Posted at Ballot Access News
The Libertarian Party candidates for U.S. House will have polled over 1,000,000 votes, as soon as all the votes are counted. Preliminary figures are at 990,000, and perhaps 8% of all the votes (mostly absentees and provisionals) have not yet been counted.
The Libertarian Party also exceeded 1,000,000 for U.S. House in 2000, 2002, and 2004. It is the only minor party that has polled as many as 1,000,000 votes for U.S. House since 1914, when the Progressive Party polled 1,117,939 votes. Thanks to Greg Kaza for the 2008 calculation.
11 responses so far ↓
1 Ross Levin // Nov 5, 2008 at 4:44 pm
Thank God (and Trotsky) that we have a proportional system where the LP now gets 8% in Congress!
2 Catholic Trotskyist // Nov 5, 2008 at 6:44 pm
I actually advocate a proportional system, which is why I attempted to inaugurate the Fringe Alliance Strategy several months ago, which I attempted to nominate for approval at the Constitution, Libertarian and Green conventions, but I was unable to attend these events due to other pressing matters. If proportional representation was the rule, the Catholic Trotskyist Party of America would end its feud with the Naderites, the Greens and the Socialist parties. A presidential runoff system must also be instituted. Though I admit that the Electoral College worked well for the Democrats this time.
3 paulie cannoli // Nov 5, 2008 at 6:45 pm
Thank God (and Trotsky) that we have a proportional system where the LP now gets 8% in Congress!
You mean 0.8%?
4 paulie cannoli // Nov 5, 2008 at 6:46 pm
The Catrot Party should put out a press release.
5 Ross Levin // Nov 5, 2008 at 7:01 pm
Yeah I meant that.
6 George Phillies // Nov 5, 2008 at 9:36 pm
A reasonable estimate is that 20 million votes are yet to be counted.
7 paulie cannoli // Nov 5, 2008 at 9:42 pm
The claim I’ve been seeing is that 98% have been counted. If true, that only leaves 2-3 million, not 20.
8 Andy Craig // Nov 6, 2008 at 12:43 am
Still, .8% would be good for 3 out of 435 House seats.
The LP really needs to focus more on lower offices. For now, aside from a figurehead attention-grabbing Presidential ticket- I see no reason for the LP to put any resources into seriously contesting anything higher than US House. Really, they should be focused on state/local offices. A serious concentrated push could actually see Libertarians elected there and at the local level.
9 paulie cannoli // Nov 6, 2008 at 12:47 am
State level races can get headlines. Let people run for what they want to run for. More candidates up and down the ballot, even paper candidates, helps the more serious ones by making the party seem like more of a force.
There’s no fixed sized pie to concentrate on more local races. It may be nice to take over some small to mid sized counties if enough people really want to put themselves where their rhetoric is on this.
10 Andy Craig // Nov 6, 2008 at 1:34 am
I agree on a practical level, particularly with libertarians, people are going to run for the office they want. I’m not saying that they should be forced to do otherwise by some kind of scheme imposed by the party so much as I’m saying I think people should voluntarily focus more effort and resources on offices that are very potentially winnable. There’s really no reason why the LP shouldn’t have a few state legislature seats. The Greens got one here in Arkansas, and there are a handful of other non-R/D state legislators. If you look at the states with the strongest affiliate LPs, those are the states that consistently contest state/local offices. A Libertarian elected to city council is worth infinitely more than a Congressional candidate who gets 1%.
That’s not to say there can’t be value in campaigns for Senate or Governor. Look at Mike Munger and Alan Buckley. However, those can only happen in states that are also contesting numerous other offices, as is the case with LPGA and LPNC. I think people really take the LP more seriously when they look on the ballot and see a whole slate of candidates for all the other offices.
11 Sean Scallon // Nov 6, 2008 at 3:09 am
Andy makes some good points. It really depends on the state and how strong the party is within that state and what’s a good allocation of limited resources. Certainly if a fellow wants to run for the U.S. Senate, which is a national office but as much a statewide race as a governor’s race is, how can the party refuse them? Those decisions should be left to individual candidates.
However, a statewide LP should put as much thought tartegting races for local offices and organizing in off-year elections – such as having candidate training schools and spending money – even if its to elect a school board member, as they would a mid-term or Presidential election. It would be a great benefit in the long run and do more to shape local communities in the future.
Leave a Comment