Independents’ Day: Alternative Candidates and the Electoral College System

The 2004 presidential election is sure to be a close race, especially with Ralph Nader appearing on the ballot.

In 2000, Nader was the Green Party candidate and earned 3% of the popular vote, which some say was just enough to hand the presidency to George W. Bush.

U.S. election history teaches us that our federal elections are about the Electoral College in which the party that wins takes all - state by state.

Nader and the Greens clearly made a difference, especially if one looks at Florida’s election results: Bush beat Gore in Florida by just 537 votes, and Nader won 97,488 votes in that state. If Nader hadn’t run, what would’ve happened?

Is this election about choosing an individual leader for the nation? Is it about choosing the political party that will support judges and laws and put the staff into the state, defense, environment, labor and other departments? Is it about protecting the choices we have?

The primaries are different from the general election

In the primaries, where several candidates run in the name of a singular party, the emphasis is on each individual candidate’s philosophy of government and his or her specific policy ideas. Within each party there can be a range of different policies and competition over particular issues, like gun control.

In the primaries, voters can also judge which candidate is likely to be electable by the general public.

But is the general election about the individual or the party? Sometimes individual candidates try to hide their party affiliation and just attract voters by their personal appeal, but in our system, the party does matter.

Why parties matter

Because we have the Electoral College system - which has made it possible seven times in our history for the candidate who lost the popular vote to win the presidency -- party matters. There are people who want that system changed so that each ballot asks the voter to indicate their second, third, and fourth choice. If their first choice loses, then their second choice vote is counted, and even their third if necessary. The Green Party platform supports that preferential voting system and is campaigning for it.

Parties also matter because we do not require public (taxpayer paid) financing of all elections. Therefore, organizations are necessary to raise enough money to buy private advertising from networks and private direct mailing to voters’ houses. There are people who want public financing and shorter election cycles. But those changes are not part of the system at this time.

A different point of view - why should a sure loser run in the general election?

Why is Nader running if he doesn’t have a party to back him? Is it to deliberately elect the person and the party that he likes least? Hoping to create a backlash that will promote himself and his ideas?

Nader denies the "spoiler" label given to him by Democrats. He believes that each election is about political parties and he wishes to offer Americans alternative choices, since both major parties take money and ideas from large corporations and big donors. These organizations are the ones that Nader has successfully attacked over the years; he is a famous consumer advocate that feels that the general public does not get fair treatment from the large companies that make our cars and sell us our health care.

Nader is attempting to get on every ballot that he can and is seeking endorsements from virtually every independent party that will give him one, including the right-leaning Reform Party that supported Ross Perot. The Reform Party disagrees with his views but would like him to spoil Kerry’s chances.

There are people who say that Democrats who voted for Ross Perot in1992 (Perot took 19% of the total popular vote) helped Bill Clinton defeat George H.W. Bush.

Why the Green Party is not supporting Nader

The Green Party agrees with some of Nader’s views, but has nominated David Cobb as its 2004 presidential nominee instead of Nader. Cobb plans on campaigning less assertively than Nader did in 2000, but Cobb considers himself a party spokesperson, not a viable candidate for president.

Cobb says he will actively campaign in 40 states only - states where either Democrats or Republicans have a sure win. But Cobb intends to steer clear of states where there is a real contest between Kerry and Bush, states where his candidacy could tip the scales towards Bush. Nader also made this promise in 2000, but ended up campaigning in contentious states anyway.

The Greens, like other third parties in our history, don’t expect their presidential candidate to win; they want to raise awareness and support for their philosophy of government. Currently, the Green Party is focused on working from the grass roots up, getting its members into government bodies that are less powerful than the White House, like local city councils and state legislatures.

Party differences

Although both the Republican and Democratic parties cooperate with powerful groups and companies, the parties’ policies on issues such as health and education and their philosophies of government differ greatly. WomenMatter has tracked these differences and encourages voters to inform themselves on the issues and then choose the party with views that most closely match theirs.

To read more about party differences, choose a Life Issue that matters to you, and read about Republicans and Democrats’ contrasting views on that subject. You can also take a look at WomenMatter’s feature articles, "Liberal, Conservative, and Me" and "Political Parties, Open or Closed?"

Republicans for Nader

Nader is getting support where you’d least expect it - from Republicans.

Republicans who want to make sure that Bush wins a second term are donating time and money to the Nader campaign. Their time has been spent gathering signatures to get Nader on more states’ ballots, and their money has been spent on, well, everything Nader needs to campaign.

Clearly, Republicans do not agree with Nader’s views; their strategy is to siphon votes away from Kerry to give Bush the win. Greg McNeilly of the Michigan Republican Party said the GOP is doing nothing wrong and hopes Nader will draw votes from the Democratic candidate. Republicans will make sure Nader has more than the 30,000 valid signatures he needs by July 15 to qualify for the Michigan ballot, McNeilly said.

Nader is neither soliciting nor refusing Republicans’ support.

Nader on the ballot

So far, Nader is on the ballot in six states: Florida, Colorado, Kansas, Montana, Mississippi, and Michigan. He is likely to gain Oregon and other states before the election.

However, it is difficult for a partyless candidate to get on the ballot. Although the rules vary from state to state, it often requires 1.5 million signatures from registered voters.

Nader criticizes the obstacles that independent candidates face to get on the ballot. He says that states’ difficult requirements and confusing laws hinder the democratic process and that our democracy is failing because of a lack of independent voices.

However, history shows that alternative candidates like Nader have influenced political platforms and legislation by controlling needed votes.

The alternative party is nothing new

Although a Democrat or a Republican has occupied the White House since 1852, third-party candidates have been affecting elections for just as long. Recent history tells of the Green, Libertarian, and Reform parties, but look a little farther back in time and you’ll find third parties like the Progressive, Prohibition, Communist, Socialist, Union, Bull Moose, Greenback, Free Soil, and Liberty parties – just to name a few -- affecting voters and elections for over a century.

Alternative parties nominate a presidential candidate in order to publicize their political and social concerns. Often, these concerns capture the public’s attention and, therefore, influence the dominant parties’ platforms and even legislation.

Our two party system

The U.S. direct-democracy system is a two-party system. Congress and the electoral college state votes are divided into nearly equal Democratic and Republican halves. Therefore, it would be difficult for an alternative candidate to enter the White House and negotiate with Congress.

In many ways, a vote for an independent presidential candidate is a protest vote. A protest vote may awaken the dominant parties to other points of view, but ultimately does not elect anyone.

WomenMatter wants to see women’s voices represented in Congress and the White House, so we encourage our readers to vote in primaries for the individual whose philosophy closely matches yours and in the general election vote for the party that best fits you that has a chance to win, and to send $5 to the candidate that best represents you.

Millions of women sending $5 each can put the issues that we manage in our daily lives into the national spotlight.

To discuss this issue with other WomenMatter readers, log on to one of our online forums. If Voting Rights are important to you, sign up for an e alert, and we’ll keep you posted. Inform yourself on this and other issues, then register to vote and contact your representatives, because your voice matters.

WomenMatter is dedicated to empowering women to participate in the political process. To make a donation, click here.

Update Posted on: 7/9/2004