According to this story, the Alaska Democratic Party is thinking of replacing its gubernatorial nominee, Byron Mallott, with independent gubernatorial nominee Bill Walker. If that happens, Mallott would be the Lieutenant Governor candidate on the unified ticket.
An official decision is expected on Tuesday, September 2. For proponents of this idea, it is fortunate that Alaska election laws permit parties this flexibility. This is exactly the sort of creative behavior that is barred by states like South Dakota, which does not permit parties to nominate non-members.
This is similar – though not exactly – what happened in 1990 when Jack Coghill who had won the GOP for Lt. Governor, pulled out and joined Wally Hickel as his running mate on the Alaskan Independence Party. The Hickel-Coghill ticket won with a little over 38% of the vote. This is another thing 3rd partisans ought to do. They need to work for changes in state ballot access laws which will allow a major party to accept one of them as their nominee and even vice-versa. Most people agree the Libertarian gubernatorial nominee in Virginia caused the GOP nominee for Governor to lose in 2013. He took just enough “conservative” and dissaluted “Tea Partiers” away from the GOP nominee and the Democratic nominee squeaked to victory. This “P.O’d” the Republicans and it may be one reason they are checking Libertarian signatures for ballot access in close states this year. 3rd parties need to understand there greatest strenght comes from being a “spoiler” and keep using it until the Republican party recognize it,.
“Most people agree the Libertarian gubernatorial nominee in Virginia caused the GOP nominee for Governor to lose in 2013.”
This is a prime example of the fallacy of inductive reasoning. Who are these “most people?” Fox News commentators? Show your work please. Exit polls consistently showed the L pulled more support from the winner (McAuliffe) than the loser (Cuccinelli, the GOP nominee). Also a county-by-county analysis showed the same. The pull might have been more balanced except near the last few days some Cuccinelli supporters spread a lot of misinformation about a “top Obama bundler” giving “heavily” to Sarvis…nevermind that “heavily” means $11,454 and this “bundler” gave consistently to libertarian causes/candidates in the past.
Otherwise though your point has merit 😉
DSZ:
You may be right that about half of Sarvis’ vote came from otherwise McAuliffe. However, I find it hard to believe that a Libertarian would support this extreme Liberal McAuliffe. What major issues did McAuliffe espouse that appealed to Libertarians?
Possibly social policy (ie, gay marriage, women’s health rights). But I would wager that in that election’s case people were desperate for an honest choice, and some were willing to buck the “Spoiler theory” to vote for that honest candidate, hence why Sarvis also drew in people who might have considered voting for McAuliffe, Cuccinelli, or not at all. It’s similar to what happened in Illinois in 2006, when Rich Whitney of the Green Party got 10% of the vote.
Yeah, I know your comment wasn’t addressed to me, but I couldn’t help but put in my own two cents. Sorry!
Awkward…the above comment was supposed to be addressed to Alabama Independent…
No problem, Joshua H. I don’t mind replys to me whether one disagrees or agrees. At 70 years of age, I attempt to live each day as a Christian for my Lord as I believe He wants me to. Some of my views may insult others, and occassionally, the old serpent gets hold of my tongue and I may let a word out that is not Christ-like. At any rate, I believe the GOP is going to eventually become libertarian within, which means the Libertarian Party is either going to have to join it if they want someone elected to have their views represented, and in some states such as New York State, they may co-nominate the libertarian GOP ticket. If this happens, I believe we will see a mass exoduus of many Christians from the GOP who cannot accept the social views of Libertarians – whether in the Libertarian Party or in the GOP. It is possible we could have a new 3rd party to be known for the lack of a better name – the American Independence Party. Such party to be successful, must be progressive economically and conservative socially. What’s your take on it?
Compare the results for the AG race to the governor’s race particularly on a county-by-county basis.
Under your hypothesis, there were voters who voted for the Democratic AG candidate but then voted for the Libertarian Sarvis; while at the same time voters for the Republican AG candidate were voting for the Washington/Clinton insider Terry McAuliffe.
The simpler hypothesis is that some supporters of the Republican AG voted for the Sarvis, and some (but a smaller share) of Democratic AG voters voted for Sarvis.
We can calculate (RAG – RGOV)/SARVIS and
(DAG -DGOV)/SARVIS, which would estimate the share of the Sarvis vote came from voters who voted for the Republican AG candidate and percentage that came from the those who voted for the Democratic AG candidate.
For the Republicans, across all counties and independent cities, the contribution is an average (mean) 67% and a median 67%; for the Democrats, the contribution is an average (mean) of 12% and median 15%.
We can also calculate the dropoff in the total vote (TGOV – TAG)/SARVIS, that is voters who didn’t vote in the AG race relative to the Sarvis vote. Of course, they would have reversed their actions, voting for Sarvis, and then skipping the AG race where there was no Libertarian candidate. This has a mean of 25% and median of 21%.
Support for Sarvis came from:
Voters for Republican AG;
Voters for nobody for AG;
and lastly Voters for Democrat for AG.
We can look at individal counties and cities where Sarvis did best (10% of more). R is the drop off between the Republican AG vote and Republican governor vote; D is the drop off for the Democrats (negative means the Democrat governor candidate got more votes that the Democrat AG candidate); and NV is the dropoff in total votes between the governor and AG races.
Alleghany 12% R 402, D -1, NV 108
Bath 10%, R 99, D 10, NV 24
Colonial Heights city, R 312, D 179, NV 102
Covington city, 13% R 161, D -28, NV 38
Craig 10%, R 115, D 29, NV 27
Giles 10%, R 386, D -20, NV 136
Greene 10%, R 345, D 131, NV 74
Hanover 10%, R 2290, D 1759, NV 316
King William 10%, R 301, D 207, NV 64
Louisa 10%, R 526, D 361, NV 118
Middlesex 10%, R 245, D 83, NV 79
Montgomery 10%, R 1845, D 350, NV 290
New Kent 10%, R 426, D 292, NV 80
Powhatan 10%, R 608, D 366, NV 119
Radford city 10%, R 246, D 37, NV 19
Roanoke city, 10%, R 1676, D 217, NV 354
Salem city, 10%, R 633, D 113, NV 68
In every instance, Republican drop off is greater than Democratic drop off, sometimes massively so. And in many cases, the dropoff in total vote is comparable to the Democratic dropoff, and in some instances larger.
I think that a socially Conservative, economically populist party like the American Independent Party was during Bill Shearer’s nearly 40 year protectorate could be even more successful in areas that had a lot of Blue-dog Democrats during Reagan’s Presidency.
Deemer from California: You are so right that a socially conservative, progressive economically populist party (as Bill Shearer wanted the AIP to become) could have became a possibility if (1) George Wallace had not went back to the Democratic Party and (2) other populist office holders had joined him. The problem is that too many politicians want to win and hold office rather than stand for principle. I believe that most Americans are progressive economically and socially conservative even though most of them do not identify themselves as such. Example; most people who support Social Security also support the Right to Life. If the GOP becomes a libertarian party (philosophically), such a 3rd party could emerge.