Millions of people use Wikipedia as a tool to obtain information.  This includes people wanting to know more about individuals running for office.  Third party and independent presidential candidates and their campaigns recognize this fact and sometimes attempt to use  Wikipedia to spread information about themselves.

However, this is adverse to the policies and consensus on Wikipedia, which lists only the candidates that have received enough mentions in reliable sources to merit a biographical article.  The website looks down upon those that try to use it to promote themselves or edit with a conflict of interest. Sometimes this results in blocking.

For example, Reform Party presidential candidate Robert David Steele had his account blocked three years ago while attempting to add information about Open Source Intelligence from his personal website.  After starting his presidential campaign, he requested to be unblocked earlier this month. He argued that his block was the result of “a couple of CIA fronts who absolutely did not want a serious Open Source Intelligence page” and that ”Now that I am running for the presidential nomination from the Reform Party, such antics are harmful to the larger cause. I would like to get my personal page fixed up…”  His request was declined.

Conversely, one successful wiki effort started last summer, when, before an interview with Wikinews, Libertarian Party presidential candidate RJ Harris mentioned that his web developer was trying to figure out how to list his name with other candidates on Wikipedia. The next month, Harris was added, but promptly removed.  It is unknown whether anyone from the campaign added Harris, but this was repeated several times. The persistence evidently paid off, since Harris was permanently added to the list earlier this month after a Wikipedia article was written about him.

This is not the only instance concerning a libertarian candidate.  Later in the summer, an individual using the name “Carlpers” tried to add attorney Carl Person to the list of candidates, but was reverted. While there is no confirmation that Person actually made the edit,  the same account added Person to the list of candidates for New York Attorney General in 2010.

In many ways, whether a candidate is listed can potentially make or break a campaign.

Last August, independent candidate Ken Grammer used Wikipedia under the name “Usenduro” and tried to create a page for himself, but was reverted.  He later apologized, and explained:

“please understand that it is very hard for an independent candidate to get noticed and my desire to be recognized through Wikipedia should be seen as a statement of how important I feel Wikipedia is with regard to people seeking basic information.”

Shortly thereafter, he ended his campaign.

Similarly, Green Party candidate Mike Ballantine used the site to create a page for himself.  After the page was deleted, an anonymous user from Hanoi (Ballantine’s place of residence) complained:

“[Green Party candidate] Kent [Mesplay] is not constitutionally eligible for President because he was born in Papua New Guinea yet you have him listed as a real candidate. If you don’t list Mike [Ballantine], then you are picking and choosing the candidates instead of allowing the people to decide.”

Shortly thereafter Ballantine was denied a spot in the Green Party California Primary.

Despite its rules, candidates will likely continue to use Wikipedia to promote their campaigns; and individuals will continue to use Wikipedia to learn about candidates. However, if the recent blackout reflects what truly will happen under SOPA, it may become more difficult for individuals to learn about third party and independent candidates.

Watching Newsweek’s Eleanor Clift confront the question “Are most political reporters simply insiders?” is a discomfiting experience. Her struggle to defend the indefensible unavoidably inspires compassion for her uneasy predicament. But the case she makes so proves the point that any sympathy engendered morphs quickly into cynicism.

The political reporter appeared on a Dec. 29, 2011, panel discussion on Al Jazeera, subtitled the question du jour. Joining her were Democracy Now! host Amy Goodman and Justice Party presidential candidate Rocky Anderson, of whose candidacy Clift knew nothing. Al Jazeera devoted a third of the half-hour program’s opinions to the former Salt Lake City mayor. Clift apparently had never heard of him.

“I think Rocky Anderson is running probably to get his issues out there, more than from an expectation that he might necessarily win,” she awkwardly speculated aloud, unsure about the Justice Party’s name, no less.

Clift, who also contributes to The Daily Beast, defended the media’s treatment of third parties, which independent presidential candidate Ralph Nader in 2008 called a “blackout” and “political bigotry.” To the contrary, she asserted, the media love the drama third parties bring.

“The last thing the press corps wants is a Romney-Obama race,” she said in an edition of Al Jazeera’s Inside Story: U.S. 2012. “Think of that, for all those many months.”

Clift acknowledged the anger the American people feel toward their government and their yearning for more choices and parties. And she said the media has responded, sort of. They have covered speculative third-party bids by Donald Trump and Ron Paul and will be doing more.

“There are two sort-of-third-party entities,” she added, “Americans Elect, which is going to have an Internet convention and choose a ticket, and No Labels, which is trying to get away from Republican and Democrat. They’re not actually going to mount a ticket.”

Clift mentioned neither Jill Stein nor Kent Mesplay, declared 2012 Green Party candidates. Her defense for ignoring alternative parties:

“Hundreds of people file to run for president. You have to have some sort of screen.”

The state has a bunch of Bananas — well, 20 of them — registered as the Banana Party. And there are three rocking members of the Aerosmith Party.

In case you were wondering, there’s one Honest voter. Another is In Between and one is appropriately registered Individualist.

Four voters are Realist Party members and, incongruously, one makes up the Realists Party.

There are some more conventional party affiliations too, even excluding the “big third parties” like the Green Party, Libertarian Party, and Constitution Party. The Conservative Party has 423 registered members, the Liberal Party has 280 registered members, and the Tea Party has 161 registered members.

Some voters mix politics and religion in their chosen party names.

There’s 1 each in the God and Gods parties, 1 in the Jesus Party, 3 in the Catholic Reg, 4 Baptist, 1 Christ Co, 133 Christian, 2 Christian Prog, 2 Theocrat, 2 Rastafarian, 1 Kingdom of God, 2 Nondenom and 1 Muslim.

Political and social stances are common statements.

Louisiana has 12 registered Communists, 1 Marxist, 3 Socialist USA members, 9 ChrstnSocialists , 5 Dem Socialists, 2 Anarchy, 2 National Socia, 1 Black Panther, 1 BlackPanther, 1 Monarchist, 1 Minimalist and a Discordian.

Some registrants could have had problems spelling the names of their selected parties or the deviation could have been deliberate, considering there are 451 voters registered as Indenpendent, 1 as Ndependent and 59 registered as Lilbertarian.

With all of that said, Louisiana definitely has a reason to be proud of its registration statistics.

Sailor Jackson, director of communications for the secretary of state’s office, said Louisianans take pride in registering to vote.”Louisianans take their voter registration very seriously,” he said. “Of all possible voting citizens 18 years and older who can be registered, 83 percent of them are registered. Louisiana is in the top five states in the nation for our registration numbers.”

Of course, some of those registered voters are members of the Monarchist Party, Depends Party (is that the adult diaper or the situational answer?), and the Mug Wump Party–so perhaps you can’t say they take it “seriously”.

Thanks to Randall Hayes, we have a full list of the registrants according to the Louisiana Secretary of State as of January 3, 2012, which I will list below:

Democratic: 1407917
Republican: 773183
None: 625226
INDEPENDENT: 43014
Libertarian: 4813
Reform Party: 1383
Green Party: 1369
OTHER: 1057
INDENPENDENT: 451
CONSERVATIVE: 423
LIBERAL: 280
TEA PARTY: 161
CHRISTIAN: 133
CONSTITUTION: 119
PRUD ACT RSLTS: 111
AMERICAN: 102
MODERATE: 74
OPEN: 69
SOCIALIST: 63
INDEPENTANT: 60
LILBERTARIAN: 59
DANSEREAU: 57
INEDEPENDENT: 55
UNDECIDED: 41
CONSTITUTIONAL: 39
RADICAL: 30
REPUBLIC: 30
MAJOR: 26
NON PARTISAN: 26
INDEPEMDENT: 23
COMMUNIST: 22
UNAFFILIATED: 22
CONFEDERATE: 21
LIB: 21
BANANA: 20
TEA: 19
UNDECLARED: 19
PROGRESSIVE: 17
NEUTRAL: 16
WHIG: 16
FACIST: 15
ANARCHIST: 13
CENTRIST: 13
LIBERTAIN: 13
INDEPENDENCE: 12
JEDI: 12
NON-PARTISAN: 10
ChrstnSocialist: 9
LIBRAL: 9
3RD PARTY: 8
PRESIDENTIAL: 8
REFORMIST: 8
SOUTHERN: 8
U S TAXPAYERS: 8
WARD: 8
EARTH FIRST: 7
FEDERALIST: 7
NAT SOC: 7
PRIMARY: 7
SEGREGATION: 7
INDEPENDENT LA: 6
INDIVIDUAL: 6
TAX PAYERS: 6
BULL MOOSE: 5
DEM SOCIALIST: 5
DEM.REP: 5
PATRIOT: 5
POLITICAL: 5
POPULIST: 5
BAPTIST: 4
BI PARTISAN: 4
CONSERVATIST: 4
DEMOC SOCIAL: 4
NATURAL LAW: 4
PEACE&FREEDOM: 4
PRIVATE: 4
REALIST: 4
STATES RIGHTS: 4
AEROSMITH: 3
AMERICAN FIRST: 3
AMERICAN INDEP: 3
CATHOLIC REG: 3
DEPENDENT: 3
DEPENDS: 3
LA TAXPAYERS: 3
LIBERALIST: 3
MODERN WHIG: 3
NON PARTISIAN: 3
PRO LIFE: 3
SOCIALIST USA: 3
WHITE: 3
ANARCHY: 2
BEST: 2
BI-PARTISAN: 2
BIPARTISAN: 2
BLACK: 2
CAJUN: 2
CHRISTIAN PROGR: 2
CIVIL LIBERTAR: 2
COMMITTEE: 2
COMMON SENSE: 2
COMMUNITARIAN: 2
CONFIDENTIAL: 2
CONS: 2
ENVIORMENTAL: 2
FREE: 2
GREEN PEACE: 2
HAZAL: 2
KINGDOM: 2
LABOR: 2
LIBERAL REP: 2
NATIONAL: 2
NATIONAL SOCIA: 2
NATIONALIST: 2
NATURAL: 2
NEW PARTY: 2
NON-DENOMIN: 2
NUNYA: 2
PAR: 2
PERSONAL: 2
PIRATE: 2
PROHIBITION: 2
RASTAFARIAN: 2
Republitarian: 2
RIGHT TO LIFE: 2
SPLIT: 2
TAXPAYERS: 2
THEOCRATIC: 2
THIRD PARTY: 2
WORKERS: 2
AID: 1
AM INDEPENDENT: 1
AMER CONST: 1
AMER MOHICAN: 1
AMERICA: 1
ANARCH: 1
ANTI-PARTY: 1
BLACK PANTHER: 1
BLACKPANTHER: 1
CHOICE: 1
CHRIST CO: 1
CHRONIC HIWAII: 1
CITIZEN: 1
CONSERVANCE: 1
CONSERVATED: 1
CU TAI WOU: 1
DISCORDIAN: 1
DIXIECRAT: 1
DRUID: 1
FREE RADICAL: 1
FREE THINKER: 1
FREEDOM MOVEMT: 1
FREEDOMIST: 1
FREEMANS: 1
GDI: 1
GOD: 1
GODS: 1
GOVERNMENT: 1
GRASS ROOTS: 1
GREENPEACE: 1
GREENTREE: 1
GYPSY: 1
HONEST: 1
HUMAN: 1
HUMANITARIAN: 1
IMPERIALIST: 1
IN BETWEEN: 1
INDEPENDANCE: 1
INDIVIDUALIST: 1
JasonJohnLeMair: 1
JEFFERSONIAN: 1
JESUS: 1
KINGDOM OF GOD: 1
LEAGUE OF SOUT: 1
LIB.REPUBLICAN: 1
LIBERAL DEM: 1
LIBERAL REPUB: 1
LOYALIST: 1
MARXIST: 1
MEADOW: 1
MILLENNIUM: 1
MINE: 1
MINIMALIST: 1
MONARCHIST: 1
MOOR: 1
MOTHER: 1
MUG WUMP: 1
MUSLIM: 1
NDEPENDENT: 1
NONPARTISAN: 1
NUTRAL: 1
PACIFIC ISLAN: 1
PARTY OF ONE: 1
PEOPLES CHOICE: 1
PROG DEM: 1
PRS: 1
RAINBOW: 1
REALISTS: 1
REP-AMERICAN: 1
RIGHT: 1
RIGHTWING WHIG: 1
SOC-DEM: 1
SOCIAL: 1
SOUTHERN PARTY: 1
SOUTHERN REF: 1
SUB GENIUS: 1
SURVIVALIST: 1
THEOCRAT: 1
UNION: 1
UNITED NEUTRAL: 1
UNITED REPUBLI: 1
UNITED WE ST: 1
UNITY: 1
USA: 1
WORKING CLASS: 1
Y: 1

Where do we go from here? If not to nuclear destruction, Americans must wake up. Football games, porn, and shopping malls are one thing. Survival of human life is another. Washington, that is, “representative government,” consists only of a few powerful vested interests. These private interests, not the American people, control the US government.

That is why nothing that the US government does benefits the American people.

The current crop of presidential contenders, except for Ron Paul, represent the controlling interests. War and financial fraud are the only remaining American Values.

Will Americans again give the sheen of “democracy” to rule by a few by participating in the coming rigged elections?

If you have to vote, vote for Ron Paul or for a more extreme third party candidate. Show that you do not support the lie that is the system.

Stop watching television. Stop reading newspapers. Stop spending money. When you do any of these things, you are supporting evil.

Read the whole thing here…

There is a gnawing fear in the GOP that Paul will quit the party when the primaries are over and run as a third-party candidate on the Libertarian or some other line in the November election.

Not going to happen. Such a decision would sunder the movement Paul has pulled together, bring about his own and his party’s certain defeat in November, and re-elect Barack Obama.

Paul would become a pariah in his party, while his son, Sen. Rand Paul, who would be forced to endorse his father over the GOP nominee, would be ruined as a future Republican leader.

Why would Dr. Paul do this, when the future inside the GOP looks bright not only for him but for his son?

The course Ron Paul will likely take, then, is this.

Commit to this nomination battle all the way to Tampa, contest every primary and caucus, amass a maximum of delegates.

If Jon Huntsman, Rick Perry, Rick Santorum and Newt Gingrich lose in South Carolina, they will lose in Florida, and begin to peel off and drop out, for none is a cause candidate and each will soon come to realize that his presidential aspirations are done for now if not for good.

Their departure will leave the Republican contest a Romney-Paul race, giving Paul half a year on the campaign trail to increase his visibility, enlarge his following, grow his mailing lists and broaden his donor base.

In return for a commitment to campaign for the ticket, Paul should demand a prime-time speaking slot at the convention and use the speech to emulate Barry Goldwater in 1960 when he admonished conservatives at the convention to “grow up,” so that “we can take this party back.”

Read more…

“If Ron Paul decides that he is going to go third-party, which is detrimental to this nation, and pulls a million votes, which is relatively insignificant in the big scheme of things, I will do everything in my power to defeat his son in Kentucky. I will do everything in my power to defeat his son Rand Paul in Kentucky,” Mark Levin said on his radio program tonight.

Rand Paul was elected to the U.S. Senate in Kentucky in 2010, so he is not up for re-election until 2016. Ron Paul is, of course, a former Presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party, having run in 1988, and in 2008 endorsed several third party Presidential candidates.

Donald Trump supporters have met an official ballot deadline in Texas, paving the way for the business mogul to become a third-party candidate there, a source close to Trump tells The Blaze. Trump himself acknowledged the filing in a statement.

Read more…

Here is the original The Blaze story to which the Cowboybyte story refers.

“If Newt Gingrich thinks it’s difficult to get on the Republican primary ballot in Virginia, he ought to try getting a new party or unaffiliated candidate on the ballot in North Carolina. Then he’d understand how the major parties limit voter choice by imposing restrictive ballot access laws.

“Speaker Gingrich said that only a ‘failed system’ excludes four out of the six major candidates and that ‘voters deserve the right to vote for any top contender.’ He’s absolutely right. It is a failed system which limits voter choice in any way. But as a historian, he should also know that what he called a ‘cumbersome’ process is working exactly as his own Republican Party – operating with the full cooperation of the Democratic Party – have designed it.

“Texas Gov. Rick Perry also failed to qualify for the primary. That’s poetic justice, since he’s one of only two governors to veto a ballot access reform bill in the last 60 years. In May 2003, Perry vetoed a bill to abolish the need for petitioners to read a 93-word statement to every voter they approach, according to Ballot Access News. So it’s disingenuous for him to say he’d ‘review the facts’ and possibly ‘challenge’ the decision – by his own party.

“Now that they know first-hand how restrictive ballot access laws are, perhaps Speaker Gingrich and Governor Perry will join the effort to reform these laws and restore competition and true free choice to our elections.”

-30-

Free the Vote North Carolina
For more information:
Brian Irving, Press Secretary
birving@freethevotenc.com
919.538.4548

A centrist third party could prosper in today’s political environment and end the stalemate in Washington. There is a large body of moderate Republicans, disaffected Democrats and dissatisfied independents looking for the kind of political home that this party could provide. Unhappiness with the political options now available to Americans will sooner or later translate into a groundswell for alternatives.

The full letter.

Last Friday afternoon, December 23, 2011, Newt Gingrich and Rick Perry were notified that they had not turned in enough valid signatures to qualify their names for Virginia’s Republican primary ballot. Predictably, this has caused feathers to fly, complete with threats of lawsuits against Virginia petitioning requirements.

Gentlemen, welcome to the world where adherents of the Libertarian Party, the Greens, or the Constitution Party live: where their exhausting effort and huge expense meets bureaucracy, unending paperwork and needless legal hurdles — before we are even allowed our place at the starting line.

Virginia’s primary petition requirements were copied from the laws originally written to keep independents and third parties off the ballot. For a century, Democrats and Republicans colluded to establish and tighten ballot-access standards so much that voter choice has become practically nonexistent. This makes it difficult for us in the alternative & independent candidate sector to feel much sympathy for the ‘major’ candidates when their own laws snare them.

One would hope that the Republicans would take this as an educational opportunity. Rick Perry, especially. In 2003, Perry vetoed Texas bill # HB 1274 (which had passed both houses of the legislature unanimously). The measure would have deleted a Texas law that required petition circulators to read a 93-word statement to every voter they approach. The statement, which is still in the Texas law, thanks to Perry’s veto, said:

“I know that the purpose of this petition is to entitle the ___________ Party to have its nominees placed on the ballot in the general election for state and county officers. I have not voted in a primary election or participated in a convention of another party during this voting year, and I understand that I become ineligible to do so by signing this petition. I understand that signing more than one petition to entitle a party to have its nominees placed on the general election ballot in the same election is prohibited.”

Forcing people who wish to petition their government to read such a long statement makes it a lot harder to obtain signatures — which was the original intent of the requirement. It was designed to make political expression via new parties and alternative candidates harder to engage in.

Perry’s veto indicated he had no interest in fair ballot access in 2003. In the last 60 years, only one other Governor — besides Perry — vetoed any bill that would have improved ballot access. Maybe his failure in Virginia will improve his attitude.

Petitioning laws were originally built — the strictest of them by majority-Democratic legislatures between 1910 and 1970 — to shut out third parties like the Libertarian Party. The laws did the job, too — in some states, third parties have not been allowed on the ballot for over half a century, and counting.

Petitioning requirements force new, upstart third parties to exhaust themselves asking several hundred thousand voters to help them qualify for the ballot. Unless those new parties have the money and activist backing of the wealthy and political elite already, just getting on the ballot so they can then present their ideas to voters is an expensive, time-consuming task.

Republicans should be wary of restrictive ballot access. Some states in the past century could have been regarded as one-party Democratic Party oligarchies. Think of Massachusetts, where the Democrats are so dominant that Republicans sometimes are the political ‘afterthought’. Do Republicans really wish to help set up the system that could hamstring them in the future?

Nor should the Democrats, in their glee about the Republicans’ difficulties, forget how restrictive ballot laws sometimes snare them as well. For instance, Indiana Democrats were worried enough about getting Obama and Clinton onto the state primary ballot in 2008 that they felt compelled to falsify their petitions.[1]

Democrats and Republicans alike have forgotten that elections are for voters. When voters can’t vote for the candidate they wish to vote for, they are being hurt and our political discussion is being disrupted.

Perhaps the Republicans who now control the state legislature should take this as a message that Virginia’s restrictive ballot-access laws are overdue for some overhaul.

The Libertarian Party’s position is that primaries are essentially state subsidies for political parties. Therefore, the only real reform needed to the “primary process” is to eliminate government-run primaries altogether, and allow political party members to determine who they wish to represent them during the general election – at their own expense.

Failing that, then reform can be easily accomplished by simply reducing the petition requirement (for all candidates and parties, primary or general) to 1/10th of the current number, rounded up to the next nearest 10. This would reduce statewide petitions to 1,000 signatures for president, governor, US Senate, etc; and congress to 100 signatures; Delegate to 20 signatures.

One of the more disturbing aspects of the reaction to the Republicans’ failure to make the primary ballot is the opinion of some that a candidate doesn’t “deserve” to be able to appeal to voters unless they’re organized enough to get __________ volunteers to waste several of their weekends collecting signatures. This attitude plays to the power of the media to spoon-feed candidates to the American public, because the candidates the media choose to publicize are the ones who will find all the volunteers they need. So Republicans especially: Do we *really* want the media to decide not only who wins, but even who gets to compete?

I have personally collected thousands of petition signatures for dozens of candidates at different levels. Anyone who thinks requiring thousands of signatures to get on the ballot is compatible with a free society needs to research the history and justifications for these oppressive laws a bit more.

Forcing alternative candidates — who haven’t been given the chance to appear in the modern “public square” that is the media — to utterly exhaust themselves collecting signatures is a reprehensible practice in a “free” society.

Governments should not have any ability to control ballots at all. Open ballots not printed or controlled by government [2]gave us men like Thomas Jefferson and George Washington. Compare them — even with all of their faults — to the modern crop of corruptocrats.

Making Virginia’s Ballot Laws Better

Reform of Virginia’s ballot access laws should begin with the following:

1. Reduce signature requirements for all offices and all candidates — Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Green, or independent — by 90 % (rounding to next 10). A statewide candidate petition (Governor, president, etc) would then require 1,000 signatures; a candidate for congress would need to collect 150, a state delegate candidate, 20.
2. Introduce a full-party access petition, 10,000 signatures to place a new party on the general election ballot for two statewide cycles.
3. Eliminate the witnessing requirement for petition signatures.
4. Eliminate the residency requirement for petitioners.
5. Eliminate petition sheets, and move to a postcard petition — where individual voters would fill out a post card stating they wish a candidate (or party) to be placed on the ballot.
6. Get with the last decade and allow petitions to be ‘signed’ by voters online.

************************************************************

Marc Montoni serves as the Secretary of the Libertarian Party of Virginia and he is a resident of Rockingham County, VA.

To request more information about Libertarian ideas, call 800-ELECT-US or visit http://www.LP.org

************************************************************

Another poll that was published today by Public Policy Polling included a match-up between Paul, Romney, and Obama, in which Paul scored 17% as a third party candidate.

In the PPP poll, Jon Huntsman and Donald Trump were also polled as third party challengers to the Romney-Obama major party nominees and scored 11% and 19% respectively.

Three candidates have paid the $2,500 filing fee to appear on the Texas Democratic presidential primary. Besides President Obama, they are Darcy Richardson of Florida, and Bob Ely of Illinois.

The web page for Richardson is darcy2012.com. The web page for Ely is workmorekeepless.com.

It is possible others will qualify, because the deadline is not until Monday, December 19.

Darcy Richardson was already on the ballot in Oklahoma, Missouri, Louisiana, and New Hampshire. Richardson has been involved in third parties in the past, especially The Consumer Party.

Much of this year’s legislative and congressional drama has focused on the decennial redistricting, but the greater impact could come from our seemingly annual attempt to change election systems in California.
Whether it is blanket primaries, open primaries, ranked-choice voting, or the new top-two primary election system, we appear to be unable to satisfy our appetite for election system changes.
With the constant shifts come myths and misperceptions about what it will all mean.

I have heard Sacramento insiders claim the system awards the victory outright to anyone who gets over 50 percent in the primary. Not true.
I have heard PAC directors say they are not going to spend money until November because none of these races will be decided in June. Not wise.
I’ve heard consultants retooling campaigns because Republicans will be voting for the best Democrat and Democrats will vote for the best Republican. An overstatement at best.
The Top Two primary system will allow all candidates to run on the same ballot, designating themselves as “preferring” a party or no party at all.  Voters will be able to vote for anyone.  And the top two candidates, no matter if one gets 99 percent and the other gets 1 percent, will go on to the General Election.

The article goes on to discuss specific races and distracts where the Top Two will change the dynamics from previous races.

Tobin has a long history of work on ballot access and election reform issues and founded the Free and Equal Elections Foundation in 2009. She also coordinated Ralph Nader’s ballot access efforts in 2008 and was the Libertarian candidate for Secretary of State in California in 2010.

Green Party: 3,033 (0.27%)
Independent American Party: 51,535 (4.55%)
Libertarian Party: 7,111 (0.63%)
Non-Partisan: 181,960 (16.05%)
Other: 3,945 (0.35%)

California’s most recent voter registration statistics are from February 2011.

American Independent Party: 417,567 (2.43%)
Green Party: 113,118 (0.66%)
Libertarian Party: 92,246 (0.54%)
Peace and Freedom Party: 58,470 (0.34%)
Other: 121,019 (0.70%)
No Party Preference: 3,507,119 (20.41%)

Alaska’s most recent voter registration statistics are from

Alaskan Independence Party: 14,866 (3.01%)
Libertarian Party: 8,073 (1.64%)
Non-Partisan: 80, 833 (16.38%)
Undeclared: 183,045 (37.08%)
Constitution Party: 29 (.01%)
Green Party: 2,130 (0.43%)
Veterans Party: 1,427 (0.29%)

New York’s latest registration statistics were reported on November 1, 2011.

Conservative Party: 140,137 (1.32%)
Working Families Party: 38,290 (0.36%)
Independence Party: 398,830 (3.75%)
Green Party: 18,331 (0.17%)
Other: 3,059 (0.03%)
Blank: 2,135,863 (20.08%)

Additionally, Darcy Richardson is hoping to get on the ballot in Pennsylvania, where petitioning is required, and be the only other Democratic candidate to do so. Mr. Richardson’s campaign only began after he failed to convince former Labor Secretary Robert Reich to run. Darcy Richardson has previously run campaigns for Democrats and has run for various offices as a member of the Consumer Party and later joined the Citizens’ Party. He has also written what has been called the most authoritative history of third parties in the United States–the four part series is called “Others“.

“People are definitely fed up,” he said. “Am I predicting a victory for the Green Party this year? It’s certainly still a long shot, but less this year than in past years.”

“Sham candidates” are candidates who have no sincere interest in running for office, but who get on the ballot because one of the more powerful candidates in the same race, or one of the major parties, thinks that the sham candidate’s presence on the ballot will subtract from the total of votes that the other powerful candidate may receive. So, one of the powerful candidates, or parties, initiates the process by which the sham candidate gets on the ballot.

Virtually all attempts at running sham candidates in the general election have failed to achieve their intended purpose. The latest instance of a sham candidate was in the recent special Arizona State Senate election, prompted by a recall petition filed against State Senator Russell Pearce. Backers of Pearce arranged for a sham candidate with a Hispanic surname to appear on the ballot, in hopes that the vote against Pearce would thereby be split. But the sham candidate revealed herself to be a sham candidate by hiding from the media, doing no campaigning, and finally (when the pressure on her was intense) withdrawing from the race.

Read the entire post, including copious examples, here.