Your Vote Won't Decide The Election So Feel Free To Vote Your Conscience

A paradox of our democratic system is that people obsess over the elections in which they have the least effect and ignore the ones where they have a greater chance of making a difference. That thought came up a lot this week after Rep. Justin Amash announced his third-party campaign for president.

One of the frequent objections that I saw is, “I like Amash but this election is too important to vote for him. I want to vote for [insert major party candidate name] to ensure [the other major party candidate] doesn’t win.”

There is a flaw in that logic, however. The problem is that your vote for president is almost worthless.

A presidential election is a two-stage election. In the first stage, it is essentially 50 separate state elections to determine electors. Following that election, the 538 electors vote to elect the president.

So, let’s think about it. A statewide election is when your vote is worth the least because of the large pool of voters. In the last presidential election, your vote would have been valued at somewhere between 1 in 13.2 million in California, the most populous state, and one in 250,000 in Wyoming, the most sparsely populated state. In neither state, would changing one vote – or even a few thousand votes - have made a difference.

In fact, in all but about five swing states, the outcome might as well be predetermined. Most states are tilted so heavily to one party or another that there is almost no chance that they will flip. This year, it looks as though Arizona, the perennial swing state of Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin will decide the election for the rest of the country.

So, you’re thinking, if I live in a swing state, my vote could make a difference. Probably not, thanks to the Electoral College, which further waters down your individual vote. This year’s presumed swing states have from 11 to 29 electoral votes, which represent from about two to five percent of the total electoral vote tally. The odds of your vote making a difference are not good, even if you live in a swing state, because of the small electoral delegations and because one person’s vote has never swung an entire state.   

In 2016, one of the closest presidential elections in our history, 10 states had results that were within four percent of the vote. Nevertheless, the difference between Trump and Hillary was still in the tens of thousands of votes in most cases. The closest state, New Hampshire with a difference of 2,701 votes, went to Hillary so changing the outcome there would not have affected the Electoral College outcome.

Because of our two-stage system, it isn’t uncommon for elections to be close on a popular vote basis but one-sided in the Electoral College. In terms of popular vote, the closest presidential election was in 1880 when James Garfield defeated Winfield Scott Hancock by only 7,368 votes. However, Garfield won the Electoral College handily by a margin of 214-155.

The reverse is sometimes also true, as it was in 2016. In 1824, no candidate received a majority of the electoral vote. Andrew Jackson won the popular vote, but the House of Representatives selected John Quincy Adams as the new president.

Four years before Garfield’s victory, Rutherford B. Hayes lost the popular vote by a 250,000 vote margin but still eked out an Electoral College victory by one vote. Even in that close election, it would have required changing hundreds of votes to flip any state, however. The closest state elections were Colorado, with a difference of 889 votes, and Florida, with a difference of 922.

Florida also figures prominently in one of the other closest presidential elections, the 2000 race between George W. Bush and Al Gore. This election also came down to one state, Florida, which Bush won by 537 votes. The Supreme Court eventually stopped the recounts but subsequent studies show that Bush would have won anyway.

The bottom line here is that throughout American history, there has never been one presidential election that turned on one person’s vote. 2020 is unlikely to be the first.

My argument here is not against the Electoral College. I believe that the founders’ idea to add the second stage was an inspired plan to prevent populous states like California, New York, and Texas from deciding elections at the expense of the Wyomings and Rhode Islands of the country. Further, the 2000 election showed the benefit of containment. Imagine the Florida recount spread across 50 states rather than just one. My argument is simply that one person’s vote is not going to make a difference, particularly if you live in a state that doesn’t swing (and the majority of states are not cool and freewheeling like that).

From my own example, in Georgia, one vote for president was worth one out of more than 4 million votes cast in 2016. The difference between Trump and Hillary was more than 230,000 votes. One person voting their conscience would not swing the state. For that matter, 230,000 people voting their conscience probably wouldn’t swing the state because third party candidates often pull from both major parties.

But Dave, you say, that recent poll reported in the Atlanta Journal shows that Georgia may be a swing state this year. Shouldn’t you vote for a major party to make sure your preferred candidate wins?

My answer to that is two-fold. First, I don’t really have a preferred candidate among the two main candidates. I have never been a Trump supporter and the past four years have confirmed my doubts and fears about both his character and his ability to govern. Trump’s record on policy is decidedly mixed and, in my opinion, his positives are far outweighed by his negatives. Biden is of better character, but, as a conservative, I have trouble backing him because of his liberal platform.

Second, if Georgia is really in play this year, it likely means a Biden blowout. For public opinion to swing to the point where Biden can realistically hope to win deep-red Georgia, it would mean that the normal swing states have already swung to Biden, ensuring an Electoral College victory.

Bottom line: My vote still doesn’t matter.

Before I close, I do want to point out that voting is a sacred duty and when I say your vote won’t make a difference, that argument is specifically aimed at presidential elections. In senatorial and other statewide elections, the weight of your vote is similar to the first-stage, popular vote in your state presidential election. Because there is no Electoral College in these contests, your vote counts more than a vote for president.

Your vote is even more valuable in congressional and local elections both because there are fewer eligible voters and because fewer people who can vote in these elections actually do. This is especially true in years when there is no presidential election. As I said at the beginning, it’s a paradox.

Each congressional representative represents about 747,000 Americans and not all of these people are eligible to vote. That means that your vote for Congress carries far more weight than in most statewide elections. In my congressional district, only about 292,000 people voted in 2018. The numbers get more favorable as the jurisdictions get smaller. Some local elections are decided by one vote and several have ended in ties.

You should educate yourself on the issues and candidates and cast your vote, but don’t obsess over the presidential election where your vote has the least impact. Vote for president but also vote for candidates down the line where your vote really can make a difference.

It’s difficult to waste a presidential vote that is mathematically almost worthless to begin with. In my view, the real wasted vote is one cast for someone who you don’t believe would make a good president. If neither main party candidate meets your approval, cast your vote for the third-party candidate of your choice and let the two big parties know that you prefer “None of the Above.” If enough of us start rejecting both parties, they may start paying attention.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Can A Fusion Party Save America?

At various times in American history, voters have come together in bipartisan Fusion Parties when both major parties failed to represent their interests. As the Republican Party continues in a graveyard spiral at the hands of President Trump and the Democratic Party veers ever further toward the radical left, the time may be right for another fusion across party lines.

As Erick Erickson recently noted, “The GOP is a party in decline and I think if anyone wants to challenge it, the challenge is best done with the establishment of a new third party.” Erickson further pointed out, accurately I think, that, “The GOP is largely defined by one man and the party itself stands for nothing other than what he wants. With only around 40% of the country supportive, and less than that strongly supportive, the GOP could be brought low with only a bit of effort.”

Republicans will be tempted, as they were in 2016, to support Donald Trump’s re-election campaign no matter how bad the situation looks. There is almost no chance that Trump will lose the Republican nomination and the chances are equally small that the president’s core supporters would desert him in the general election. Any Democratic candidate will always represent a national crisis that can be used to justify jettisoning conservative principles and even common decency.

The problem for Republicans is that their base is shrinking and they are alienating moderate voters at an alarming rate. Exit polls from 2018 showed that the GOP lost ground with almost every demographic. A new poll from Gallup, taken in the midst of the shutdown, showed that the share of voters who identify as Republican has fallen to 25 percent, down three points since the midterms. Democrats have increased by three points to 34 percent.  

In 2016, voters were unhappy with both candidates and all indications are that this sad situation will be repeated in 2020. Donald Trump was the most unpopular president of modern times even before the shutdown caused his approval to sink even lower. Recent polling showed that 57 percent of registered voters said they would definitely vote against Trump. The risks of backing a president who has become even more disliked since losing the popular vote should be apparent to Republicans but most seem caught up in the Trump fervor.

Democrats are in a better position. There are numerous Democratic candidates with more sure to follow. Many are relatively unknown, which is a plus, given their radicalism. The chief advantage that Democrats hold at this point is that their candidate is almost certain to face off against an increasingly isolated and unmanageable Donald Trump.

Fortunately, for Trump opponents, the Gallup poll showed that 39 percent of voters identify as independents. Granted, most people who say they are independent are lying. Most are fairly reliable partisan voters who just don’t like their party well enough to claim it. Nevertheless, the fact that almost 40 percent of the electorate rejects both parties is encouraging for those who want neither party. If these voters don’t claim the label of either party, they are likely to be willing to consider an alternative.

I believe that there are Democrats who are just as disillusioned and angry with their party as I am with the Republicans. Howard Schultz is a manifestation of this wing of the party. I know that there are many Republicans who are unhappy with Donald Trump because I’ve talked to many of them. It is these people who have been left behind the two major parties that could make a Fusion Party a success.

The radical wings of both parties will stand by their respective nominees. If there is to be a serious third-party alternative to Trump and the Democrat-to-be-named-later, it can’t be a strictly conservative party. Any conservative party would simply split the dwindling conservative vote and help to elect the Democrat (not that the Democrat candidate is likely to need much help).

A better strategy is for a Fusion Party to carve out a place in the middle of the political spectrum. The target of the Fusion Party should be the moderate and independent voters who are increasingly left behind as both parties cater to their own respective extremists. The United States is a center-right country and that is where the Fusion Party should concentrate its efforts.

Like the two current parties, the Fusion Party wouldn’t be all things to all people. Rather than being built around conservative or liberal orthodoxy, it would be focused on bipartisanship and the ability to forge practical, workable compromises. It would also be focused on electing people of good character who could be trusted with the nation’s highest office. Neither conservatives nor liberals would be totally happy with the party platform, that’s the mark of a good compromise, but they would hopefully be happy to have a decent person to vote for.

In the end, a compromise platform might do more to advance conservative legislation than a purist platform. For the past 10 years, the parties have campaigned on no compromise and it has gotten them almost nowhere. Tax reform passed by a bare partisan majority (as did Obamacare), but Obamacare reform and border security were left on the table because Republicans could not compromise enough to win the necessary Democrat votes. A compromise platform might build the wall as part of immigration reform package and fix the worst parts of Obamacare even if it didn’t fulfill every conservative goal.

Even though a Fusion Party wouldn’t be a conservative dream ticket, it would be better than the most likely alternative, a liberal Democrat in the White House. If the 2018 midterms are any indication, the Republicans will be subjected to an electoral bloodbath if voters are given a binary choice between President Trump and any reasonably sane and personable Democrat. A three-way race with a Fusion Party candidate may be the best chance to avoid a democratic socialist like Bernie Sanders or a leftwing radical like Kamala Harris being elected president.

Originally published on The Resurgent

Attacks on Evan McMullin escalate

After Evan McMullin’s sudden surge in Utah, the Trump campaign is taking him seriously and attacks are mounting. The situation in the deep red state was serious enough that Mike Pence made a late-in-the-campaign visit to Beehive State in an attempt to shore up hemorrhaging support in the wake of three disastrous debates and Trump’s sexual harassment scandal.

The first attack came from Lou Dobbs who tweeted that McMullin was “nothing but a Globalist, Romney and Mormon Mafia Tool.” McMullin responded on CNN a few days later saying, “A hallmark of Donald Trump's campaign has been to attack people based on their race and religion and all of this and so it's not a surprise to me at all.” McMullin supporters on Twitter started a tweetstorm of jokes about the bizarre insult.

The attacks continued over the weekend when Trump lashed out at McMullin and Bill Kristol in an interview on Fox News. “I love the people of Utah. I have great relationships in Utah," Trump said. "But you have a guy named Bill Kristol who's called it wrong for two years. He's a loser. He's called me wrong. He's called everything wrong. He's called the wars wrong. Everything he does is wrong. He gets his puppet to go and run in Utah.”

Trump continued, “The guy [McMullin] takes votes away from me. You know, we're going to win Utah. But he takes votes away from me, this man who I never heard of....   Now, if for some reason we lose Utah that could have a very devastating impact on the overall.” Utah has six electoral votes.

McMullin responded in Trumpian fashion: With a tweet. The independent candidate posted, “@realDonaldTrump, Yes you’ve never heard of me because while you were harassing women at beauty pageants, I was fighting terrorists abroad.” McMullin is a 10-year veteran of the CIA where he served as a clandestine agent in the Middle East. Donald Trump received student and medical deferments that exempted him from the draft, but told Howard Stern that not contracting a sexually transmitted disease was his “personal Vietnam” and made him feel like a “great and very brave soldier.”

McMullin added another tweet attacking Trump on substance. “@realDonaldTrump, you're an authoritarian, life-long liberal who disrespects life, liberty, & equality. We can't trust you on justices.” The Trump campaign did not respond to the tweet.

Then things got really nasty. Over Halloween weekend, McMullin was the target of robocalls in the new battleground state of Utah. Salt Lake City’s KUTV describes the call by William Johnson, a self-described “white nationalist” which attacks McMullin’s mother, a lesbian who is married to another woman, and alleges that McMullin, who is single, is a “closeted homosexual.”

Spoiler alert: Evan McMullin is not gay. Louise Mensch of Heat Street wrote of her earlier conversation with McMullin prior to an August interview. McMullin told her that “his greatest aspiration is to be a husband and a father.” Part of the reason that he left the CIA was his desire to one day be married and have a family, something that would be difficult for a CIA operative.

As to his mother, McMullin talked about her in an interview with the Salt Lake Tribune on Oct. 26. “I believe in the sanctity of traditional marriage. It is an important part of my faith,” McMullin said. “My mother has a different view. That is OK. I love her very much.”

McMullin told CNN that the robocall was not a surprise. “This is exactly the narrative, the approach the Donald Trump campaign has had. So it didn't even surprise when I heard news of the robocall, I just thought of course this is more of the same.”

The Trump campaign had quickly denied involvement in the robocall. Sean Spicer, the RNC communications director, said, “The call was disgusting. It's reprehensible and it was appropriately denounced by the campaign.” Spicer continued, “But for him to then turn it back on them is almost as reprehensible. We live in a country of over 300-plus million people. Not everybody who supports Donald Trump, not everyone who supports Hilary Clinton, are exactly the kind of people that you want as supporters.” Spicer was denounced in turn for calling McMullin’s response to the insults “reprehensible.”

Then a remarkable thing happened. William Johnson, who is a Trump delegate, did something that Donald Trump hasn’t done. He issued a heartfelt apology and stopped the calls. “I am truly sorry,” he told the LA Times. “I am sorry for the mean-spirited message and I humbly retract its contents.”

Finally, Pax Dickinson, founder and CTO of Wesearchr, a pro-Trump website tweeted, “America hasn’t boasted a popular movement favoring genocide of Mormons for well over a century but @EvanMcMullin is working to change that.” Another tweet threatened a “Mormoncaust” if McMullin “succeeds and throws the election to Hillary.”

As another Twitter user replied, “This does not strike me as the argument that will finally win over Mormons for Trump.”

The disdain for McMullin and Mormons shown by Trump and his supporters has undoubtedly helped fuel the McMullin campaign. When Trump complained about “this character that's running all over the state … going from coffee shop to coffee shop,” McMullin’s reply shed light on Trump’s problem.

“The funny thing is a lot of people in Utah are Mormons,” McMullin said on Politico, “they don't drink coffee. So, we've done zero campaigning in coffee shops. If Donald Trump were truly interested in the state and in the voters, he might know a thing or two about that.”

Originally published on The Resurgent

Third parties may win electoral votes this year

Evan McMullin (EvanMcMullin.com)/Gary Johnson (KnowYourMeme.com)

It can’t be said too much that 2016 is the year that breaks all the rules. Another rule that might be fractured this year is the one that says that third parties never win anything. The old saw that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote could be put to the test with the possibility that two third party candidates could win electoral votes in two different states.

Many of us remember the third party candidacy of Ross Perot in the 1990s. Perot mounted an insurgent campaign that was successful… by third party terms. Perot won 18 percent of the vote in 1992, but didn’t win any states or electoral votes. To find the last time that a third party candidate won electoral votes, we must look back to 1968 when George Wallace and Curtis LeMay won five states and 46 electoral votes under the banner of the American Independent Party.

This year, polling shows that two third party candidates are threatening to take safe states from the major parties. One blue state and one red state may be in play by candidates who could be considered a “favorite son.” This scenario is made possible by the overwhelming unpopularity of both major party candidates.

The FiveThirtyEight blog recently speculated that Libertarian Gary Johnson could eke out a win in his home state of New Mexico. The Real Clear Politics average for New Mexico showed a surge for Johnson in late September after the first presidential debate. He reached a high of 24 percent, seven points away from Donald Trump and 11 points behind Hillary Clinton, in an Albuquerque Journal poll taken between September 28 and October 1. He has since slipped to 14 percent following his “Aleppo moments,” but could possibly rebound if Donald Trump has another difficult week. Hillary is currently favored to win New Mexico.

Independent Evan McMullin is another surging third party candidate. McMullin only began his campaign in August and appeared in his first national poll on September 28. McMullin debuted in the Public Policy poll at two percent, higher than Jill Stein’s one percent, but behind Gary Johnson’s six percent. McMullin’s showing was impressive for an unknown candidate whose campaign was only two months old.

McMullin’s best chance for an electoral victory is in his home state of Utah, which is normally a deep red state, but which is also particularly unfriendly to Donald Trump. Trump finished third in the caucuses there last spring behind Ted Cruz and John Kasich. Trump’s difficulties in the deeply religious and conservative state run deeper than in other states because of Trump’s lifestyle as well as his policies.

Deseret News opinion writer Michael Worley laid out the case for McMullin in September 8 editorial. The three points he cited were McMullin’s honesty, his social conservatism and Trump’s troubling record on religious freedom. The LDS church, which is normally politically neutral, issued a statement denouncing Trump’s proposed Muslim ban on the basis of religious freedom.

Because Utah is presumed to be a safe red state, polling is sparse. A June Salt Lake Tribune poll showed Trump and Clinton virtually tied at 29-26 percent with Gary Johnson at 16 percent. McMullin debuted in a Public Policy poll on August 23 at nine percent. Trump had surged to 39 percent, Clinton held steady at 24 and Gary Johnson dropped to 12 percent.

The most recent Utah poll is a Dan Jones and Associates poll reported in the Salt Lake Tribune on September 25. Donald Trump still led Hillary Clinton, but the margin was reduced to nine points. At 34 percent, Trump’s lead was due to the crowded field. Clinton maintained 25 percent and Johnson and McMullin were in a statistical tie at 13 and 12 percent respectively. Eight percent remained undecided.

A McMullin win in Utah would also require a variety of favorable factors. Trump’s lead could be reduced, perhaps after a poor debate performance or as a result of a scandal. Gary Johnson’s difficulties might also lead third party voters to switch their votes to McMullin. An interview on the web show of former Libertarian candidate Austin Petersen hints at crossover appeal.

McMullin also has a secret weapon. Deseret News reported that McMullin is fundraising from Mitt Romney’s list of 2012 supporters. If McMullin proves viable, an endorsement by Mitt Romney, one of the most prominent anti-Trump Republicans, could put him over the top in Utah.

Even though Johnson and McMullin may only win one state, it could change the shape of the race. FiveThirtyEight ran simulations that showed that the loss of New Mexico’s five electoral votes could prevent Hillary Clinton from winning the 270 electoral votes necessary to become president. The same could be true if Donald Trump lost Utah’s six votes in a close race.

In the case of deadlock, the House of Representatives would decide the next president. The House would choose from the top three candidates by electoral vote. Since Utah has one more electoral vote than New Mexico, McMullin would displace Johnson in a deadlock if both win their home states. Each state delegation in the House of Representatives would receive one vote. Since the House will almost certainly be controlled by Republicans, the choice would be between the unpopular Trump and the unknown McMullin.

The odds are still long against a third party candidate carrying a state, let alone becoming president. FiveThirtyEight calculated that the probability of a Johnson victory in New Mexico and that state deciding the election occurring together would be 0.15 percent, almost a million to one shot.

It may be an interesting election.

Originally published on The Resurgent

How to vote "None of the Above"

Imgflip.com 

Early voting will begin soon in many states. This year beginning of the voting season poses a problem for many voters who fall into the “None of the Above” category. If you’re like me, you can’t vote for either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton, but you still want to do your civic duty and cast a ballot in the election. There are several ballot options and one final chance to prevent a Clinton or Trump presidency.

Not voting at all is not a pleasant option for a patriotic American. When you don’t vote at all, you don’t count. You aren’t a part of the mandate that either Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton might receive, but you don’t figure into the opposition either. The absence of your vote just means that no one knows where you stood. You are assumed to be one of the roughly half of eligible American voters who sit out every election and assumed to be apathetic.

There is another reason to vote. The presidential election isn’t the only one on the ballot. Even if you can’t stand either presidential candidate, there are good candidates down the ticket in state and local elections. Many of them deserve your vote.

Your vote counts for more in state and local elections than in a presidential election. A presidential election has never been decided by one vote. Smaller elections have.

In state and local elections, the pool of eligible voters is smaller so your vote is more valuable. In a presidential election, you are one out of the millions in your state, which is only one of 50. In a local election, your vote might be one out of a hundred. Even if you completely skip the presidential race, educate yourself on state and local candidates and then go vote.

If you absolutely don’t want to cast a ballot for Trump or Clinton, but still want to vote in the presidential election, there are several options. Among the options is a strategy for the last ditch effort to prevent either Lying Donald or Crooked Hillary from becoming president.

Contrary to popular belief, the presidential election is not a binary choice. There are other parties and the race only becomes a binary race if we refuse to consider the other options. If ever other options should be considered, it is this year.

The most well-known of the other options is Gary Johnson who, together with Bill Weld, forms the Libertarian ticket. Both men are former Republican governors with real world legislative experience. The Libertarians normally poll at less than one percent, but this year Johnson is flirting with the 15 percent threshold needed for inclusion in the presidential debates. The Libertarians combine a platform of economic freedom and with social liberalism and isolationist foreign policy.  

A second option is Green Party candidate Jill Stein and her running mate, Ajamu Baraka. The Greens have been described as “watermelons” because they are green on the outside and red on the inside. The Green Party tends toward socialism and is merely a blip in the polls.

For conservatives, there is the Conservative Party and its nominee Darrell Castle. Castle is probably the most unknown of the major third party candidates, not having registered in a single poll that I have seen. The Conservative Party platform is conservative with a bent toward conspiracy theories. They list opposition to Agenda 21 as a “key issue.”

There is also a fourth option. Independent conservative Evan McMullin was a late entry to the race. McMullin announced his candidacy in August after an alternative to Trump failed to emerge at the Republican National Convention. McMullin is a congressional staffer and former CIA agent. McMullin is conservative who seeks to represent the free trade, small government, foreign policy hawks of the GOP who are disillusioned with Trump as well as anyone who wants an honest candidate.

The third party candidates serve two purposes. They are both potential spoilers and protest votes.

If you’re like me and don’t want either Trump or Hillary to win because you view them both as equally unfit for office, then a third party candidate is a way to vote against them both. If enough voters vote against both major party candidates this way, then a third party candidate might win a state’s electoral votes and impact the results of the election. Even without winning a whole state, the mere presence of third party candidates impacts the race as shown by a number of polls that show a diminished lead for Hillary when third party candidates are included.

How would one of these third party candidates win? It’s obvious that none of them could hope to garner the 270 electoral votes required to win outright in the Electoral College. The answer lies within the Constitution. The 12^th Amendment specifies that if no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, the election then goes to the House of Representatives. Each state’s House delegation would get one vote and the top three electoral vote recipients would be eligible.

The rub comes in when the House of Representatives decides on the winner. How would split House delegations vote? Would they simply elect the unpopular candidate with the (R) after his name? Would they elect the candidate with the most electoral votes, regardless of party? Would they acknowledge that the voters have rejected both unpopular main party candidates and elect a third party candidate?

There are those who say that a third party vote is a wasted vote. They say that a vote for a third party is a vote for whichever candidate they don’t happen to support. In the past, I have agreed with them and said the same things. 2016 is a year with its own rules, however.

This year, my view is that wasting your vote is using it to vote for a candidate that you don’t like, who says things that you don’t agree with and who you don’t trust to lead the country. With two equally deplorable alternatives to choose from, I plan to use my vote to vote against them both.

If either Trump or Clinton ends up winning, and the odds are that one of them almost certainly will, then at least I can point to the larger than normal percentage of third party votes and say that I rejected them both. The parties will know that many, many voters looked at their flawed, dishonest candidates and refused to give their consent to be governed by them. Maybe the parties will learn from this election. Maybe they won’t.

My advice is to pick the third party candidate with the best chance to deny your state’s electoral votes to both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. That may require voting across ideological lines for strategic reasons. If you live in Oregon, Jill Stein might be the strongest choice. Gary Johnson should be strong in the “Live Free or Die” state of New Hampshire. Evan McMullin may do well in his home state of Utah, a red state where Donald Trump is not popular. Check your state polling at Real Clear Politics to find out how the candidates stack up.

In the end, if no third party candidate is close to winning, you can vote your conscience. If the parties have cast aside their principles to nominate two corrupt progressives, voters are not required to cast aside their principles to affirm those poor choices.

For what does it profit a party to win an election, but to lose its soul?

Originally published on The Resurgent

2016 may be the year of the third party

Michael Vadon/Flickr

2016 has already proven to be the year in which the rules of previous election years were discarded. The putative outsider Donald Trump leads the delegate race for the Republican presidential nomination in spite of the fact that he isn’t a conservative, supports unconservative policies such as universal healthcare and breaks all the rules of decorum and civility associated with politics. From the left, Bernie Sanders, an avowed democratic socialist, has challenged the Clinton political machine for the Democratic nomination. From the center left, former New York mayor Michael Bloomberg has hinted at a possible run for president under a third party banner. Mainstream Republicans are calling for a third candidate to oppose Trump if he wins the nomination. In a normal year, a third party would do little more than siphon votes from one of the two major parties, but, in a year when all the rules are being broken, could a third party candidate win?

For now, Bloomberg has backed away from a presidential run, but may change if Hillary Clinton is indicted or loses the nomination to Bernie Sanders. Many Democrats like Sanders, but feel that an out-of-the-closet socialist is not electable. Hillary Clinton, although liked by few and trusted by fewer, is looked upon as the safe bet for Democrats. Nevertheless, if Clinton wins the nomination and is then indicted by the FBI or otherwise implodes, Bloomberg might run to give liberals and moderates a viable option.

There is a different scenario under which a third party candidate could actually become president. This scenario involves Donald Trump winning the Republican nomination. A significant portion of Republicans are rallying around the #NeverTrump Twitter hashtag and pledging to vote for the Democratic nominee or simply stay home if Mr. Trump wins the Republican nomination.

Under the second scenario, a third (or fourth) party conservative candidate would challenge Donald Trump from the right on behalf of aggrieved conservative voters who dislike Mr. Trump’s political positions and personality and who worry that his candidacy would damage the Republican brand for a generation. In February, Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Neb.) became the first Republican to declare that he could not support Trump and called for a third option if Trump won the nomination. 

Under this scenario, the third party candidate would not have to win the election outright. The strategy would be to deny both Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump an Electoral College majority. This could be accomplished by picking off strategic states from both the blue and red columns. For example, a conservative third candidate might win Texas where Ted Cruz bested Trump in the primary. Ohio, where John Kasich beat Trump might also be a possibility. Given the weakness and unpopularity of Hillary Clinton, some blue collar Democrat states might also go third party. Pennsylvania, Iowa, the Rust Belt state of Wisconsin would be possibilities.

Under the Constitution, if no candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College, each state’s delegation to the House of Representatives gets one vote to decide the election. In this situation, the Senate would choose the vice-president from the top two finishers. With Republicans in control of the lame duck Congress, the House would be unlikely to choose Hillary or Donald Trump if another option was available.

To have a prayer of success, a third party conservative would need several attributes. First, with little time between the Republican convention in July and the general election in November, the candidate would have to be well known to the American public at the beginning of the campaign. There would be no time for the “get acquainted” period enjoyed by Ross Perot during his semi-successful third party run in the 90s or the long runup to the nomination that allowed relative unknowns like Marco Rubio, Ted Cruz, and Bernie Sanders to be catapulted to national status. Good and popular conservatives such as Mike Lee (R-Utah) and former Florida congressman Allen West would be probably not work because they are not well known outside the conservative movement.

Second, the candidate would have to have the ability to unite the various anti-Trump factions of the Republican Party under his third party banner. With Trump winning 30-40 percent of the vote in Republican primaries, 60-70 percent of Republicans still oppose him, but they are fragmented into several factions. There is the establishment, the Tea Party, national security conservatives, economic conservatives, libertarians, and evangelicals to name a few. It must also be assumed that a number of anti-Trump Republicans will vote for him anyway simply because of the (R) after his name. Any candidate that represents only one faction, such as Ted Cruz or Jeb Bush, would be unlikely to unite the disparate factions of the GOP.

Many states also have sore loser laws that prevent a candidate from running as an independent after losing a partisan primary. The effectiveness and constitutionality of these laws is questionable, but an opponent could conceivably use them to keep a previous candidate off the ballot in the general election. For this reason, any conservative who was a candidate in the Republican primaries would not be a likely third party challenger. We can say “adios” to Marco Rubio, Ben Carson, John Kasich and Carly Fiorina.

The third party challenger would also need support from within the current Republican Party. Current Republican politicians would need to steer voters away from Donald Trump and toward the third party candidate. While some Republicans have endorsed Mr. Trump already, many Republicans will probably never get on board the Trump train.

Because a candidate launching a campaign just a few months before the election would have little time for fundraising, personal wealth would also be a plus. Like Bloomberg and Trump, who have the wherewithal to spend large sums of their personal fortunes on a presidential campaign, a conservative third candidate would clearly benefit from being rich. If the candidate did not have his own money, he would need quick access to conservative donors such as Sheldon Adelson or the Koch brothers.

There are precious few potential candidates who meet all or even most of these requirements. The most obvious potential candidate is Mitt Romney who came within a whisker of beating Barack Obama in 2012 and who looked even better to American voters in retrospect. In recent weeks, Romney has launched sharp criticism of Donald Trump over his refusal to release his tax returns and the Trump campaign’s connections to racist groups. Romney has also recorded anti-Trump robocalls for Ted Cruz.

It is unclear at this point whether Romney is positioning himself to run as a conservative alternative to The Donald or whether he is just trying blunt Trump’s lead over this year’s candidates. Romney may also be thinking forward to a contested convention. If the three frontrunners emerge from the primary fight without a majority of delegates and too bruised to win the general election, Republican delegates might look to Romney to be the party’s “white knight” as a consensus nominee.

Another interesting possibility is to send in the Marines. Specifically, there has been a recent groundswell of support for a movement to draft retired Marine General James Mattis. In the Daily Beast John Noonan compared Mattis to President Eisenhower and called him the “only hope” to “save us from Trump – and Clinton.” Noonan says that Mattis, a political outsider with a strong foreign policy and national security resume, would satisfy voter desires for “a strong leader, one who is upright, honest, and unstained by political blood sport.” On the downside, Mattis is not a household name.

Last week, Mattis, nicknamed the “Warrior Monk,” was asked about the “draft Mattis” movement. The Daily Caller reported that he answered, “I think it’s merely idle chatter,” an answer that effectively ducked the question.

A third possibility for a third candidate is Gary Johnson of the established perennial spoiler, the Libertarian Party. A recent Monmouth poll found the former Republican governor of New Mexico and 2012 Libertarian presidential candidate at 11 percent. While this is a distant third to Hillary and Trump who polled at 42 and 34 percent respectively, it is an order of magnitude higher than Johnson’s actual performance in 2012 when he won one percent of the vote and no electoral votes. Libertarian candidates are normally statistical blips. This year, the Libertarian Party has the advantage of having a developed network to get on the ballot in all 50 states.

A firm rule of American politics is that third parties never win. Most often, they hurt the party that they are more closely aligned with and throw the election to their ideological opponents. What we have seen so far, however, is that 2016 is a year like no other. This year anything can happen… or so it seems.

Read it on Conservative Firing Line and Freedom Daily

Independent and third party candidates may spoil Senate races

With control of the Senate coming down to a few seats that are too close to call, independent and third party candidates are positioned to play the spoiler in a number of races. In an unusual development, two independent candidates are making strong campaigns in two states. In several other states, Libertarian candidates are gaining just enough traction to affect the outcome of a close race. One three-way race pits a Tea Party favorite against another Republican and a Democrat.

The biggest outside threat to a race comes in Kansas, where independent Greg Orman is in a statistical tie with Republican incumbent Pat Roberts. The Democratic candidate, Chad Taylor, dropped out under pressure from national Democrats to step aside for Orman, a longtime Democrat supporter according to the Washington Examiner. Orman refuses say which party he would caucus with if he becomes the deciding vote in the Senate.

Another independent candidate is South Dakota’s Larry Pressler. Pressler is a former Republican congressman and Senator who supported Barack Obama in 2008 and 2012. Pressler, whose policy agenda closely aligns with Democratic positions these days, polled almost even with Mike Rounds (R), a former governor and the favorite to win the seat in early October. The poll, from Survey USA, also found that Pressler voters preferred Rick Weiland, the Democratic candidate, over Mike Rounds by almost a two-to-one margin.

The Libertarian Party is also positioned to spoil a number of races. The Libertarian website notes that there are Libertarian candidates on the ballot in nearly every battleground Senate race. These include Mark Fish in Alaska, Nathan LaFrane in Arkansas, Gaylon Kent in Colorado, Amanda Swafford in Georgia, Doug Butzier in Iowa, Randall Batson in Kansas, David Patterson in Kentucky, Roger Roots in Montana, and Sean Hough in North Carolina.

These Libertarian candidates have no chance of winning. Most don’t even show up in the polls, but they do have the potential to throw close races to the Democrats. Libertarian candidates often draw support disproportionately from voters who would otherwise support the Republican candidate.  This was the case last year in the Virginia gubernatorial election where a Libertarian candidate helped Democrat Terry McAuliffe eke out a three point victory over Ken Cuccinelli. In the Virginia race, and likely in others as well, Democratic fundraisers bankrolled the Libertarian candidate in order to dilute conservative votes according to campaign finance filings published by The Blaze.

In Georgia and Louisiana, candidates are required to get over 50 percent of the vote to win. If no candidate gets 50 percent, the top two finishers will compete in a runoff election. At this point, no candidate in either state is polling at more than 50 percent.

In Georgia, the most recent poll, by Landmark Communications, shows David Perdue (R) and Michelle Nunn (D) in a dead heat with 47 percent each. Amanda Swafford, the Libertarian candidate is at three percent and two percent are undecided. With Swafford in the race, it is likely that Perdue and Nunn will face each other in a runoff in January.

In Lousiana, incumbent Mary Landrieu (D) faces two Republicans. The Real Clear Politics average shows Landrieu with a slight lead over her two opponents, but falling far short of the necessary 50 percent. The leading Republican, Bill Cassidy, trails Landrieu by three points while Rob Maness, the Tea Party favorite, is a distant third with eight percent. Polling shows that Cassidy leads Landrieu in a two-way race and should and should have an edge in the runoff in December.

In both cases, a runoff would favor Republicans says analyst Dick Morris. Republican voters tend to be more motivated to vote in runoff elections and the absence of the third candidate would likely shift more votes to the GOP candidates. Additionally, Morris speculates that momentum after the Nov. 4 general election will likely favor Republicans, especially if the party captures the necessary six seats to control the Senate in the first round of elections.

In every race, with the sole exception of Kansas, the final victor is certain to be either a Democrat or a Republican. The question is whether enough voters will vote for independent and third party candidates to affect the outcome of the other races and perhaps the balance of the Senate.

Read the full article on Examiner.com