John J. Pitney Jr. is the Roy P. Crocker professor of American politics at Claremont McKenna College. With Joseph M. Bessette, he is co-author of “American Government and Politics: Deliberation, Democracy, and Citizenship.” Polls show a lot of unhappiness with both major parties. But don’t expect an independent surge in November. At no time over the past half-century has either the House or the Senate had more than a couple of independent or third-party members. There is currently no reason to think that the 2010 election will produce anything different. The dominance of the Democrats and Republicans stems in part from the mechanics of the electoral process. Ballot access poses a big hurdle: it can be difficult and costly for other kinds of candidates to get on the general election ballot. Then they find it tough to get campaign money. The major parties have well-established fundraising networks, including contributors seeking to curry favor with incumbent politicians. Those on the outside have nothing comparable. They also have to contend with the “spoiler” image. Voters worry that, by supporting a minor candidate, they could be helping a major-party candidate that they dislike. In 2000, Ralph Nader drew votes from Al Gore, thus tipping Florida to George W. Bush — a result that most Nader voters probably did not intend. Six years later, a Republican senator from Montana got “Nadered” by a Libertarian, and his loss enabled the Democrats to take control of the Senate. Of the few victorious off-brand candidates, most have not been true independents at all, but Republicans or Democrats carrying on a factional struggle. In 1970, New York State elected James L. Buckley as a Conservative. He won because many Republicans saw him as a more faithful representative of their party than incumbent Charles Goodell. Once in the Senate, he caucused with the G.O.P. Governor Crist is hardly avatar of independence. He was very happy to receive the endorsement of the National Republican Senatorial Committee and was looking forward to the support of the party establishment. He bolted only because rank-and-file primary voters were about to reject him with a thump. His decision to run as an independent is not the tip of the iceberg. It is a lonely chunk of ice with very little beneath.The Nader Problem
Friday, April 30, 2010
Pitney on the Quisling Crist
By
Charles Johnson
at
4:51 PM
Labels:
Charlie Crist,
John J. Pitney Jr.,
Republicans
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)


2 comments:
If I'm not mistaken the libertarian Harry Browne won more votes in 2000 if Florida than Nader. If we are to assume that libertarians would have otherwise voted for a Republican, this seems to offset the "Nader effect". That's why I've never really bought into that far.
Frankly, some people just aren't going to vote for a mainstream party even if they know one will win.
Clayton is indeed mistaken. Nader received 97,488 votes in Florida, while Browne got only 16,415.
Post a Comment