A 3rd Party may tip the election in 2016 [View all]

[LearningCurve]

For those around in 2000, 2016 has the potential to give some a feeling of deja vu. For those not around, Gore lost the electoral college by a small margin. One of the reasons, many claim, is that the Green Party siphoned enough votes that otherwise would have gone for Gore. Had the Green Party and Ralph Nader not been on the ballot, the argument goes, Gore would have gotten enough votes to win at least one more state, if not several.

The position of those who supported Nader and the Greens in 2000, is that on issues that they cared about, Democrats were just as beholden to the corporatocracy as Republicans. Those who voted Green were chastised by those on the left, for effectively allowing Bush to become president. Mostly cowed, those who supported Nader in 2000 did not do so in nearly the numbers in 2004. The Greens effectively disappeared as an option for the left.

End of generalized and truncated history lesson.

Approaching 2016, we have the exact same sentiment among a certain section of the populace that led to a 3rd party getting enough of a vote to tip the scales. Only this time, it won't be the Greens. It will probably be the Libertarians. Now thought doubtlessly has some Democrats not only not bothered by the possibility, but excited about it.

The reasoning here is, that this time, it will be the Republicans who lose votes to the 3rd party, thereby ensuring a Democrat wins the presidency. The theory here is, most of the people who are likely to vote Libertarian are those in the Libertarian wing of the Republican Party. Sure, a few Dems who really want pot legalized might vote that direction, but the net gain will be for the Democratic nominee.

I suspect this line of reasoning, only holds true for the moment. This theory is based on seeing someone perceived as a libertarian-leaning Republican at the top of the ticket. If that indeed holds up, say a Rand Paul defected (and I don't for a moment believe he would) from the GOP, Democrats would have good reason to think the election was in the bag.

There is another possibility however. What if, the Libertarian candidate is someone like Penn Gillette? At that point, I think it becomes unclear who the most votes get siphoned from. It could be a wash. Or, it might actually pull more votes from the Democrats. At which point, Democrats would then blame those who voted for a 3rd party for losing the election, rather than blame the policies that caused progressives to look for alternatives on issues that were paramount to them.

The important lesson of 2000 and the Greens is not the outcome, but the conditions that allowed for that outcome. Both parties are ignoring a passionate part of the electorate right now at their potential peril.