October 23 saw the Free and Equal Debate to which the top six presidential contenders were invited. Barack Obama and Mitt Romney ignored this invitation, but Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, Green Party nominee Jill Stein, Independent Rocky Anderson and Constitution Party nominee Virgil Goode did participate.
After the debate, watchers were asked to vote for who they felt did the best job, who deserved to proceed to a two-person, head-to-head debate on November 5. Two rounds of “instant runoff voting” were held. The first round tallied up voters’ first choice to debate on November 5:
In a second round of votes, last-place finisher Virgil Goode was eliminated and those who voted for him had their second-choice votes for other candidates counted:
The shifting of Virgil Goode votes to other third-party candidates provides us a unique opportunity to judge the links between the ultra-conservative Virgil Goode and his 72.7% of the those supporting the government-for-Jesus-and-against-Mohammed, how-dare-they-put-God’s-name-only-on-the-edge-of-a-coin, utterly corrupt ex-Congressman shifted their votes to Gary Johnson. Just 16.5% of Virgil Goode supporters also supported Rocky Anderson. Only 10.8% of Virgil Goode supporters threw their support to Jill Stein, making the Green Party nominee the figure farthest from the controversial Goode.
After the second round of voting, Stein and Johnson remained the top two vote-getters, and so Gary Johnson will debate Jill Stein in the final debate of the presidential election season on November 5 at 9 pm Eastern Time.
I watched the debate and voted for Rock Anderson, for whom I’ve been campaigning since he announced. However, Jill Stein certainly deserved my second-choice vote. She would be a vast improvement over either of the major party candidates.
My impression is that far fewer people watched the debate than voted. If that was the case, Gary Johnson’s money could explain how he garnered so many votes. What do you think? Rocky Anderson has probably raised less than Virgil Goode — can you make a comparison of the warchests of all four candidates?
We “progressives” are down to working toward taking away as much as we can from Obama and Romney. If we get 5%, that will be a major impact on the outcome and could tip the balance toward Obama or Romney. Which do you think would be benefitted if Stein, Johnson, Anderson, and the others get as much as 5%?
As Stein observed, if everyone who will be staying home voted for her, she’d be president. Next time (2016), perhaps by getting the alternative debate system going strong and thus raising public consciousness of “alternative” views, a bigger chunk of the eligible voters who wouldn’t otherwise vote could be enlisted on behalf of policies like Stein’s or Anderson’s. What do you think?
For the minor-party candidates to combine for 5% of the vote, turnout would have to be abysmal. Given the two major party nominees this cycle, that’s not entirely out of the realm of possibility but I wouldn’t bet anything of value on it.
As for 2016, who knows?
I think a great deal of the possibility of third-party candidacies hinges on the idea of legitimacy, Manning. Legitimacy of the consideration of candidate alternatives. Legitimacy of the consideration of policy alternatives. I think the question is how to build legitimacy — and I would like to know how it is possible to achieve that.
I looked up “legitimate” in the dictionary. In the context of your question, it probably should be defined as follows: being as represented — not spurious or false; being in accordance with law; conforming to recognized principles, rules, and/or standards. I think all four of the candidates in the Free and Equal debates are legitimate candidates. However, if you described Virgil Goode as illegitimate, I would accept that as a metaphorical put-down. Even more so for Obama and Romney.
So I’m saying anyone who would do what the named candidates did to present and conduct themselves as candidates should be considered legitimate. Any claims made that aren’t false or spurious, including outrageous comments intended as satirical or comedic, would be legitimate. Quite a few of Obama’s and Romney’s claims are illegitimate in this sense.
I think the question isn’t how to build legitimacy, but how to reform the system so that candidates from outside the duopoly can receive consideration commensurate with the merit of their positions. Let’s start with a greatly strengthened debating program building upon the Free and Equal or Democracy Now models, together with other innovations using the Internet. Such efforts are the chief remaining hope for overcoming the torrents of money from the rich that are drowning out legitimate alternative voices.
What I meant to describe was not who should be considered legitimate. What I meant to describe was the matter of who is considered legitimate. The trick is that in the eyes of the public, these candidates are all lumped together as “third party” candidates who are not to be considered.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election_debates,_2012
There’s also the Ralph Nader debates on the previous day, 11/4.
Also it’s possible to breach the 5% level if your the Reform Party which did it in 92 and 96.
1% on the political map
3% good showing
5% 2012 federal matching funds