01 October 2023 – As of the date of the publication of this article, the 2024 US POTUS election is T-minus 400 days (and counting) away. IPR takes this opportunity to ask: Will a “third party” be blamed (again) for “spoiling” the 2024 election? Or could an unaffiliated candidate “spoil the election”? If so, who and by how much?
IPR invites readers with “inside information,” and/or keen insights (or a willingness to simply put your predictions in writing) – to post same in the comments below. (IPR intends to publish regular updates regarding the evolving nature of this “threat” and intends to highlight the most accurate reader predictions in a post-2024 election article debrief.)
In addition to the established Constitution, Green, and Libertarian parties, new “threats” identified in a review by IPR of select media “third party threat” speculation highlight the anticipated impact of the emerging Forward, and No Labels parties. Earlier today ballot access expert (and past LP chair) Bill Redpath admonished the LNC about what may be a bigger threat to “Third Party” success – an anticipated dramatic rise in the cost-per-signature billed by ballot access petitioners. IPR’s coverage can be found at: LNC Meeting 10/1/2023.
Most recent coverage of the perceived “threat” posed by the Libertarian Party centers on the impact of a possible Robert F. Kennedy, Junior campaign, should he be able to gain the LP’s nomination. While Kennedy is expected to leave the Democratic Party primary and announce a run as an independent on October 9th (see IPR’s Kennedy to Run as an Independent) that would apparently not preclude subsequently seeking the LP (or some other party’s) nomination at a later date. See, for example, CNN’s: RFK Jr. teases major announcement amid speculation he will make independent or third-party run.
In an article entitled, “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Flirts with Libertarian Party,” The New York Times reported: “Ms. McArdle said that he considered himself very libertarian.” RFK got an enthusiastic standing ovation when he spoke before the entire FreedomFest audience and said: “Free-market capitalism is the best solution to our environmental problems.”
A recent article in THE HILL, Bad Biden polls stoke third-party angst for Democrats predicts that: “Cornel West or a centrist contender backed by No Labels could end up being spoilers for Biden” and quotes Rahna Epting, the executive director of MoveOn as stating: “The 2024 presidential election is a binary choice between Joe Biden and the MAGA GOP nominee.” This article mentions only the Green and No Labels parties as being identifiable threats to the reelection of President Biden.
Possible coordination (or perhaps a merger) between Andrew Yang (founder of the Forward Party) and No Labels was covered in a recent article by Jared Gans of THE HILL, Yang confirms ‘conversations’ with No Labels with Yang quoted as saying that he: ” . . .expects Green Party candidate Cornel West to win 2 percent to 3 percent of the vote, and presidential candidate Robert F. Kennedy Jr., . . . to run as a Libertarian”.
What are your predictions?
(Note: IPR invites readers to post relevant comments and estimates of Third Party and/or unaffiliated candidate performances in the comments below. IPR did not find any articles identifying the Constitution Party as a “threat” to the two-old, too-old, establishment parties and their likely candidates. IPR readers with links to same are also invited to share those in the comments.)
No state bans paying for initiative petitioning either. 26 states and DC have initiatives. 9 don’t allow paying per signature but do allow paying in other ways such as by the hour to gather signatures. Since signature gatherers typically work alone, the number of hours worked can be misrepresented to de facto become pay per signature.
The states in gray on the ballotpedia map or N/A are not silent about signature pay. They just don’t have citizen initiatives or referenda. Thus N/A meaning not applicable.
Apologize for the Ballotpedia info not applying to political candidates. I couldn’t find a piece there specific to political candidates (That said, IMO, it’s silly that states banning it for initiatives allow it, by silence if nothing else, for political candidates.)
I have a love-hate relationship sort of with Ballotpedia. It does provide good information but is way too boilerplate in its info that you can read an article there and 90% of the info is meaningless.
SG apparently didn’t even read his own link. It says that 26 states allow initiative petitions, and out of those 26 states 17 allow pay per signature whereas 9 don’t (not explicitly stated is that they make initiatives pay circulators by the hour). It even shows a map.
Somehow SG translated this into 26 states which allow paid petitioning on candidate petitions, 9 that ban it and 17 that don’t say anything. That would have been 52 states.
Is there a reason this comment is not being approved???
BTW the Greens actually did pay in Texas. More precisely, a Republican connected outfit paid for Green Party petitions through Free and Equal’s paid petitioning arm.
SG apparently didn’t even read his own link. It says that 26 states allow initiative petitions, and out of those 26 states 17 allow pay per signature whereas 9 don’t (not explicitly stated is that they make initiatives pay circulators by the hour). It even shows a map.
Somehow SG translated this into 26 states which allow paid petitioning on candidate petitions, 9 that ban it and 17 that don’t say anything. That would have been 52 states. 51 would have been understandable, due to the pernicious amendment giving DC residents electoral votes. Maybe SG thinks Puerto Rico is a state?
SG is wrong in multiple ways. First of all paid signature gathering is allowed in every state. Richard Winger would know the exact supreme court case. Some states require pay on initiatives to be by the hour, rather than by the signature. Candidate and party petitions are not initiatives, so those rules generally don’t apply.
Illinois is the only state I can think of which bars a circulator from carrying more than one petition. However, there are a number of states where a signer can only legally sign for one candidate or party. It has nothing to do with whether the circulator is paid, regardless.
Joseph’s question; it’s not either or. Yes, it’s easier to circulate for multiple candidates or parties. And yet it’s also true that the presence of candidates or parties with a lot of money bids up prices for all of them.
SG is wrong about Perot. I knew petitioners who were paid to circulate Perot petitions. This may have been kept from the volunteers.
Ballotpedia article on initiative costs is not very helpful in understanding what parties or candidates will need to pay. It’s a different type of petition and market. A lot of the work is done by individual contractors rather than established companies. Prices vary widely based on supply and demand and can change a lot from cycle to cycle and even during the course of a petition drive.
It is not accurate that pay is only for verified signatures. That’s fairly rare. The initiative industry standard is 100% pay above a given validity threshold, typically 70 or 75%. On party and candidate petitions, some clients employ a similar standard, while some will buy every signature and hope for the best, or something in between.
Ryan, that sounds about right out in California, where there’s lots of initiative petitions on most ballot cycles. Now, those payments are only for signatures that are confirmed by the appropriate election officials, so, in whatever state, to make the most money, it’s incumbent on the signature-gatherer to explain who can and cannot sign, other information needed besides printed name and signature, etc.
Feel like I saw $10 per signature written somewhere…
Joseph, boy, good question. First, the often-helpful Ballotpedia. Nine states explicitly ban paid signature gatherers, 26 explicitly allow and 17 say nothing. My Tex-a** is one of the N/A states. https://ballotpedia.org/Pay-per-signature_for_ballot_initiative_signature_gatherers
When the Green Party sought ballot access here, it didn’t do it because money. Ross is Boss, as the last independent prez candidate, didn’t need to pay. (And, I volunteered once for that, long ago.)
Would RFK pay? IF not here (where the petition window is tight and legal ensnarlings by R’s, D’s or both would be a problem), in another one of the 17, and sue if the Secretary of State or whatever of that state tried to block? Possibly.
Among other big states, NY/PA/NJ are the next three biggies besides Tex-a** with nothing on the books.
As for cost? Well, Ballotpedia has that, too, on companies that contract for petition drives. https://ballotpedia.org/Petition_drive_management_companies
I doubt there are restrictions in the “clearly legal” states on doing more than one petition at a time, but don’t quote me on that.
One final note: Here in Tex-a**, you cannot sign a third-party or an independent candidate’s ballot access petition if you voted in the previous primary. I would sign RFK’s even though I don’t plan on voting for him, on general principle. But, I voted in the 2022 primary (GOP, I’m out in the hinterlands enough that Dems ran no challenger to my state rep, state senator OR Congresscritter Burgess, and re the primary third party focus of this site, Libertarians, which boasted a decade or so ago about running for every state senate seat didn’t do that, or the state house, and ran a regional permacandidate against Burgess.) So, I voted in the GOP primary to try to get the least bad candidate nominated in contested races.
SocraticGadfly
>>That said, I’ve updated what I blogged on Saturday.<
I don’t get the “yachtsman” slur at Manchin, didn’t at the time. He lives on the boat. That is probably cheaper than D.C. real estate. A lot of people in Congress when they first get to town are forced to live in their offices.
“Where does the American Solidarity Party stand?”
Per Wikipedia, the Sonski/Onak ticket are so far on the ballot in Arkansas and have write-in access to Iowa, Alabama, South Carolina, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and Vermont. But still early days.
New Mediate story, as posted by Richard his own self at BAN, has RFK staffer saying this hurts Trump more than Biden. https://www.mediaite.com/politics/this-is-going-to-fck-trump-rfk-jr-insider-says-independent-run-will-help-biden/
Joseph, got it.
I don’t think RFK Jr. will take No. 2 to Trump, either. Anti-fracking and other environmental stances are core issues to him and even longer-held than his antivaxxerism takes.
He of course mentioned this vis-a-vis the Libertarians for the No. 1 slot; surrendering that to run under Trump seems even less likely.
That said, I’ve updated what I blogged on Saturday. Between name recognition and money to pay signature gatherers where allowed, on one hand, and past experience from his environmental groups with initiative-type petitions, I think that the ballot access hurdle as an independent won’t be THAT severe. I expect he stays independent, unless No Labels takes a three-dimensional look at what counts as centrism. “Likeability” polling indicates it will hurt Republicans more.
Sidebar: On the ballot access issue, I think Kennedy, between name recognition and money for paid signature gatherers where allowed, on the one hand, and experience with initiative-type petitions from his environmental history, will have less of a slog than some think. I think he’s otherwise better off as an independent than seeking a not-guaranteed Libertarian nomination. https://socraticgadfly.blogspot.com/2023/09/rfk-jr-going-independent.html
Where does the American Solidarity Party stand?
Andy, you are correct if you are referring only to presidential candidates. But your comment is not clear; there is no problem for a Forward Party candidate to run in Florida for anything other than president. Also there are no filing fees in Florida for anyone who runs for president in any primary or general election.
SocraticGadfly:
>>Joseph, your point in comments really is nuts. Trump isn’t taking the No. 2 spot to anybody.<
Yachtsman Joe Manchin seems to be increasing his flirtation with a No Labels nomination, per news over the weekend.
==
Joseph, your point in comments really is nuts. Trump isn’t taking the No. 2 spot to anybody.
The Forward Party has ZERO ballot access, and they.are not even working on ballot access, so they are not a threat.
The Forward Party is only recognized in Florida, but since they are not recognized by the Federal Election Commission, under Florida law, their candidates cannot gain ballot access by paying filing fees as the candidates of FEC recognized parties can do, so if anyone wants to get on the ballot in Florida as q Forward Party candidate they will have to comply with a pretty difficult petition signature gathering requirement.
My favorite speculation for 2024, which I stumbled across in a recent mostly non-political YouTube video, is the prediction of a fusion candidacy between RFK Junior (VP), and . . . Donald Trump.