From Richard Winger at Ballot Access News:
The Libertarian Party is now on the ballot for president in 2016 in thirty states. By contrast, in mid-November 2010, it was on in twenty-seven states.
The Green Party is now on the ballot for president in 2016 in nineteen states. By contrast, four years ago it was on in fourteen states. For purposes of this sentence, the District of Columbia is treated as a state.
The Constitution Party is now on the ballot for president in 2016 in thirteen states. Four years ago it was on in twelve states.
The Arizona Green Party submitted 30,000 signatures on November 14, so in all likelihood it will soon be on in Arizona. It has almost finished its Maryland petition drive and expects to submit those signatures in December, so it will probably soon be on in 21 states, the most it has ever had following a midterm election.
Relative to four years ago, the Libertarian Party has gained Maryland, North Dakota, and Wisconsin, and lost Ohio.
Relative to four years ago, the Green Party has gained Delaware, Hawaii, New Mexico, Oregon, and Wisconsin.
Relative to four years ago, the Constitution Party has gained New Mexico and Wyoming, and lost Ohio.
I thought William was more defending Richard than the CP. I agree with him.
William, it’s best not to defend a dying political party.
I think chances are pretty good that the LP’s post-presidential election retention will again be a new record also.
http://marylandgreenparty.nationbuilder.com/green_party_makes_gains_in_ballot_access_nationally
https://independentpoliticalreport.com/2014/11/libertarian-party-retains-ballot-access-in-30-states-following-midterm-election-best-ever-midterm-result-for-lp-best-of-any-alt-party-in-100-years/
CQ,
Q: What good are you doing by tearing down the Constitution Party and now Richard Winger?
A: No good at all. You’re just making yourself look bad. You’d probably do best to follow Mark Twain’s advice:
“It is better to keep your mouth closed and let people think you are a fool than to open it and remove all doubt.”
Guess I misread the BAN date. However Richard’s continued favoritism of the CP in his reporting has struck a nerve with me, especially for someone that I used to view as the most accurate and objective writer/reporter of minor party matters.
*Used to.
BTW, the Oregon CP leaders disaffiliated because of the abortion issue and conflicts with the national leadership- even if the context and motivation of their doing so might be open to question.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Constitution_Party_%28United_States%29#State_disaffiliations
http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/12/december-2010-ballot-access-news-print-edition/
No you are not Richard!
The CP gained on South Dakota in 2010 and retained it after the November elections that year, then lost it this year, therefore, even if we incorrectly lump in the Oregon CP as you still do with the National CP, the CP lost in SD as well as Ohio and did not at all gain in the number of states that it’s on the ballot after the 2014 elections.
I am correct on South Dakota. I am comparing the number of states AFTER an election. In any election, lots of parties always go off the ballot. The way to compare is to look at the Dec 1 2014 BAN.
Aside from the Oregon matter- which you refuse to acknowledge and still mislead unsuspecting readers into thinking that the National CP is on the ballot there for 2016 -you especially are wrong on the South Dakota CP-
http://www.ballot-access.org/2010/09/september-2010-ballot-access-news-print-edition/
See that? They are listed as ‘Already On’ in that newsletter. therefore they count as a lost state for the CP in 4 years.
Correct your article Richard.
“I wish someone would explain why the leaders of the Oregon Constitution Party disaffiliated. What is the area of contention?”
It was over abortion. The CP changed it’s platform to allow for abortion “in the cases of rape, incest, or the life of the mother.” (Wikipedia) Montana disaffiliated over this also.
Best in a midterm year. I think we also had 30 or maybe slightly more after the 2012 election.
Awesome, thank you! New article coming up.
So, its the best showing, in terms of ballot access for an alternative party in 100 years. That’s kinda significant.
The Reform Party only had 17 immediately after the Nov. 1998 election. The Green Party only had 19 after the 2002 election. The Progressive Party of Henry Wallace only had 6 after 1950. The Socialist Party had 18 after 1934. So I would say the LP had the best showing since immediately after the 1914 election, when the Progressive, Socialist and Prohibition Parties all had more. 1914 was a fabulous year. Five parties elected members of Congress.
What about other alt parties? Anyone retain more than 30 after a midterm?
I wish someone would explain why the leaders of the Oregon Constitution Party disaffiliated. What is the area of contention? Just personalities? I wonder how many of the 3,519 registered members of the Oregon Constitution Party even know about the dispute, and what would happen if all the registered members of the party were given a chance to express themselves on the affiliation question.
Thanks Richard!
Comment @BAN
Yes, this is a record for the LP following a midterm year. 2006 was 24. 2002 was 26. 1998 was 27. 1994 was 22. 1990 was 17.
Apparently Oregon is a thorn in a lot of national parties’ sides these days, since the Oregon LP will probably disaffiliate from the national LP in April or thereabouts.
Thanks Richard. Still wondering if the 30 state retention for the LP is a midterm record? That might warrant a separate story either here or at BAN (or both) if it is, and I can also post in on LP national twitter, try to get our facebook team to post it, forward that to LPHQ staff for whatever means they want to use to share that info (press release, LP blog, LP news etc) and so on. If not, when was the last time we did as well or better after a midterm? How about any other alt parties?
There is a big difference between refusing to put a certain candidate on the ballot, and officially disaffiliating from a party & re-affiliating with another.
“But in 1942, if BAN existed back then, I would still list the Socialist Party as being on the ballot in Connecticut in 1942.”
If they announced disaffiliation, I wouldn’t.
In 1940, the Socialist Party of Connecticut refused to print Norman Thomas’s name on the ballot, because it was angry with the national party. The Connecticut Party had disaffiliated itself from the national Socialist Party.
But in 1942, if BAN existed back then, I would still list the Socialist Party as being on the ballot in Connecticut in 1942. I wouldn’t leave it off just because of what happened in 1940, two years earlier. By 1944 the Connecticut Socialist Party had reaffiliated with the national party. Maybe that will happen with the Oregon Constitution Party. No one knows.
Similarly, in 1948 the Democratic Parties of Alabama, South Carolina, Mississippi, and Louisiana refused to put Harry Truman’s name on the November ballot. But anyone doing a chart of which parties are on the ballot in 1950 would be misleading people if he or she didn’t list the Democratic Parties as being on the ballot in 1950.
In 2000, the Arizona Libertarian Party wouldn’t print Harry Browne’s name on the ballot, but when I did a chart in 2002, I still listed Libertarian Party as being on the ballot in Arizona. A party is its name, regardless of internal dissention.
I also list the Working Families Parties of five states as being on the ballot, even though they aren’t affiliated with each other either. There is no national organization called the Working Families Party.
I’m with Cody on this one. The Constitution Party no longer has an affiliate in Oregon. Only official affiliates count. The Constitution Party is not ballot-qualified in Oregon, the Constitution Party of Oregon is.
My article is accurate. Four years ago at this time the Constitution Party was not on the ballot in South Dakota. As to Oregon, I didn’t say that the Constitution Party of Oregon would necessarily nominate whomever is nominated by the Constitution Party national convention. It may or it may not. But the name of the ballot-qualified party in Oregon is “Constitution.” Oregon lets parties change their names, but the Constitution Party of Oregon likes its name, and doesn’t want to change its name to the Independent American Party, so to me that is determinative. If the party changed its name, then I wouldn’t say the Constitution Party is on in Oregon.
Is that a midterm record for the LP?
Richard Winger, however, still lumps in the Oregon CP with the national CP- which, despite sharing the name, is affiliated with the National IAP and are likely to put whichever presidential ticket that the IAP will have for 2016, on their state ballot.
Another thing- the CP was on the ballot in South Dakota in 2010, yet also got knocked off along with Ohio this year.
Therefore this article isn’t entirely accurate on the CP’s performance this year.