In Maryland’s Salisbury Daily Times, Richard Davis, the Libertarian candidate in the state’s First U.S. House District race this year, responds to charges that he was a “spoiler”. Davis received 8,873 votes in the open-seat race; Democrat Frank Kratovil defeated Republican Andy Harris by 2,852 votes.
Davis writes in part: “As I ended up with far more votes than the difference” between Kratovil and Harris, it “is a reasonable question. Libertarian candidates have been seen as spoilers in other states with close races. This is all beside the point. I entered the race knowing I was a long shot as a third-party candidate. However, I felt I had some ideas to offer that neither of the major parties offered. … I entered the race to show people in this district there are other choices. I understood from the start I could not compete with the major parties at fundraising and media coverage. The local media were quite fair in this regard, which I understand is relatively uncommon across the country. I thank them for this. My opponents apparently spent, between them, more than $4 million, yet the most frequent comments I heard from voters were regarding how fed up they were with nasty ads and the way they didn’t much address any real issues. This makes me wonder how much better off we are for having spent this $4 million. I hope at least as many people see me as the conscience of this race as consider me a spoiler.”
I still like Nader’s response when he was accused of “costing” Al Gore the election for potus in 2000. Nader said, “I think that Gore cost ME the election, especially in Florida.”
I don’t think the political effect of the spoiler thing is examined enough. It often makes the party that loses take positions closer to that of the third party, like with the Prohibition Party and the Republicans.
A candidate can only be a spoiler if he has the same views on all major issues with one of the opponents. I am sure that the LP candidate earned votes that would have begrudgingly gone to the Republican and some that would have gone to the Democrat. If they earned the votes they would have received them.
If he was a spoiler, good. While Gilchrest was certainly not a libertarian or advocate for small government, the GOP really went after him for his anti-war votes and because he didn’t hate gays enough for their liking. Plus he was the only reason the majority Democrat district stayed in the R column all these years anyway. Calling him a RINO for all the wrong reasons wasn’t a smart move.
There is just a very slight probability, given the numbers that Richard Davis was a “spoiler” candidate. His voters would have had to break for the Republican candidate by a margin of 66.1% – 33.9% to have changed the election’s outcome, and that is only if every one of these voters chose one or the other candidates instead of simply not voting for either. A more realistic margin would be over 70% of the vote.
I generally choose LP candidates in elections (Bob Barr excluded), and voted for Raymond James Duensing for House of Representatives this past election, but that does not mean I engage in flights of fantasy.