What will voting for a third party accomplish?

When voters feel disenfranchised by the Big Two, they tend to either stay home or vote for a third party. A lot of libertarians became Libertarians because they got tired of Republican moralizing and Democrat socialism. However, this behavior is counterproductive. Voting Libertarian almost never results in electing a candidate, or a workable majority in any legislative body. Voting Libertarian does not send a message. Perhaps most damagingly, voting Libertarian generally benefits the left. If libertarians and Libertarians want their voices heard, they need to pick a party, and vote en masse.

How have the Libertarians fared in elections? Libertarians have had some success in the past at the level of state legislatures, getting 12 of their members elected, but there are not currently any Libertarian state legislators serving. Most of the Libertarian candidates in office were either appointed to their positions, or were elected to nonpartisan offices. The largest number of Libertarians that have even held public office was 311, after the 2002 elections. However, these numbers obscure some important facts: Libertarians have never elected a Congressperson, Senator or President. More important, perhaps, is the fact that outside of a few small towns, Libertarians do not hold electoral majorities anywhere in the country.

Libertarians who run as Republicans have been elected, but none who run as candidates for the Libertarian Party. In fact, the Republicans have an official Republican Liberty Caucus (or get the condensed version here.) The big names in the RLC include Ron Paul, John Shadegg, Jeff Flake and, prior to his resignation, Mark Foley. These guys get elected because they are running within an established party that agrees with them on almost everything.

How about sending a message with your vote for the Libertarians that you are tired of the same old left-right tug of war and want something different? It's a nice theory, but it doesn't work. As I mentioned in an earlier post, both political parties view the political "middle" as the ground where votes can be found. Consider these numbers, and you will see why:

Candidate	Party	Votes	% of Total
George W. Bush	Republican	62,040,610	50.73
John F. Kerry	Democrat	59,028,444	40.27
Ralph Nader	Independent	465,650	0.38
Michael Badnarik	Libertarian	397,265	0.32
David Cobb	Green	119,859	0.096

Now, think about where the three third party candidates fit on the political spectrum that frames the thinking of party leadership. Badnarik would probably be placed on the right side of the spectrum, whereas Nader and Cobb would go on the left. In order to capture the votes of Libertarians, Republicans would have to make a real lunge to the right, and actually stick to their belief in limited government. In order to capture Greens and Nader voters, Democrats would have to lunge left. In the process, both parties would have to abandon the political "middle," which makes up approximately 30% of voters. Why would any Republican in his right mind lurch to the right to capture a portion of .38% of the voting public when they can shift left, and vie for a large portion of that 30%?

As I stated in the previous post, I think the idea that Republicans can gather more votes by going mushy and moving left is absurd, but it really is how party leaders think. So far as the RNC is concerned, a Libertarian voter is simply not worth pursuing because it will lose them far more voters in the middle.

Moreover, voting Libertarian sends an ambiguous message, especially in a time of war. Are you voting Libertarian because you are opposed to Iraq, because you want drugs legalized, or because you want to vote for somebody who really believes in limited government? If you want to send a message, write a letter. Voting Libertarian does not send a message that can be interpreted with any certainty, so it might as well be encrypted.

Finally, ask yourself what will happen if you vote Libertarian in a close race? Consider these results from Florida in 2000:

Candidate	Party	Votes	% of Total
George W. Bush	Republican	2,912,790	48.847
Algore	Democrat	2,912,253	48.838
Ralph Nader	Green	97,421	1.634
Pat Buchannan	Reform	17,484	0.293
Harry Browne	Libertarian	16,415	0.275

According to the FEC's Official Election Results.

537 votes decided the 2000 election in favor of George W. Bush. That number amounts to 0.009% of the total votes cast in Florida. Had the weather been slightly different, had phone banks gone down in a precinct or two, had a few more polling places had difficulties with ballots or machines, the entire election could have gone a different way. Now take a look at the various third party candidates, and you will see why the Dems were so furious with Nader after the 2000 election. Had those 97,421 votes gone to Gore, he would have been elected overwhelmingly. The votes cast by Libertarians for Harry Browne could have given George W. Bush a similar, if smaller, lead.

The Libertarian candidate for President will not be elected any time soon. Knowing this, are you still content to cast your ballot for a person you know will lose, and do so overwhelmingly? Would it be better to cast a vote on a sure loser, or to vote for the party that agrees with you more often than not?

I will only ask the questions, the answers are for you to provide. However, I would urge you to review this post before you do so.

UPDATE: Apparently, the Libertarians held 600 appointed and elected positions in government as of 2003. I think this is new material for their 'History' page, but I may have simply missed it when I wrote the post. Either way, I got it wrong, and I apologize to both of my readers.