In this year’s tightly contested presidential election
between Republican President Bush and Democratic challenger
Massachusetts Sen. John Kerry, there appears to be little room for
fringe candidates.
Take third-party candidate Ralph Nader, whose campaign has drawn
the ire of Democrats who contend the Reform Party candidate could
glean valuable votes in battleground states from Kerry in the Nov.
2 election.
“The Democrats are concerned because they think that Nader
cost Al Gore the election in 2000,” said David Karol, a
political science professor at UC Berkeley who specializes in
political parties. “Bush’s margin of victory in Florida
and New Hampshire was smaller than Nader’s vote and if Gore
had carried either state he would have won. That’s what their
concern is.”
The Democrats’ dissatisfaction with Nader highlights the
perceived impact of fringe candidates ““ which includes
third-party candidates, independent candidates and write-in
candidates. While a fringe candidate has never won a presidential
election, historically, these long-shot candidates have played a
vital role in presidential elections by injecting campaigns with
new and sometimes progressive ideas.
Ross Perot’s 1992 presidential bid stands out as one of
the most successful third-party runs at the presidency. While Perot
failed to carry a state, he garnered 19 percent of the popular
vote.
Yet Perot’s run at the presidency is also indicative of
the unstable nature of many third parties. When Perot returned to
private life after another failed election bid in 1996, the Reform
Party, which he created, became fragmented. This year the Reform
Party nominated Nader, a candidate pushing a strong critique of
corporate America and whose political ideology is very different
from the conservative outlook of the party’s founder.
As Nader and Perot’s candidacies show, fringe candidacies
are run with varying degrees of success. Some third-party
candidacies are seen as vanity projects said Alan Ross, a political
science professor at UC Berkeley.
“I think today we are seeing a lot of ego involved as
opposed to issues, unfortunately maybe including Ralph
Nader,” Ross said. “I don’t know if he is being
heard on the issues. But his ego is so great he is putting himself
out there yet again.”
Ross said that the media are making an issue of Nader’s
feud with the Democratic Party because “they like the horse
race issue; they oppose the real issues that should be
addressed.”
But Nader’s effect could be minimal, said Michael
McDonald, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, a
non-partisan research organization.
“Nader gets a lot of play, because we think he will
determine the outcome of the election,” McDonald said.
“In truth if you look at polls closely, Nader’s effect
is overblown. The Libertarian candidate could have more of an
effect because Libertarians (might otherwise be) voting for
Bush.”
While the intrigue surrounding Nader’s campaign may
overshadow his agenda, there are other third-party candidates with
strong ideological campaigns who offer alternatives to the
Democratic and Republican parties, and often without the
controversy of Nader’s campaign.
The Libertarian Party’s ticket, which features
presidential hopeful Michael Badnarik, is one such campaign. As of
Sept. 14, Badnarik is on the California ballot and on 47 state
ballots with the potential to be on all 50 ballots. In comparison,
Nader missed the deadline to get on the California ballot and, as
of Sept. 14, is on only 34 ballots with the potential to be on
43.
Badnarik is on more ballots than any other third-party
candidate, but he is realistic about his slim chances. “I am
conscious my chances of winning are small, however I am running the
campaign to win,” Badnarik said. “George Bush and John
Kerry are unacceptable. They are proponents of unconstitutional law
““ war in Iraq. I am working as hard as I can to restore
liberty.”
For many fringe candidates, ballot access is a key hurdle to
overcome. Each state has different protocol for getting on the
ballot and this has proven to be a major impediment for fringe
candidates, whose campaigns often do not have the infrastructure to
pursue ballot access in each state.
“There were no government printed ballots until
1889,” said Richard Winger, the publisher of Ballot Access
News, a non-partisan monthly newsletter. “In the 19th century
there was no way to keep people from running, you could vote for
whoever. If Thomas Jefferson or George Washington came back they
would be shocked that the government was keeping people from voting
for people.”
Winger said the petition to run as an independent in California
is complicated and prohibitive. California, which has the largest
population of any state, requires 153,035 signatures to get on the
ballot, while almost every other state requires 50,000 signatures
or less.
In addition to third-party candidates and independents, there
are write-in hopefuls. John Joseph Kennedy is one such candidate
and bills himself as a “True Democrat.” A distant
cousin of former President John F. Kennedy, Kennedy’s
campaign is just a little over a month old. Kennedy says he has
also dealt with ballot problems as a write-in candidate.
“The average citizen does not know what is going on behind
the scenes,” Kennedy said. “Even as a write-in
candidate, states have archaic laws and they will try to snag you
on a loophole. It’s to keep the primary candidates in the
focus. We have a whole dossier on states giving us fraudulent
information. Everything about my campaign is about bringing light
to the darkness.”
Kennedy is against the war in Iraq, opposes the Patriot Act, and
is a strong proponent of environmental protection, calling himself
a protector of the “ocean kingdom.”
While Kennedy has not seen polling data on his campaign, he says
he knows what kind of people are voting for him ““ and his
take on his supporters could apply to the campaigns of other fringe
candidates.
“Seven out of 10 people who joined my campaign had
previously decided not to vote for anyone,” Kennedy said.
“I’m getting those people who decided that they had no
choice at all. Some people were deciding to vote for the lesser of
two evils. And I say evil is still evil.”