In 2004, Constitution Party presidential nominee Michael Peroutka was on the ballot in states containing 66.4% of the national presidential vote. Where he was on the ballot, he polled .173% of the total presidential vote in those places.
In 2008, Constitution Party presidential nominee Chuck Baldwin was on the ballot in states containing 59.0% of the national presidential vote this year. Where he was on the ballot, he polled .238% of the total presidential vote in those places.
Thus, the Libertarian Party and the Constitution Party experienced a similar pattern in these two presidential election years. Each party did a worse job of getting its presidential candidate on the ballot in 2008 than it had in 2004. But, in the places where each party’s presidential candidate was on the ballot, each party polled a markedly higher share of the vote in 2008 than it had in 2004.
For the Libertarian and Constitution parties, I would be interested in seeing a comparison of the performance in only the states in which they were on the ballot in both elections.
That might tell us if eliminating those states from the picture allowed them to increase performance across the board, or if the eliminated states were just poor performers that kept down the average.
On a related note, were there any states for either party in which they were off in 2004 but on in 2008?
Yes.
States in which the Constitution presidential nominee was off in 2004 but on in 2008 are Hawaii, Illinois, Massachusetts, Vermont, West Virginia and Wisconsin. A state in which the Libertarian presidential nominee was off in 2004 but on in 2008 is New Hampshire.