
By Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann
Independents’ Day?
There’s not a better week to look at the state of “independent-based politics” than on Independence Day weekend! And if there was ever a time for an independent, third-party candidacy to gain a following, it should be this year; the public is almost begging for it (as it was in 2010 or 2012). Just a quarter of Americans think the country is headed in the right direction, according to last month’s NBC/WSJ poll; 57% want to fire their member of Congress; and the two major political parties have upside-down fav/unfav ratings with the public. But when you survey the 2014 races across the country, there aren’t many viable third-party candidates. Yes, there are a handful of races where an independent could play spoiler — think Eliot Cutler in Maine’s gubernatorial race, Larry Pressler in South Dakota’s Senate contest, Mufi Hannemann in Hawaii’s governor’s race, and maybe even Thomas Ravenel in South Carolina’s Senate contest. And, yes, it was just two years ago when independent Angus King, Maine’s former governor, won a Senate seat in that state (though he caucuses with the Democrats). But the day before Independence Day, it’s worth observing that political independents — both candidates and voters — have less influence than they should during these anti-Washington times. There isn’t a Jesse Ventura-like figure out on the horizon this election season. And political races are increasingly decided by the bases, not independents. See 2012.
A rigged game
So how do you explain why independent candidates are unlikely to play a major role this election season when Washington and the two main political parties are so unpopular? There’s a blunt answer: If you’re a serious candidate with a solid resume and you are even considering a third-party candidacy, you believe the game is rigged against you. Unless an independent is a Michael Bloomberg or Ross Perot, he or she won’t have the campaign money or Super PAC network to compete with the major political parties, especially in today’s post-Citizens United world. Third-party candidates typically don’t get the media attention — and thus name ID — that Democrats and Republicans get (and never mind the rigged ballot rules in so many states against third parties and independent candidates). And independents just don’t have the infrastructure (voter files, opposition research, big data) that the major parties have. So it seems harder than ever for an independent candidate to break through. Then again, with social media and the power of outside groups, there is a potential PATH for a strong third-party candidate. But that’s down the road, not now.
A vehicle for protest votes
All of that said, some third-party candidates are going to get protest votes this fall. Strategists have told us that they see evidence these candidates are getting a higher percentage in polling than they ordinarily do, and that’s significant because it means that a winning number in November isn’t 51% — it could be 46% or 47%. It’s as if these third party candidates are serving as the public’s “None of the Above.” Don’t forget last year’s gubernatorial contest in Virginia, where Democrat Terry McAuliffe defeated Republican Ken Cuccinelli, 48%-45%, because Libertarian candidate Robert Sarvis got 6.5% of the vote. Of course, that Sarvis percentage was lower than polls had indicated, but it still made the winning number less than 50%.
Read the full article here.
Thanks to Independent Voter Network for this news.

Including those on the Reform Party.
Plurality wins are the new norm in American elections now.