbers), so it should be taken with a grain of salt. These are not final numbers. Richard Winger suspects as many as 8% of votes are left to be counted.
What you’re really saying is that I can’t belong to a family, since my family might threaten other families.
No, only that you can’t use government force to reinforce your idea of belonging. Libertarians fully support the right of free association.
By the way, do Jews have a right to self-preservation, even though that preservation is based on blood, on discouraging young Jews from marrying and reproducing with people who happened not to be born Jewish?
Not by government force.
Starchild – i respectfully disagree. people naturally find themselves as part of communities based on characteristics they did not “choose” for themselves as adults. There is nothing wrong with this as long as these communities do not seek to oppress OTHER groups. By denying the validity of communal identity, you are forcing your hyper individualistic views upon them. A racial group is simply an extended family, inbred to some extent. What you’re really saying is that I can’t belong to a family, since my family might threaten other families.
By the way, do Jews have a right to self-preservation, even though that preservation is based on blood, on discouraging young Jews from marrying and reproducing with people who happened not to be born Jewish?
“Foreign policy” is sufficiently good enough shorthand for me. Bottom line is that many people, not just libertarians, understand that it is one of the three main areas of government policy. I’ve given examples from within and outside the libertarian movement.
I think I had it right the first time.
-Libervention Price Club
Since the existing quiz doesn’t filter out people who disagree with us fundamentally, even directionally, we end up with a confused mishmash that doesn’t forthrightly and consistently argue against
interventionismaggression both “at home” and “abroad”.There, fixed that for ya.
Paulie @75 writes, “If you don’t want to call it foreign policy call it something else.”
That’s just the problem. I can’t think of anything that both (a) makes sense as an independent philosophical category on par with the existing civil liberties and economic freedom categories (something your or Ivan Eland’s proposed life/liberty/property or peace/freedom/prosperity triad might conceivably do), and (b) sufficiently addresses the difficulties I discussed @52 and @70 .
I would only score government interventionism on issues that are actual issues in the public debate.
We could certainly bring in all kinds of off-the-wall, obscure or non-controversial issues into a quiz…but I would limit it to questions of public policy that are at the forefront of policy debates among the general public.
And there are ways of scoring government intervention against mugging/murder that a libertarian wouldn’t like.
The point remains: “war vs. peace” and “life vs. death” don’t capture a distinction relevant for measuring libertarian-ness. A better try would be to make the dimension be about aggression against those outside our borders. But those who call themselves antiwar/anti-empire don’t want to frame it that way — for obvious reasons.
Obviously, there are ways to score this that “antiwar” types would not like.
Naturally, there are ways of scoring government inteventionism in economic or social policies in ways non-interventionists on those scales wouldn’t like as well.
Although we put the freedom end on top, one can just as easily scale a quiz asking the same questions which puts the “government protects society from moral perversion” and “government protects the economic well-being of citizens” at the top of their respective scales.
the second set of questions seems to fall pretty comfortably into social policy, so that’s already covered (although not on the standard quiz, it falls into the model).
Some of the first set – trade, for example – is clearly economic issues.
Migration is not only an economic issue, since some of it may have to do with cultural or religious discrimination, some economic, some war related, etc. So I would think migration would be on the foreign policy, or whatever you want to call it dimension of my hypothetical 3D quiz.
Secession, UN, International law: I would most group those with foreign policy. They don’t seem to fit in more closely with that social or economic policy.
So, I’d say the first set of issues is what I mean.
If you don’t want to call it foreign policy call it something else.
Reagan’s coalition was a “three legged stool” – military interventionism, relatively free markets (although that part turned out to be mostly just rhetoric) and social conservatism. The LP/LM is a bit off balance because we (sort of) pretend one of those legs doesn’t exist or is irrelevant to whether you’re on our side or not in our basic sorting tool.
Here it is in an iframe:
NF, you should try the World’s Smallerest Political Quiz:
It’s both smaller and more comprehensive than the WSPQ. An interactive version is at http://libertarianmajority.net.
As Starchild suggests, a more generalized way to make “foreign policy” a third Nolan dimension is to ask: to what extent should states recognize/defend the rights of those outside their borders? Obviously, there are ways to score this that “antiwar” types would not like.
One could generalize further, and make this third dimension be about inclusivity vs. exclusivity of enfranchisement. I discussed this a while back at http://blog.knowinghumans.net/2009/01/extra-nolan-chart-dimensions.html:
Another candidate dimension is inclusiveness vs. exclusiveness (i.e. enfranchisement) according to attributes such as property ownership, religion, race, gender, citizenship, age, intelligence, sentience, sexual orientation, cryonic suspension, and computational substrate. Who gets enfranchised is a logically separate question from what rights franchisees should enjoy. In the context of statism, enfranchisement of non-citizens suggests support not only for for liberal immigration, foreign aid, and human rights abroad, but also for free trade and humanitarian interventionism (as opposed to isolationism or imperialism). Leftists are generally inclusivist, but they see fetal enfranchisement as an threat to women’s enfranchisement, and often oppose even humanitarian interventionism.
Again, such an analysis would not serve the narrow purposes of “antiwar” types seeking merely to lower the Nolan score of libertarians they disagree with.
I think Milsted has even me classified that way, and I see myself as more of a left libertarian if anything. That’s just the way his measuring system works.
Paulie @54 writes, “Foreign policy is just one common shorthand for what I mean.
War and peace is another.
The categories correspond, roughly, to life, liberty and property.
So the three dimensions (were it simple to graph – technology may solve that) would be a way of asking …
How collectivized do you believe decisions should be over life and death?
How collectivized do you believe decisions should be over social liberty?
How collectivized do you believe decisions should be over personal property?
Ivan Eland, in Recarving Rushmore and perhaps elsewhere, calls it the Peace, Freedom and Prosperity scale (although I don’t know that he has a quiz to match). http://www.lewrockwell.com/ describes two of the three in oppositional terms – anti-war, anti-state, pro-market.”
Okay, when you put it that way I can see a bit better where you’re coming from in suggesting that attitudes toward war or international relations should be considered as on a par in a Nolan-type quiz with attitudes toward civil liberties and economic freedom, as part of a three-legged philosophical triad.
But I still find the proposed third category troublingly vague. After all, “foreign policy” encompasses more than just “war and peace”. There are many other important aspects, concerning matters such as:
• trade
• treaties
• migration
• secession and national recognition
• the UN and international law
• etc.
A series of quiz questions designed to answer the question, “How collectivized do you believe decisions should be over life and death?” would not logically address the above issues, but would logically include important issues that have nothing to do with foreign policy, such as:
• abortion
• “death with dignity” laws
• the death penalty
• etc.
How would you reconcile these problems?
I’m not sure. I hate being called a “right libertarian”!
Not as libertarian as I thought!
You, or Milsted’s Quiz 2D? Both?
@63 That still has nothing to do with my point in bringing up foreign policy as a third dimension.
As I said, all I meant in this case by this statement is that a large military-industrial complex in a nation that polices the world is incompatible with a night watchman minarchist state at home.
I did not mean to imply that a large, overgrown domestic welfare state is likewise incompatible with being a relatively peaceful (to outsiders) nation that pretty much minds its own business and isn’t particularly threatened by others or threatening them in return.
(I eliminated the part about shifting defense burden to other nations since you are disputing that and it wasn’t central to my point anyway).
Not as libertarian as I thought!
http://www.quiz2d.com/quiz/
Oh, Canada was in that chart after all, with an asterisk. Apology. Say, maybe Canada* should always be spelled with an asterisk.
@55, let’s forget mini-states like Luxemburg and Iceland. But I’d like to see the bar for Switzerland, a country whose defense is not “supplied by others,” (and whoever made that particular slam against Sweden perhaps over-stretched rhetoric to make a point.) Also curious about Israel, Canada (whose defense may be more imperiled than supplied by proximity to USA), Brazil, and so forth.
In monetary terms, yes.
But, that doesn’t mean it’s some sort of libertarian civil liberties paradise, or even economic paradise.
Koreans, travelers, expats and those who have worked there have told me numerous stories of ways in which their government is arbitrary, oppressive and stifling. In some ways more so than ours, in some ways less, and in some ways very much the same.
Looking at the overall cost of government only gives you a small piece of that overall picture.
We have one or more people that comment here fairly frequently who live there, so perhaps they may add their perspective as well.
I didn’t say anyone here was. I did say that by ignoring foreign policy, the 2-D quiz opens the door to many people who favor that and consider themselves libertarians. That can still be true even if none of those people are here (as in commenting or for that matter even reading).
My hypothetical 3-D quiz or chart would address that.
Your criticism is valid. Thank you for pointing it out.
However, in context, all I meant in this case by this statement is that a large military-industrial complex in a nation that polices the world is incompatible with a night watchman minarchist state at home.
I did not mean to imply that a large, overgrown domestic welfare state is likewise incompatible with shifting the defense burden to other allied nation states, or even with being a relatively peaceful (to outsiders) nation that pretty much minds its own business and isn’t particularly threatened by others or threatening them in return.
I apologize if my use of the slogan was unclear and created that impression, but your debunking of that tangent is not aimed at what I was getting at. I hope I have now dispelled the misunderstanding that caused this sideline of argumentation about what I never meant to imply by my prior statement.
Every time I’ve seen that graph (maybe 3-4 times in my life), I’ve thought that South Korea seems like the place to be.
Just sayin…. The graph appears to be a fairly exhaustive list of “first world” nations, and South Korea seems to have noticeably smaller government, in monetary terms at least.
a large military-industrial complex in a nation that polices the world is incompatible with a night watchman minarchist state at home
I don’t see anybody here arguing for a large military-industrial complex in a nation that polices the world. I’m just contending that “war is the health of the state” is not a credible empirical explanation for the uniformly large size of the state across the countries in the graph above.
Ripple effects don’t all occur immediately during wars, so that’s besides the point.
OK, that’s true. So, I suppose I should amend my statement to make clear that a large state can still exist when its defense is largely taken care of by others.
That would actually be a point against my thesis…if South Korea was a night watchman state, including in respect to civil liberties. While it may be less of an entitlement state, I don’t think it even remotely approaches minarchy, and as for its militarism – again, a large part is taken care of by others, and it does not in any way approach a “world police” nation, nor is its “technically at war” status anything like a state in the middle of actual warfare.
I’m still contending that the Randian/Liberventionist idea of a large military-industrial complex in a nation that polices the world is incompatible with a night watchman minarchist state at home.
The point of the graphic is not just to show the relative sizes of the warfare and welfare states in the U.S. and U.K — however inconvenient those proportions may be for your thesis. (*)
The even-more-dispositive point is that the welfare state is quite healthy in non-militaristic states like Sweden, and the welfare state can even be relatively diminutive in a technically-still-at-war state like South Korea.
(*) The “ripple effects” caused by shooting wars don’t show up very well in graphs of the size of the state. Quick, spot the multi-year shooting wars in this graph:
Brian,
Your graphic does not address the ripple effects.
There are far too many to try to go through.
Let’s take just a few.
Combat veterans often have physical and emotional problems as a result of war that tax social services and law enforcement. This has an impact on other people in their families and neighborhoods that does as well.
Patriot act, NDAA and so on. Not in your “Empire!” graphic; but they are covered under War is the health of the state.
The police-prison-industrial complex and the drug war, on all sides, is heavily populated with veterans.
Tying medical insurance to employment, which eventually led indirectly to medicare and medicaid, and as the medical price spiral continued to spin to Obamacare? That was a side effect of wartime wage and price controls.
So…I stand by the slogan, your oversimplified graphic notwithstanding.
But congratulations on the search engine optimization success.
?War is the health of the state,? and a standing military ? particularly one maintaining a global garrison state ? always leads to some degree of central economic planning and curtailing of domestic liberties. Generally, this degree grows over time.
(This graphic is now result 27 out of 14,500 on Google Images when searching for “War is the health of the state.”)
Foreign policy is just one common shorthand for what I mean.
War and peace is another.
The categories correspond, roughly, to life, liberty and property.
So the three dimensions (were it simple to graph – technology may solve that) would be a way of asking …
How collectivized do you believe decisions should be over life and death?
How collectivized do you believe decisions should be over social liberty?
How collectivized do you believe decisions should be over personal property?
Ivan Eland, in Recarving Rushmore and perhaps elsewhere, calls it the Peace, Freedom and Prosperity scale (although I don’t know that he has a quiz to match). http://www.lewrockwell.com/ describes two of the three in oppositional terms – anti-war, anti-state, pro-market.
Many policy analysts, not just libertarian, consider social, economic and foreign policy to be the three broad policy areas with which government concerns itself.
Libertarianism, to me, seems stunted because it brushes this major area of government policy under the rug (at least in our broad sorting of people to see whether they are in the general vicinity of being libertarians).
As a result we wind up with a lot of people who lean libertarian on domestic issues – both social and economic – but desire a massive “Team America World Police” Empire/State. The weakness, other than the fact that it puts us within the larger gravitational pull of the right wing establishment, is that a government that maintains a massive military-industrial complex can never coexist in practice with a night watchman state at home. “War is the health of the state,” and a standing military – particularly one maintaining a global garrison state – always leads to some degree of central economic planning and curtailing of domestic liberties. Generally, this degree grows over time.
Government tends to expand, like an organism (parasite), on all fronts. So, when it grows in its reach outside its claimed territory, it invariably grows its tentacles of control inside its territory as well.
Since the existing quiz doesn’t filter out people who disagree with this fundamentally, even directionally, we end up with a confused mishmash that doesn’t forthrightly and consistently argue against interventionism both “at home” and “abroad” (however flawed those concepts ultimately are) as well as on both social and economic issues.
This hole in the libertarian policy map was the cause of much of the decline of the LP after 9/11. In the prior decade we had grown the party quite a bit, but as it turns out many of the people that we brought in simply did not agree with non-interventionism at all when it came to foreign policy. The LP then tried to appease both its hawk and dove wings, and failed to satisfy either, causing many on both ends of that spectrum to leave the party or stop being actively involved.
I’d add this dimension…as soon as it becomes just as cheap and easy to pop up a 3D mapping tool as a paper chart.
I guess I understand the concept, but it just seems wrong to me. Someone who is close to 50-50 doesn’t strike me as a liberal, conservative, authoritarian or libertarian. If there wasn’t already a centrist category I would think it would need to be added.
Paulie @18 – The four quadrants of the Nolan chart already touch each other, even with the “centrist” quintile in place, so I don’t see that eliminating it would change things that much.
Someone whose positions landed them right in the middle of the chart would simply be described as having a mixture of libertarian, authoritarian, left-wing/liberal, and right-wing/conservative views, just as someone whose positions now land them between the libertarian and left-wing/liberal quadrants would be described as having a mixture of those views.
The idea of a third Nolan Chart dimension for foreign policy is very interesting. Foreign policy does seem like a significant missing piece in the current chart configuration.
As important as international affairs are, however, I don’t think that as a category they are quite on a level with the two fundamental categories of personal freedom and economic freedom, which both relate directly to individual rights. Nationalism would also pose a serious complication to any such attempted graphing.
Consider for instance, a question on a hypothetical Nolan Chart graphing attitudes toward government activism in foreign policy, “Should government militarily defend closely allied countries who are attacked?” This question would likely be perceived by many Americans as asking something along the lines of, “If Israel/Britain/Japan/etc. is attacked, should the U.S. government send troops?”, and not, say, “If Syria is attacked, should the Iranian government send troops?”, a question they might answer quite differently!
I suspect that when it comes to “foreign” policy, a high percentage of people have double standards regarding what “their” government should do, versus what other governments should do. This issue does not seem to exist with regard to the current civil and economic liberties questions.
It’s a fascinating problem, and one which I think points to the ultimate fallacy of “foreign policy” as a legitimate philosophical concept in a libertarian worldview.
This is to say, political jurisdictions in the world are ultimately artificial and illegitimate, and neither the relationship of a government to the jurisdiction(s) in which its actions take place, nor the nationalities of the persons who are affected by those actions, are relevant to the question of whether the actions are legitimate in libertarian terms.
He was only on the ballot in one state, Florida, and got 797 votes from the last numbers I saw. That’s 797, not 7,970 or 79,700.
ROFLMAO. OK…..how much would you be willing to bet he got anywhere close to that? I’ll bet you $10,000 he got less than 10,000 votes when all write-ins are officially counted and certified from every state. Bet?
We don’t count them. That’s the job of elections officials. We are volunteer reporters who do this as a hobby. We have no special access to information that you don’t have, so feel free to report whatever you think is relevant and if one of the people who is signed up to post articles here agrees and has time they may even include it in article.
Nothing we can do about that. Shoulda got on the ballot is all I can say. Oh yeah, and that the ballot access laws are total BS.
Some write-in numbers from some states will trickle in over the next few weeks, but the unfortunate reality is that most of the write-in votes will never be counted. Even if they were, I very highly doubt (and that’s an understatement) that Barnett was anywhere close to 200k. In fact, it’s unlikely that many people never even heard of him, much less voted for him.
Mark @35 writes, “The idea that white Americans function as a distinct group with own own interests and these interests ought to be represented in the political system just like other groups are represented — does this always have to be a terrible idea?
Yes, it does. For the same reasons that it’s a terrible idea for people of other ethnicities to be treated as though they need to be politically represented on the basis of race. People are individuals, and as such possess individual rights, respect for which is the basis of a free society. Political representation on the basis of any other inherent (i.e. non-chosen) characteristics — race, nationality, gender, etc. — undermines individual rights and thus threatens freedom.
“Why have the votes for Andre Barnett not been counted. He received over 200K votes amassed in FL, TX, KS, and other states. This is stupid that you are not counting all votes for candidates.”
No. No he didnt. 20k, maybe. But probably not.
The following write-in totals for president are reported on the Connecticut Secretary of State’s website as of this morning:
Jill Stein – 699
Tom Hoefling – 22
Gerald Warner – 19
James Harris – 5
Raymond Sizemore – 5
Stephen Durham – 1
Sizemore was ineligible for the office as he was only 17 years old on election day, as reported in this article in the Connecticut Post newspaper: http://www.ctpost.com/news/article/Keila-Torres-Ocasio-A-surprise-local-candidate-3987570.php
Virgil Goode, Roseanne Barr, and Andre Barnett were among those who weren’t registered write-in choices in Connecticut nor were they on its ballot, so anybody who wrote in those names didn’t get counted.
Why have the votes for Andre Barnett not been counted. He received over 200K votes amassed in FL, TX, KS, and other states. This is stupid that you are not counting all votes for candidates. Not to mention the write ins that are not counted because they number did not outweigh the establishment candidates.
30 plus DC after the election. Best ever as far as I know.
NOW we know why Clymer got the VP nom. If it broke him I guess he deserved the recognition, however it looks to me as an outsider the CP is in decline and needs major work if it is to really matter in the future (>270 ECV Ballot Access). If you aren’t careful you can be in a tailspin in a hurry, ie Reform Party !
You can cut it anyway you wish but 2012 was a BIG year for the LP. Not so much for ALL others. Roseanne would have doubled Stein’s GP total if she would have had the nom. and ballot access. I think she maybe Bi-polar but should have been an interesting debate participate. Yes I was a little shocked that RB’s total was so much higher than Rocky’s, who had like 28% access to her 18% ballot access. I do wonder if the Justice Party continues or is a one and done now the plan? The LP picked up Ballot Access in DC and (?) and retained in (?) states . Overall a GREAT cycle for the LP !*LOL I don’t even know the states but I know it has beed a very GOOD cycle for the LP…..
* * *
Mark (Hinkle), my fundamental sense of betrayal and anger at the LP for its 2008 shenanigans and for its lack of creativity in the fight for freedom at home is far deeper than anyone would imagine from my limited criticism of the party, mentioned briefly in a long talk. May I take your note as an opening for real change within the LP Central Committee and a real commitment to win the battle for hearts and minds across the country? – Karen Kwiatkowski
Any update on how this women did as a R candidate. I haven’t heard in months ?!
…, did any libertarian really believe that the GOP was going to make any significant cuts in government spending? These lying authoritarians have been talking about small government all my life and they have yet to demonstrate this by any actual action. -Tom Blanton
*perhaps the 13M fewer voters are catching on to the FRAUD within the Duopoly TB !
What it means to be a libertarian: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PgTnjTm3YhQ
I realize that thread got sidetracked, but
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2012/11/open-thread-for-election-results/
Here are the 3rd party candidates in NJ with at least 1%. Num by Cong Dist.
http://nj.gov/state/elections/2012-results/2012-unofficial-general-results-house-of-representatives.pdf
1. REITTER
4,059 1.4582%
GREEN PARTY
4. MARSHALL
2,894 1.0397%
NO SLOGAN
5. PATRICIA ALESSANDRINI
6,029 2.1659%
GREEN PARTY
7. BREEN
4,052 1.4557%
INDEPENDENT REFORM CANDIDATE
7. MCKNIGHT
3,554 1.2768%
LIBERTARIAN PARTY
11. BERLIN
3,168 1.1381%
OPPOSING CONGRESSIONAL GRIDLOCK
Yep, hard to say. She sounded serious at times but not at others. Maybe she wasn’t so sure either?
I’m still not sure if Roseanne ran ironically or not.
Not trying to be unfair to her. I was pretty positive about her run when she sought the Green nomination and tried to help her P & F run, but she did not really want help.
Honestly, I don’t think the differences between her, Stein and Rocky are big enough that they should not be able to work together. Oh well.
Fair enough I wasn’t aware of the other opportunities.
Considerably better. I could have gotten her on the ballot in a number of states at that time. And was in touch to explore the possibility. She couldn’t be bothered, though.
Furthermore, she could have sought P & F earlier. Or, had she actually done what was easily in her power, she would almost certainly have the Green nomination.
Even after decisively failing to make state ballots, she could have done a last minute media blitz. But no.
@9
How much better could Barr have done so late in the game? By the time she decided to run as the P&F candidate the cut off date for ballot access in most states had already passed in most states so it was only realistic to get onto the ballot in those states that just had filing fee requirements.
Frankly I saw her on more main stream media outlets than Stein, so I would say her celebrity did her well. The real loser was Rocky Anderson who she trounced despite being on the ballot in only three states.
@35 You best be gettin that womb transplant and start crankin out dem pure white children lickety-split.
I’m disappointed both Andre Barnett, Stewart Alexander and Merlin Miller didn’t do better. I have soft spot in my heart for Reform Party, and voting Reform in three straight presidential elections allowed me to be one of the few Americans who voted for Ross Perot, Pat Buchanan, and Ralph Nader in successive elections.
The Socialist Party USA was the party I chose in my socialist phase. Not being tied to any sectarian ideology, they are able to carry the idea of democratic socialism forward into the 21st century.
Merlin Miller is not a fascist or a white supremacist himself and the A3P platform was more moderate than what a fascist or white supremacist would want.
The idea that white Americans function as a distinct group with own own interests and these interests ought to be represented in the political system just like other groups are represented — does this always have to be a terrible idea?
I want America to remain a white-majority nation. I want the minorities already here to have full equality and respect. Does that automatically make me a fascist or white supremacist? I think not.
South Carolina’s numbers for Governor Johnson are now above 16,000 — more than double the number from last time and nearly three times the percentage of the vote we had in 2008 since voter turnout overall was down significantly in our state.
@27 Thank you sir! I’ll try to have that info up soon.
@31 Correct. These results don’t include write-ins yet. Only a few states that I’ve seen, Indiana and Texas being two of them, have started to post partial write-in vote totals.
the numbers do not include the write-in votes for these candidates, right?
I wonder if it’s too early to put together a list of 3rd party/independent House/US Senate/Gov. candidates who scored 1% or better.
No, not too early. If you’re up for it – by all means!
Interesting fact. I think Obama and Romney both turned off their base this time.
You’re signed up to post articles, although they have to be approved by an IPR editor before they go public.
With you on that one.
You’ll have to take my word for it, and maybe some other people’s if you talk to them.
Yes, but an upper middle class person who is dedicated to his cause can spend that much. Granted most people won’t spend that kind of money unless they are millionaires at least, but there are some who would. Not very many.
@12
Thanks Brian for doing that list
I wonder if it’s too early to put together a list of 3rd party/independent House/US Senate/Gov. candidates who scored 1% or better.
@24 – It’s clear from the results that socialism is still more popular than white supremacist fascism.
CT–we’ve only got so many hours in the day.
Many of the sub-minor parties got no coverage at IPR. Twelve Visions Party? Love that Merlin Miller and Jack Felure didn’t do well though.
There were about 10 million fewer votes cast in 2012 then in 2008.
California by itself dropped from ~13.4 million to ~9.4 million. Roughly 1/3 of those Californians who voted in 2008 stayed home in 2012.
I dont know, exactly. I know in the last 4 years he’s spent 6 figures. In CP terms, that’s bank.
I guess it depends on what you mean by very wealthy. I don’t think he is anywhere near the Fortune 500. He has a successful law practice; I don’t know if he has any family money or lucky stock picks or anything. Alison Potter told me Clymer has spent himself broke doing this, but I don’t know how literally she meant that.
“Thanks for the insights, Trent. I agree with you except I wasn’t aware that Clymer was all that wealthy.”
Very. He’s been the main funder of the party for years now. Probably for two full election cycles.
#5 & #7 agreed.
I’m not sure about Virgil’s attitude, but I think what killed us were these two factors-
*Ron Paul’s candidacy in the primary hogged potential funding and activist support for the CP.
*The GOP did what it could to keep us off the ballot so we wouldn’t “take away” votes from Mitt, especially in Pennsylvania and elsewhere.
That said, at least Goode did better then Phillips did in 2000.
I see it as just the absence of any coherent ideology, rather than an ideology in itself. But if someone can show persuasive evidence of there being a coherent centrist ideology with any significant following, I’m open to revising my opinion.
I don’t think it’s necessarily incoherent.
Even if it is, I’d hesitate to extend all the categories to converge at 50/50, which is what we would get by eliminating the centrist quintile.
If I was to make a change to the Nolan Chart it would be to add a third dimension for foreign policy. Harder to graph, though. I’d leave centrist as a category; it just makes sense to me.
“Richard Winger // Nov 7, 2012 at 7:20 pm
I think the Constitution Party has had more publicity for itself this year than ever before in its history, so Virgil helped bring that about.”
The Constitution Party would do good to drop Virgil Goode.
Paulie – Yes. I see it as just the absence of any coherent ideology, rather than an ideology in itself. But if someone can show persuasive evidence of there being a coherent centrist ideology with any significant following, I’m open to revising my opinion.
Starchild, are you discounting the centrist quintile in your analysis?
At Ourcampaigns.com they have national vote totals for Presidential candidates
http://www.ourcampaigns.com/RaceDetail.html?RaceID=486001
Thanks Brian @12 for this comprehensive(?) list of alternative candidates for U.S. president in 2012.
If anyone cares to take the time to do it, I think it could be an interesting exercise to identify for each of these candidates/parties which quadrant of the Nolan Chart they generally fall into (see http://www.freedomkeys.com/whoshould4.htm#quiz ), and then to tally the vote totals for each of the four categories.
As I see it, the two establishment cartel parties (Republican and Democrat) and their candidates (Romney and Obama) generally each represent a mix of three of the four quadrants:
Republicans: Right-wing, Authoritarian, and Libertarian quadrants
Democrats: Left-wing, Authoritarian, and Libertarian quadrants
This is due both to the essentially political rather than principled stances of their candidates, to the broad cross-sections of society they represent, and to the fuzzy thinking or lack of any coherent ideology among so many of their voters.
Alternative parties and candidates however, tend to present a much clearer picture of a general ideological direction, and I suspect that most if not all of them, and most of the voters whose thinking was outside-the-box enough to support one of them can be generally identified with one of the four quadrants. Although the strengths and weaknesses of individual candidates obviously plays into it, the vote totals for these candidates/parties could still serve as an interesting snapshot of the relative current popularity of the four broad ideological directions in the United States.
Third Party vote totals extracted from Politico.com:
Gary Johnson (Libertarian) – 1,115,886
Jill Stein (Green) – 404,901
Virgil Goode (Constitution) – 114,143
Roseanne Barr (Peace & Freedom) – 49,388
Rocky Anderson (Justice) – 35,699
Tom Hoefling (America’s Party) – 28,590
Randall Terry (Independent) – 12,895
Richard Duncan (Independent) – 12,108
Peta Lindsay (PSL) – 7,071
None of these Candidates – 5,753
Chuck Baldwin (Kansas Reform) – 4,704
Tom Stevens (Objectivist) – 4,013
Steven Alexander (Socialist) – 3,023
Will Christensen (Oregon Constitution) – 3,915
James Harris (Socialist Workers) – 3,432
Jim Carlson (Minnesota Grassroots) – 3,171
Merlin Miller (American Third Position) – 2,603
Sheila “Sam” Tittle (We The People) – 2,479
Jill Reed (Twelve Visions Party) – 2,373
Gloria La Riva (PSL) – 1,524
Jerry Litzel (Independent) – 1,196
Jerry White (Socialist Equality) – 1,133
Dean Morstad (Constitutional) – 1,108
Barbara Dale Washer (Mississippi Reform) – 955
Jeff Boss (Independent) – 888
Andre Barnett (Reform) – 795
Lowell “Jack” Fellure (Prohibition) – 503
I can post new totals as they are updated and as we start getting write-in returns. You may email me at brian.christopher.sears@gmail.com if you want the spreadsheet that lists these results and vote totals by state.
I think the Constitution Party has had more publicity for itself this year than ever before in its history, so Virgil helped bring that about.
He would need to change his whole MO, start taking advice and actually allowing people to run his campaign. And his ideas about saving money on ballot access would have to be revised. Honestly the CP may want to learn a lesson and run a candidate from their own ranks who is an experienced activist, someone akin to Cobb and Stein in the Greens, Badnarik and Browne in the LP, or Baldwin in the CP. Clymer may be a good choice if he’s up for it. Not that a celebrity candidate is always bad – I think Johnson did very well – but being an ex-Congressman is not enough celebrity to be worth more than other factors in a presidential race.
Roseanne Barr’s campaign was too erratic, and she paid no attention to the realistic nuts and bolts of getting on the ballot, leveraging her celebrity to get media, etc.
Jill Stein did an excellent job leveraging what support she had on behalf of her candidacy and her party.
Greens made the right choice.
I say this as someone who have Roseanne the benefit of the doubt and was initially more positive about her run.
If she was serious she could have made it much more than it was and she would have had the Green nomination then too, I bet.
He has an attitude that he knows it all and doesn’t need advice nor does he care how other people do it.
People in CP national have told me this and I got the same impression from dealing with him as a contractor.
The reason they didn’t have better ballot access, more money or better campaign staff had a lot to do with his attitude.
The Constitution Party needs to do a better job of ballot access. They need to put emphasis on it more that every forth year.
Nick @ 3 – maybe the Green Party wanted to run a campaign based on issues, rather than some celebrity’s ego trip, and that’s why they chose Jill Stein instead of Roseanne Barr.
I looked at Roseanne Barr’s campaign site, and it almost totally consists of “vote for me!” and “we need volunteers to get me on the ballot”
Aside from mentions of legalizing marijuana, there was no content to speak of.
It was the result of bad ballot access and no money, rather than a bad candidate.
The campaign staff was, from what I understand, extremely lackluster, too. Mostly young, inexperienced, people with no knowledge of third party issues.
Kind of sucks for Virgil to get such a low number considering he is the most politically experienced presidential nominee of the Constitution Party. I guess this is the result of the rather poor number of states his name has appeared on. If he’ll consider running for 2016, then he might want to make ballot access a priority, and on top of that get a legitimate campaign team instead of doing most of the work himself.
Since Barr got 50,000 votes in three states, I think the Green Party made the wrong choice by not selecting Barr. The Green Party could probably got double the vote’s that Stein got if Barr had been the nominee.
http://www.politico.com/2012-election/map/#/President/2012/ has state by state totals if anyone has time to tally them
All totals come from Google–it looks like they might have messed up Peta Lindsay and some others. So, again, take with a grain of salt.