Steve Kornacki of Salon has this carefully reasoned and researched article, debunking the idea that John B. Anderson’s 1980 independent presidential candidacy changed the identity of the winner, and also debunking the idea that Ross Perot’s 1992 run changed the identity of the winner.
Gee — jump in a time machine and ask the 80 A and 92 P voters if they would change their votes.
Nobody thinks Anderson changed the winner in 1980, that’s a total straw man designed to make the argument about 1992 look stronger.
Demo Rep, I am absolutely positive that the 80 and 92 voters would not have changed their votes. Those people voted for Anderson/Perot based on their conscience and the candidate’s values. They also realized the inadequacy of the two major parties. Just because a candidate loses does make his values/political views incorrect.
There are a lot of good third party/independent candidates that deserve a voice and ballot access but don’t because of stringent laws and public ignorance. Just because they lose does not mean that they are the wrong candidate to choose.
Bolshevik-leninist, did you even read the article? Some people actually do believe that John B. Anderson did steal the election from Jimmy Carter. While that assumption is incorrect, you can’t deny that some people make the argument.
In fact, Jimmy Carter HIMSELF blames his loss on John Anderson.
Sources:
http://hotair.com/archives/2010/10/25/jimmy-carter-reagan-only-won-in-1980-because-of-the-third-party-candidate/
http://blogs.reuters.com/gregg-easterbrook/2011/04/04/the-decline-of-incumbency-and-the-rise-of-third-party-spoilers/
http://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/noel-sheppard/2010/10/25/chris-matthews-lets-jimmy-carter-blame-loss-reagan-third-party-candid
I don’t think that Anderson cost Jimmy Carter the election, although it might have cost him a few states like Massachusetts.
Perot’s vote in 1992 possibly didn’t cost Bush, Sr., the election either, although in that case it is slightly more likely. Perot voters were part of the reason why the GOP won back the House and Senate in 1994.
How about abolishing the timebomb Electoral College ???
NONPARTISAN Approval Voting for all elected executive officers and all judges — even perhaps to get some sanity in the White House and SCOTUS.
I think Nader was right when he said in 2000 that Gore took votes from him. That’s one of the dirty little secrets of American politics: “major” parties take votes away from the opposition. We desperately need election reform aimed toward making us a multi party system before it’s too late.
amen, Brandon!! That just made my day.
I would like to see us get away from the word “spoiler.” It assumes that there is something to spoil, here the rights of major party candidates to compete only with each other.
#9- I agree with you. There’s no such thing as a “spoiler” 3rc party candidate. If anyone “spoils” the chances of a major candidate, is the candidate him/herself, for failing to attract enough voters to win.
#6–the framers of the Constitution did not want political parties. There’s not one reference to “political Parties” anywhere in the US Constitution.
The spoiler stuff is one of many EVIL side show distractions.
ALL of the major regimes in the U.S.A. are ANTI-Democracy indirect minority rule gerrymander regimes.
U.S.A. – House of Reps, Senate, Electoral College.
ALL 50 State legislatures
— Plus many, many local gerrymander regimes – in whole or part.
Result the now TOTAL political-economic-social R-O-T in the U.S.A. – especially the now 17 plus TRILLION govt debts – all govts. — with many, many trillions more in un-funded coming liabilities.
The media is basically brain dead about the ANTI-Democracy gerrymanders — due to the MORON SCOTUS party hacks and the rotted public education systems in the U.S.A.
P.R. and App.V. – NO party hack primaries, caucuses and conventions.