Jones was instrumental in 2006 helping elect Democrat Jon Tester to the U.S. Senate. Jones received over 10,000 votes in that election. Tester beat incumbent Conrad Burns by around 3,600 votes.
We've seen other races where a third-party candidate influenced the outcome of a race, The third-party candidate helped defeat a major-party candidate who they mostly agreed with on the issues and allowed the other candidate, whom they disagreed with on most issues, win the contest.
That's why Montana should have a run-off election when a state-wide candidate does not get 50% plus one vote. The run-off election would be between the top two vote getters.
This situation reminds of the push for a type of election reform called "Instant-runoff voting." Basically, it's a ballot that allows the voter to rank the candidates in order of preference; when the votes are counted, a simple formula is enacted that counts a voter's lower choices should their higher choice not garner enough votes. (Check out this IRV advocacy site for campaigns, cities where it currently exists, and legislation in the works.)
In short, it's a system that encourages third-, fourth-, or fifth-party candidates, where voters can safely vote for their favorite candidate without the fear that her vote actually benefits the worst candidate. (See "2000 Presidential Election" for details.)
Of course, whether this system of voting would actually, say, make the Democratic party more progressive or the Republican party more libertarian is questionable. After all, in this system larger parties have less incentive to adopt third-party platform planks - they know that voters opting for someone else will probably not hurt them at the ballot box, unlike today's system.
And it's also unlikely that IRV would propel any third-party candidate into elected office. If the Green Party couldn't elect its candidate into the San Francisco mayor's office in 2003, does it really have enough support to win a major office anywhere? If Ron Paul can't win more than quarter of Montana's caucus voters, can a libertarian candidate win any state?
To me, IRV seems like a wash. I'd vote for it, but I'd be against using up my time or resources getting it on the ballot.
By his own admission, Nader doesn't expect to win, he doesn't expect to change the Democratic Party's agenda, he doesn't expect to appear in the debates, and he doesn't even expect to make the ballot in every state. So, what exactly is the point here?
Asked about this a few months ago, Nader said, "What third parties can do is bring young people in, set standards on how to run a presidential election and keep the progressive agenda in front of the people. And maybe tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties."
Is it me, or is this wildly unpersuasive? Major parties can and do bring young people into the process; in fact, Barack Obama seems to be pretty good at it. For that matter, Nader's multiple efforts have never affected election standards, and his campaigns have generally done a poor job of promoting progressive ideas, instead focusing on his personal disdain for the two major parties.
Yes, I suppose Nader could certainly "tweak a candidate here and there in the major parties," but isn't that a pretty shallow reason to launch four consecutive presidential bids?
Also John Edwards already -- effectively -- pushed the two remaining Democratic contenders to the left on a number of issues, notably health care and trade.
I'm not sure if I agree with Benen in his conclusion that people aren't hungering for a "third" party, but, really, what does that mean?
IMHO, that means folks want a party that more closely represents their own personal political beliefs; but there's never enough consensus within a third of the electorate on what that party would be. The Greens have demonstrated there's not enough interest in their ideas; ditto with Libertarians. And Mayor Bloomberg and the Unity Party -- by advocating the same platform of the Democratic nominees -- is showing that there's not enough "centrist" ground to mount a serious campaign.
Frankly, without a parliamentary system of government, it looks like we're stuck with a two-party system.
So, here we go again. IMHO, Nader'll be lucky to match his 0.38% from last election .
Probably the post that sums up my feelings about John Edwards' recent withdrawal from the race was written by Nicole:
The plain fact is that neither [Clinton or Obama] is talking enough about the things that matter to me--the decline of the middle class, family values as something more than a shorthand way to slap down gays and lesbians, the unbelievable growth of wealth among the corporate cronies enriched by the current administration--the very things that John Edwards came out swinging for every day.
Many people didn't like his "anger". I did. It seemed to me that he was the only one on the stage who was actually angry enough to make real changes in a system that--as far as I can see--has gone terribly awry.
Edwards seemed like he knew there's fundamental problems with the way our government works, and he was going to do something about it. Neither Clinton nor Obama strike me as folks who will fundamentally alter the DC establishment way of doing or looking at things, but both have incorporated many of Edwards' populist planks. They get it. It's going to be much better with either Clinton or Obama in the White House. Bank on it.
Folks who have been reading LiTW and the B'Birds for a long time know how I feel about a Nader campaign. Don't go there. It's a clear choice. A vote for Nader is a vote for the radical conservatism of President Bush. Period. My friend, the Notorious Mark T, is, as always, a fervent Naderite. Mark feels that both Obama and Clinton are "too conservative," that we deserve better, more liberal candidates. I disagree with Mark: I think both Obama and Clinton are good candidates, given the nature of presidential politics. (But then I'm an Eisenhower Republican.)
The bottom line is this: John Edwards already pushed the issues left, John Edwards already set the tenor of the 2008 election. It's already about a lot of progressive issues, thanks to John Edwards. So...why is Nader running? He can't win. He's not going to influence the candidates at all. At best, he can hand the presidency back to the GOP.
But even if what Mark T wrote is true, that both Obama and Clinton are too conservative, the important thing to remember is this: change is not going to happen through the presidency. Nor should it. Change starts with each of us. Let's alter things from the bottom up. Here in Montana, for example, we may not get much of a say in who's President, but we do have a voice in the outcome of our state legislative race. Volunteer. Donate. Write letters, knock on doors. Do something about it.
Some of you may know that I'm not a big fan of Ralph Nader, even tho' I pulled the lever next to his name during the 2000 elections. (Don't worry, I was in a state that wasn't close.) I called him a megalomaniac back in March for running in the 2004 elections, and I stand by the claim. Basically, we had a radical reactionary in the White House that need to be ousted. Period. And Nader tried to get in the way.
His latest chutzpah? He's suing the Democratic party for allegedly "sabotaging his campaign."
First, you can't sabotage what doesn't exist. Second, isn't that politics? If you have enough support, you can force way around anywhere.
