George F. Will has this column about U.S. Senator Bernie Sanders, and the possibility that he will run for president outside the two major parties. Will says Sanders has said he might have trouble getting on ballots, and then chides Sanders, saying George Wallace got on in 1968 in all states even though Wallace had a “miniscule” budget. Will also says ballot access in 1968 for Wallace was more difficult than it is today.
Wills’ blanket statement that ballot access for a presidential candidate running outside the major parties was more difficult in 1968 than today is misleading. During the period 1969-1971, more hostile changes were made to the ballot access laws than at any other time in U.S. history, so it is certainly true that ballot access in 2015 is easier than it was in 1972. But there is a big difference between 1968 and 1972. Ballot access for president was easier in 1968 than it is today in these 19 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and Washington. Wallace only needed 52,051 valid signatures from those 19 states, whereas in 2016 someone running outside the major parties, and using the easier method, would need 272,958 valid signatures in those 19 states (Pennsylvania’s 2016 petition requirement can’t be known now, but this calculation estimates 25,000).
Wallace didn’t need any signatures at all in Alabama, Arkansas, Hawaii, Montana, or New Mexico, because in 1968 those states let any party on the ballot with no petition; it just had to request a place on the ballot.
Will could have said that Sanders is free to seek the Green Party nomination. The Green Party is on the ballot for president in 2016 in states containing 55.4% of the total popular 2012 vote, and that percentage will rise as the Green Party completes more petitions during 2015 and 2016.
A note on the Communist Party strategy in 1936. All through 1934 and 1935 the Communist Party proposed that various left parties including the Socialist Party join with the CP in forming a Farmer-Labor Party to contest the 1936 election for President. In 1935 the Comintern adopted the Popular Front strategy to combat Fascism.
In the US this was implemented by Communists getting involved in the Democratic Party in various states, and in the Minnesota Farmer Labor Party as well, in order to promote the Popular Front. In fact CP writers called the strategy in the US the “Democratic Front” so that people knew it meant allying with the Democratic Party.
The CP ran their own candidate for President in 1936 for two reasons – to promote awareness of the CP and its views through news coverage of the campaign, and to save Roosevelt from being attacked the Communist Party’s candidate by the Republicans. But the whole CP campaign was an attack on Landon and the Republicans, and the slogan was “vote Communist, defeat Landon.”
I have to disagree with Richard Winger when he says “No one equated Perot with evil.”
I lived in Texas when Ross Perot started the Texas War on Drugs Committee, with a $645,000 grant from the state of Texas. The War on Drugs Committee used taxpayer money to lobby the state legislature for harsher drug laws, enhanced sentences for drug trafficking, including for marijuana sales, and for a law authorizing wiretaps of suspected drug dealers.
The War on Drugs Committee promoted a law that provided that every legal prescription in Texas had to be filled out in triplicate, with 2 copies going to the state government. The government then hired Perot’s company, Electronic Data Systems, to manage the data base created by the prescription drug law.
If no one else did, I called Ross Perot evil all through the 1992 campaign.
“Ballot access for president was easier in 1968 than it is today in these 19 states: Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, Hawaii, Indiana, Iowa, Kentucky, Michigan, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, North Carolina, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, Utah, Virginia, and Washington.”
Interesting that this list includes a number of states Wallace carried (and was still popular in during the 1969-1972 time frame), including Alabama.
“Also there is the strategy of the Communist Party in 1936. The Communist Party supported Roosevelt over Landon, but the party still energetically ran its own candidate, so he could go around the country bashing Landon and saying nice things about the New Deal.”
Nowadays the Communist Party is a slavish puppet of the Democratic Party.
I should have said 2.4% above, not 2.2%.
Wallace was a force for evil during the 1960’s. Of course he got far, far better in the 1970’s. Remember, he was Governor during the Selma march. And because he had got 13% for president in 1968 outside the major parties, the first time anyone running for president outside the major parties had got more than 2.2% all the way back to 1924, politicians and lots of ordinary people then equated independent candidate with evil, so it was easy to rally support for bills blocking future independent and minor party candidates.
No one equated Perot with evil. He had done some excellent things in his life, especially going personally to Iran in 1979 to help rescue his employees, an act of incredible courage, because if Iran’s government had detected him in Iran, he would probably have been subject to ransom demands. He performed well in the presidential debates in 1992 and people respected him for that, even if they didn’t agree with his policy proposals or even if they thought he was tempermentally unsuited to be president. He was a public-spirited person trying his best to help the country.
“During the period 1969-1971, more hostile changes were made to the ballot access laws than at any other time in U.S. history”
I’m guessing in response to Wallace? And why did Perot not have the same effect…no electoral votes? More moderate, thus less threatening?
Americans have got into the habit of thinking that a candidate running outside the major parties always injures the major party that is closest to that candidate. This viewpoint is unsophisticated. If Bernie Sanders ran outside the major parties, and he got a lot of attention for his views, and he presented his views skillfully and persuasively, that would not necessarily harm Hillary Clinton (assuming she is the Democratic nominee). Psychology research presented in the book “Predictably Irrational” shows that someone like Sanders could help Clinton. I wish people would read the book, especially the chapter on how individuals decide between 3 alternatives.
Furthermore, pollster Sam Lubell showed in his book “The Future of American Politics” that Henry Wallace running as the Progressive nominee in 1948 not only helped Truman, but that Truman would have lost without Wallace running. There is also the three major polls who asked extra questions when they found a Nader supporter in 2004. This was reported on the front page of the Washington Post on Oct. 22, 2004. By a slight margin, people who said they support Nader said if they couldn’t vote for Nader, they supported President Bush over Senator Kerry. Also there is the strategy of the Communist Party in 1936. The Communist Party supported Roosevelt over Landon, but the party still energetically ran its own candidate, so he could go around the country bashing Landon and saying nice things about the New Deal. Minor party candidates are extra voices supporting one particular side of the spectrum.
The things Sanders would say in an independent run might very well persuade people to vote for Clinton when they otherwise would vote for the Republican. Campaigns do involve persuasion and candidates are in a position to get attention and to be persuaders.
Sort of like the leftwing writers treating Palin and Santorum as serious candidates. “Run Sarah Run.”
Will wants Sanders to run only because he would damage the Dems chances (at least in his mind). This is the most ridiculously transparent piece imaginable. Does he really think Sanders will read this and be tricked into running as a 3rd Party candidate?