|
Third Party Campaigns
The following links were obtained from viewing Third Party Candidates McKinney, Nader, Baldwin and Paul which aired on C-Span
The full gambet following all the candidates and issues
Covering America's Third Parties and Independents since 2005
Ron Paul's The Revolution Continues....
Join Ralph Nader in defending the United States Constitution
Political Issues that Matter for 2008
Cynthia McKinney struggle to the electoral battlefield
Chuck Baldwin Let the truth be heard
..an elite commission deciding for the American people who deserves to be heard
Every Vote count. Now this is probably the biggest fallacy in America today.
The highest office in our land, our Commander and Chief, is determined by a very archaic outdated system, the Electoral College.
This system was put in place during a time when we had no electronic voting machines and no mass communication.
The only way to communicate the election results in your city or state was for a person representing that community to hand deliver them.
In this era of modern technology this is obviously no longer the case. Even after the fiasco of hanging chads was resolved in the 2000 election the popular vote showed Al Gore to be the winner.
So did Your vote count. I think not! The republican party put much time and effort into making the citizenry of the US believe that the democrats (that won the popular vote) were just a bunch of bad losers.
Losing the popular vote
In the elections of 1824, 1876, 1888, and 2000, the candidate who received a plurality of the popular vote did not become president. The 1824 election was eventually decided by Congress and thus distinct from the last three which were decided without.
Proponents of the system counter that the Electoral College requires candidates to garner more widespread support throughout the Union; a popular vote system could elect a person who wins by a large margin in a few states over another person who wins by small margins in most states.
The latter candidate, the argument goes, appeals to a broader array of interests than the former and is less likely to be a demagogue or extremist. However, the Electoral College is not guaranteed to favor the latter candidate in that scenario. In fact, given the 2000 allocation of electors, a candidate could win with the support of just the 11 largest states.
Given the electoral college, there is no legal significance to the national "popular vote." Because combining the different statewide popular votes into a single national vote has no legal or statistical significance, both voters and campaigns may base their strategies around the existence of the Electoral College. Claims of the electoral college denying the "popular will" are, therefore, debatable.
For example, voters in Massachusetts or Texas in 2004, as their respective states were sure to vote Democrat or Republican for President, were more likely to vote for a third party candidate, or not vote at all, since their vote for their preferred Democrat or Republican candidate was extremely unlikely to change the result.
Conversely, a voter in Florida was more likely to vote Democrat or Republican, even if they favored a third-party candidate, because their vote was much more likely to make a difference. Similarly, in any close race, candidates campaign to maximize electoral votes, not to maximize national popular vote totals.
The effects of this phenomenon are somewhat known, but impossible to quantify in any close election, such as in 2000, when Al Gore had more of the cast votes than George W. Bush.
 How will history depict George W Bush???
|