During a recent exchange with Unk, I started to wonder whatever happened to perennial presidential candidate, Harry Browne. Visiting the libertarian party website, I found this gem... proof that no matter how the dark the cloud, political hacks can find a silver lining.

For Educational Use Only

"Election 2000: Some reasons to be cheerful

News Analysis

by Bill Winter LP News Editor

No "spin" is possible: We were shellacked in the presidential race.

Harry Browne's vote total -- probably below 385,000 when the final count comes in -- was disappointingly low. Heartbreakingly low. Shockingly low. (Pick your adjective.)

It was lower than the polls predicted. It was lower than his vote total in 1996. Frankly, it was lower than anybody expected.

But, in retrospect, those 385,000 votes shouldn't come as a complete surprise.

In a presidential race that may go into the history books as the closest in U.S. history, potential third-party voters "returned home" to the two major parties to cast a vote against George W. Bush or Al Gore -- depending on whether they were more scared about having Mr. Stupid or Mr. Boring in the White House for the next four years.

All third parties suffered. Ralph Nader's vote dropped by 46% from pre-election polls. Pat Buchanan lost 52% of his expected vote. And Browne saw his vote fall off by 36% to 52% (depending on which poll you believed).

Browne had the additional problem of running against two celebrity third-party candidates; Nader with his fawning media and flock of worshipful celebrities (Susan Sarandon, Eddie Vedder, et al), and Buchanan with his $12 million in AFDC (Aid to Famous but Dependent Candidates). Nader and Buchanan sucked up the "alternative party" media opportunities like a black hole sucks up light, leaving Browne in the dark.

Even without Nader and Buchanan, the difficulties a third party has in garnering media attention have become so well known that it's become the stuff of comics. The November 13 "Frank and Ernest" comic, for example, shows a man getting word from the Federal Witness Protection Program: "Nobody will ever see you again -- we're arranging for a third party to nominate you for president."

Whatever the cause, Browne's vote totals were disappointing. But they weren't the only news from Election 2000 -- and they were balanced by some very good (but less publicized) news. If you are looking for reasons to be cheerful about Election 2000, here are five:

* More than 3.2 million people voted for partisan Libertarian candidates on Election Day -- which is nine times Browne's vote total.

If you look at the highest vote total a partisan Libertarian candidate received in any geographic area around the USA -- whether it was for Browne, a U.S. House candidate, or other state-level candidate -- the LP polled at least 3,278,607 unique votes. (Mind you, our total cumulative vote total is much higher; this is just the minimum number of people who voted for at least one LP candidate.)

Even better news: This is more than the Green Party won. Even with Nader's 2.7 million votes for president, the Greenies only polled 3.1 million unique votes.

* The Reform Party is almost certainly dead. In three presidential elections, Ross Perot and the Reformers have plummeted from 19 million votes, to 9 million, to under a half-million. If this voting pattern was an EKG, there would already be a tag on the Reform Party's big toe.

The conventional wisdom is that third parties, like a bee, sting and then die.In other words, they make their political points, get co-opted by the major parties, and vanish. In 1992, Ross Perot was an African killer bee. In 1996, he was a honey bee. And in 2000, Buchanan was a mild buzzing sound in the background.

Buchanan was so shell-shocked by his low vote total he muttered afterwards that presidential races may not be the way to build a political movement. (To which Reform Party members, whose party he hotwired for his $12 million joyride, undoubtedly responded: "Now you tell us, Pat!")

The most devastating by-product of Buchanan's flame-out: The Reform Party's honey pot -- federal campaign money -- has been lost. Without that loot to attract another big name candidate, without strong state organizations, with few elected officials, and without a coherent ideology, the Reform Party will probably be on only a handful of state ballots by 2004. By 2008, it should be extinct.

* Our good state parties performed very well, and boosted our presidential vote totals.

Don't think that strong state and local organizations make a difference? Think again.

In states where the LP ran energetic candidates for local, county, and statewide races, we racked up impressive vote totals across the board. In Massachusetts, buoyed by the strong Carla Howell for U.S. Senate campaign, Browne won 0.6%. In Indiana, with 100+ candidates on the ballot, Browne won 0.7%.

In Colorado, where the governor publicly lamented that LP State House candidates could cost the GOP seats, Browne got 0.7%. In Washington state, where LP candidates racked up one million cumulative votes -- that's right, one million in one state! -- Browne picked up 0.5%.

And in Georgia, which has led the LP in membership growth for the past few years, Browne racked up an amazing 1.42%.

The lesson: Good state parties and good candidates are the tide that lifts all votes.

* James Dan lost his race for State Assembly in Nevada.

Wait; that's good news? Yes. Dan ran an excellent campaign: He went door-to-door in his district; sent out 10-14 mailers to every voter, appeared at forums, plastered the district with signs . . . and still came in second in a two-way race. It was close -- about 55% to 45% -- but he lost to the Democratic incumbent.

Here's the good news: Dan "deserved" to lose. Not personally; he's a great guy. And not because he ran a bad campaign; it was excellent. But the harsh mathematics of politics said he would lose.

Why? Because he ran against an incumbent. That's lethal. At the U.S. House level, for example, 95% to 98% of incumbents win. The recidivism rate is lower for State House races, but incumbency is still a steep barrier to overcome.

And Dan was outspent by his opponent. In most races, the candidate who spends the most will win 85% to 93% of the time. You can beat an incumbent . . . who is not tarred by scandal . . . in a district where he or she has a 60% registered voter base . . . but you almost certainly can't do it with less money.

(Dan was also hurt by a powerful get-out-the-vote effort by Democrats, who were trying to boost Al Gore's vote. Dan simply couldn't overcome the other structural obstacles without a similar Libertarian GOTV effort.)

But here's the good news from the Dan campaign: It shows that Libertarians are subject to the same "laws" of politics as any other party. No more; no less. Had Dan run as a Republican, he would have almost certainly lost, probably with the same vote total.

It wasn't his Libertarian message that killed him, or his party affiliation. It was the inflexible mathematics of politics.

Dan's campaign was a template for what it takes for a Libertarian to win a State Assembly seat. Just not that particular State Assembly seat, against that particular candidate, in that particular year.

* Libertarians set a new U.S. House vote record, winning a combined 1.66 million votes.

When Richard Winger, third-party expert and publisher of Ballot Access News, heard that figure, he said, "I'm stunned." It was the first time in U.S. history that a third party won more than a million votes for U.S. House. The last party that came close: The Socialists in 1920.

Our average Congressional vote totals were also up sharply since the 1996 election. That year, our typical U.S. House candidate won about 4,000 votes; this year, he or she won about 6,000.

And that vote average went up despite the fact that, as with the presidential race, the contest for control of Congress was portrayed by the media as razor tight. It was -- and 1.66 million Americans still invested their votes in a Libertarian.

Even with those good news items, many Libertarians will be disappointed by Election 2000. That's understandable. It's not easy to pour your heart and soul (and financial contributions) into a presidential race, only to scrape out a paltry 385,000 votes.

But the Libertarian Party didn't get to where it is today by focusing just on the disappointments.

The Japanese have a word for the ability to persist, even when the gains appear to be frustratingly small. That word is "ganbaru" -- and it represents a spirit that is much admired by the Japanese.

The Libertarian Party has always been a case study in ganbaru. Despite the enormous difficulty of trying to build a third party, Libertarians have stuck with it.

We've already outlasted a swarm of other wanna-be third parties: The Citizens Party. The New Alliance Party. And (soon) the Reform Party. We've stung. We have not died.

We've built strong state parties. We're united by a coherent philosophy. We've shown that we can run thousands of candidates. We've put more than 300 people into public office. And almost every election, we're rewriting some part of the third-party political record book.

The lesson from Election 2000: Learn from the disappointments. Take joy from our successes. And maintain that spirit of ganbaru. It's our only chance for ultimate victory."

-- Ken Decker (kcdecker@att.net), January 03, 2001