Four Reform Party nominees for U.S. House have been restored to the November 2, 2010 ballot in Mississippi. See this story. Thanks to Steve Rankin for the link. Also thanks to the commenter who helped update this story.
The Reform nominees in the second and third districts, Ashley Norwood and Tracella Hill, are the only opponents to the Democratic and Republican nominees in those districts. In other words, in each of those two districts, there is now a Republican, a Democrat, and a Reform Party nominee.
If each of these candidates have only one major party opponent (and I assume no other 3rd party or independent opposition), they should get at least 20% to 25% of the vote since Mississippi, as I understand, uses the “office box” rather than the “party column” ballot for the General Elections.
From returns I’ve seen through the years, where states use an “office box” ballot, 3rd party or independent candidates tend to receive more votes than when they are listed in a “party column” or “party row.”
I’m not a big fan of the current Reform Party, but voters do need a choice – even if the candidates have 0 chance of winning.
Richard is the expert here, but since all 4 of these candidacies cover all voting jurisdictions in the state, and if they do receive no less than a statewide total of 20% of the total statewide vote, would this not give them the right to their own Reform Primary in 2011?
What say ye, Richard?
Norwood has been restored as well:
http://www2.wjtv.com/jtv/ap_exchange/mississippi_news/article/reform-candidate-set-for-ballot-in-miss-2nd-dist/193867/
Shawn O’Hara of Hattiesburg?
#1: In District One, currently represented by Travis Childers (D), there is a total of seven independent and small party candidates. Most observers think these candidates, overall, will hurt the Republican nominee, state Sen. Alan Nunnelee.
Mississippi law provides that all parties nominate by primary; however, none of the six small parties have ever had more than one candidate for the same office. Personally, I wish the small parties had the option of nominating by convention.
The commenter on the story that’s linked to incorrectly says that District 4 is southwest Mississippi. Actually, District 4 is the southern and southeastern part of the state, including the Gulf Coast. It’s currently represented by Gene Taylor (D).
Thanks Steve. I didn’t know Mississippi 3rd parties – even if not fully organized – can hold a Primary if two or more members seek the same office. But this is good to know.
One thing I could never understand about Mississippi 3rd party advocates. Back in 1968 when George Wallace carried the state for President with a whopping majority as an “Independent,” why this did not immediately ignite the fire to build a strong Independent Party in Mississippi? And this was back when GOPers were only “also rans” for most statewide and local offices.
Why do you think this happened? Did alot of Wallace “big wigs” in the state at this time, hold back the organizing of a strong 3rd party?
Most people were then still Democrats at the state and local levels, although Goldwater had carried the state with 87.1% in 1964. The Republican Prentiss Walker had been elected to Congress in ’64.
For that matter, Wallace always ran for state office in Alabama as a Democrat; he didn’t start a new party there.
Most Mississippians voted for “the man, not the party,” and many of them still do. Of course, in presidential politics, the state has become reliably Republican. (With the black vote routinely voting 90%-plus Democratic, a Republican needs at least 70% of the white vote to win a statewide race; McCain got 56% overall, despite the black vote going 96% for Obama.)
Wallace, of course, ran for president in the Democratic primaries in ’72 and ’76. Being from next-door Alabama, he was very popular in Mississippi (he got 63.5% here in ’68, while Nixon was third with 13.5%. In ’72, Nixon got 76.1% here against McGovern).
There was a fight for control of the state Democratic Party between the black Freedom Democrats and the white Regulars. They finally compromised and, for years, they had two co-chairmen, one black and one white.
I’ve rambled here, but I hope this has shed some light for you.
Steve, many of your points help with the answer. But it is a fact, the old “Southern Democratic Guard” could have started a 3rd party in the South if they had any real convictions – rather than carrying more about their senority in Congress.
An Independent Southern Party (not necessarily by this name) could have become a reality and could have “held the balance of power” both in Congressional elections and in Presidential elections.
But again, many of those politicians who controlled the southern states, were more interested in their “power” than they were the people.
Agree or disgree?
Those old Southern Democrats had a historical and emotional attachment to the Democratic Party. You really couldn’t expect them to just abandon that party and start a new one.
In presidential politics, the States Rights Party (’48) and George Wallace’s independent run (’68) gave disenchanted Southern Dems an option other than the Republicans. In 1960, a slate of unpledged electors carried Mississippi; the hope was that they would hold the balance of power in the Electoral College. But Kennedy won an electoral majority, and the Mississippi electors wound up voting for Sen. Harry Byrd Sr. of VA.
Louisiana had a segregationist States Rights Party in the 1950s (?) and 1960s. David Treen, a future Republican governor, participated in the SRP.
In the 1960s, a group of old-line Virginia Democrats started the Conservative Party. They were unhappy with the leftward drift of the Democratic Party but not ready to embrace the Republicans. In 1965, their gubernatorial candidate got some 13% of the vote, but most of them backed the Republican nominee for governor in 1969.
I don’t know whether it still exists, but a Southern Party was founded a few years ago.
Many old-line Democrats here in Mississippi (Sen. Jim Eastland, e. g.) wanted to maintain the one-party system here. They feared that, if we had two viable parties, they would compete for the black vote, and the blacks would hold the balance of power.
In the US Congress, a member’s party caucus is the source of his or her effectiveness. Suppose a minor party member or independent were elected to Congress, as has occasionally happened. To be effective, he has to join either the Democratic or the Republican caucus (Sens. Lieberman and Sanders, both elected independents, are members of the Dem caucus).
It’s tough to start a new party. The Libertarians have existed since 1971, and they have yet to elect the first member of Congress. The fact that, in most states, the Dems and Republicans have “stacked the deck” against independents and small parties makes it even harder.
Small parties and/or independents do sometimes draw enough votes to prevent like-minded major party candidates from getting elected.
Steve. You give these old Southern Democratic politicans more credibility and respect than I do. While “Those old Southern Democrats had a historical attachment to the Democratic Party…” , I doubt they really had any real “emotional attachment “. They saw the Democratic party solely as a “sure thing” and tentamont to election. If they had been true patriots, they would have gladly abandoned that party and started a new one. Strom Thurmond did, but unfortunately went to the GOP.
I have to disagree about a strong southern 3rd party’s strength in Congress. No, they wouldn’t necessarily have had to “caucus” with Dems or Reps, but simply “hold the balance of power” on major legislation with the some 50 to 60 votes they could have held in the House, and the potential 24 votes in the Senate. Holding the “balance of power” may not be as “ego-gratifying” to the individual officeholder, but it would have been to the Southern voters represented by those “balance of power” congressman.
But more importantly, a southern 3rd party eventally would have thrown a few presidential elections into the House of Representatives. Just because they didn’t make it in ’48 and ’68 doesn’t mean it could never happen. They could have done it in 1960 (if Faubus or Byrd had been a serious candidate) and probably again in 1976 if Wallace had ran again.
I’ve learned – after some 40 years – you cannot trust any professional politician – especially if he or she is a Democrat or a Republican. They are just that – professional politicians.
You would expect those Southern Democrats to throw away years of congressional seniority and start a new party? I remember when most of the congressional committees were chaired by Southern Democrats. At different times, both Sens. Jim Eastland and John Stennis served as president pro tem; this was by virtue of the fact that each was the senior member of the majority party, the Democrats.
The Democratic Party would not have ceased to exist in the South, since it’s the oldest political party in the world. It’s a national party, and there would have been loyalists who would have remained Democrats and filled the vacuum created by those who had left. So anyone who left the Democrats for the uncertainty of a new party would have created a whole new “can of worms” for himself (not to mention that lots of voters would have been angry over the sacrificing of congressional seniority).
Strom Thurmond’s States Rights Party didn’t last, and he always ran in SC as a Democrat, until he switched to the Republicans in ’64. His ’48 running mate, Fielding Wright of Mississippi, ran again for governor in 1955 as a Democrat.
Govs. James Byrnes of SC and Robert Kennon of LA, both Democrats, backed Eisenhower in ’52. They didn’t like the national Democratic Party’s stance on civil rights.
You refer to a potential 24 Senate votes. Since there were 11 states in the Confederacy, what would have been the 12th state?
In 1960, Sen. Harry Byrd Sr. of VA would have put years of seniority in jeopardy if he had campaigned against the Democratic nominee, Kennedy. He was also cool toward President Lyndon Johnson in ’64, but he did not endorse Goldwater.
In 1976, George Wallace ran for president in the Democratic primaries, until Jimmy Carter defeated him in the Florida primary. Wallace backed Carter in the general election.
What you’re suggesting about a new, Southern-based party was/is just not practical. If it were, it would have been accomplished.
Steve, my friend, I hardly know how to answer you. Yes, I would have expected those Southern Democrats to throw away years of congressional seniority and start a new party – if they were real patriots instead of professional politicians.
True, such new party would have struggled in those first decades just as the GOP did. I can remember when Republicans ran and received as much as half a million votes for a statewide race – only to lose. In fact, the GOP would not have grew in the South narly as fast as it did, had there been a “southern-based” 3rd party. I know many people who told me over the years, “I ain’t voting GOP, I’m voting for a man (or woman) who just happens to be a Republican.
If a southern 3rd party had got on, most of these “independent-minded” southerns would have voted for candidates of such party – rather than the GOP candidates. This I truly believe.
Yes, Strom Thurmond, Fielding Wright, John Stennis, the Talmadges, the Longs, and many others ALWAYS were professional politicians. This is why they (who ran 3rd party) always went back to the Democratic Party after flirting with a 3rd party. As badly as I have to admit it, George Wallace was a professional politician too.
So you have to understand my thesis in the context I’m presenting it. IF, and I repeat, IF, these great names of the South had been patriots first – and politicians 2nd – a 3rd party would eventually have evolved and could have held the balance of power in Congress and in Presidential elections.
Okay, I mis-counted. 22 senators instead of 24.
Suppose the unlikely event that a Southern-based third party had succeeded in gaining the balance of power in Congress and/or the Electoral College. What would the members of that party have done with that power?
It’s worth noting that, in 1912, even former President Theodore Roosevelt, running as a third-party candidate, failed to throw the election into the House of Representatives. He finished second in the race.
I don’t know how Alabamans feel about congressional seniority, but Mississippians cherish it. In fact, the last time an incumbent US senator was defeated here was in 1942; that senator had been elected in a special election in 1941. A member of Congress who threw away his seniority would be in big trouble with Mississippi voters.
Those patriots you keep mentioning are comparable to statesmen– right? Harry Truman said that a statesman is a politician who has been dead for at least 10 years.
Until 1936, the South had a veto power in the Democratic Party through the two-thirds rule; at least two-thirds of the delegate votes was required to win the presidential and the vice-presidential nominations. The South wasn’t usually able to nominate a Southerner for president, but there were enough Southern delegates to block someone from being nominated. The two-thirds rule was why there were so many VP nominees from the South.
I’ve never understood why John Nance Garner of Texas, FDR’s vice president, did not oppose the elimination of the two-thirds rule.
You obviously consider the Democrats and Republicans to be “hopeless cases.” What would have prevented your vaunted, Southern-based third party, once it had achieved power, from also becoming a “hopeless case”?
You referred to the Talmadges of Georgia. Did you know that future Gov. Gene Talmadge– Herman’s father– was, in 1924, a candidate for presidential elector for Sen. Robert LaFollette (WI) on the Progressive Party ticket?
If my memory serves, a group of Republican US senators who had backed LaFollette over President Coolidge were stripped of their seniority by the GOP caucus.
Like LaFollette, Hiram Johnson, the governor and US senator from California, was a Progressive and a Republican. Johnson was Theodore Roosevelt’s running mate on the Progressive ticket in 1912 (see George Mowry’s book, The California Progressives).
Steve, we could go on with this exchange forever and neither change the other’s mind. I stand by what I beleive could have happened, if the Southern politicians of that day had been TRUE patriots and not professional politicians.