Saturday, December 1, 2012

Mapping Hawaiian Labor History, Part III

In February 2011, I posted the original "Mapping Hawaiian Labor History" post. I mapped the hometowns of Native Hawaiian migrant workers then living and laboring upon Jarvis Island in the equatorial Pacific Ocean in 1859. Then, in March of this year, I posted "Mapping Hawaiian Labor History, Part II," in which I looked at the geographic characteristics of Native Hawaiian migrant settlement in California between 1850 and 1880.

This fall I began to turn my attention to another chapter of my dissertation: the history of Native Hawaiian labor in nineteenth-century whaling. And like the stories of Hawaiians who left home to work on remote guano islands along the equator, or to seek gold in the mountains of California, Native Hawaiian whalemen also traveled to some pretty crazy places in search of commodities like whale oil and whalebone (baleen).

There are both temporal and spatial dynamics to this story. Both are worth sharing and discussing. So let's start with the temporal aspect:

Whale Ship Arrivals at Hawaiian Ports, 1824-1880
(Source: I made this.)

I made the chart above using Excel and by plugging in some pretty cool data I cobbled together from two sources: Marshall Sahlins' Anahulu (1992), and Theodore Morgan's excellent economic history of nineteenth-century Hawaiʻi, simply titled Hawaii (1948). It took me a few tries to figure out how I wanted to organize this chart. I could have shown the whale ship arrivals for various ports—Honolulu, Lahaina, Hilo—side-by-side. However, I realized that it was also important to show the overall trend across the archipelago. So I ended up using a type of graph, as seen above, that layers the data for each input field. Up through 1860 the number of whale ship arrivals at Honolulu [red], Lahaina [yellow], and at other Hawaiian ports [green] are shown and layered so that the total number of whale ship arrivals in the Hawaiian Kingdom is also apparent. For the period 1860 to 1880, the port-level data was not immediately available to me, but this graph let me easily integrate the data for "All Ports" for that period alongside the previous multiple-port data. 

The graph makes some things perfectly clear. 1) The 1840s and 1850s were the peak period of Hawaiʻi's engagement in the whaling industry. This was also a peak period for Native Hawaiian labor in the industry, something I explore at length in my dissertation chapter. We also see that the 1840s were a peak period for Lahaina as a port city. And even though Lahaina was smaller than Honolulu at that time, it received more whale ship arrivals for several years during that decade. The impact that hundreds of annual whale ship arrivals had on these small port cities was substantial, and in my chapter I explore how Native Hawaiian whalemen behaved when on "liberty" ashore or after returning from a season of whaling. I describe the rise in semi-hidden economic activities like peddling and prostitution in these port cities. And I also describe the massive internal migration that Hawaiian communities experienced during these decades, as thousands of Hawaiians left interior rural communities to move to Hawaiʻi's new cities—a process that led many men, in turn, to get on ships and keep migrating.

The graph also shows the whaling industry's rapid decline after 1860. There are many reasons for this: the U.S. Civil War (which resulted in the destruction of scores of American whaling ships, on which so many Native Hawaiian men worked); devastating industry disasters in the Arctic Ocean in 1871 and 1876 (in which scores of ships were lost in sea ice, and men—including Native Hawaiian whalemen—struggled for their lives in the ice and cold of Alaska's North Slope); also, overexploitation of the ocean commons and declining whale populations, including the bowheads that sustained the Arctic industry into and beyond the 1870s; and also, the declining value of whale products, overall, especially whale oil, following the discovery of petroleum in Pennsylvania in 1859

Now the graph doesn't tell us all this, but it does show the local impact of global events and processes on the Hawaiian economy and on Hawaiian labor. As whaling declined in Hawaiʻi, Hawaiian men had to look elsewhere for work. It is no coincidence that the decline of whaling (and guano mining, and all the other extractive industries I study in my dissertation) intersected with the rise of industrial sugar production in Hawaiʻi. But I'm still presently trying to figure out exactly how this transition took place, and what it meant for Native Hawaiians.

Now let's look at the geographic aspects of whaling labor. Here is a base-map of the Northern Pacific region:

Pacific Ocean base-map courtesy of Wikimedia Commons (Source)

How should one map whaling history? I initially thought through a few options. 1) I could show the various "whale grounds" where whale hunting centered during various periods of the nineteenth century. For example, in the first two decades of the nineteenth century, the Pacific whaling industry focused on the "offshore grounds" about a thousand miles or more west of the Galapagos islands and the South American Pacific coast. This is why, in fact, I cropped the base-map as seen above, still showing the Pacific coast of Ecuador and northern Peru—as a reference point for the "offshore ground." Then, from the 1820s through the 1850s, the "Japan grounds" were very important, especially in the experiences of Native Hawaiian whalemen. So the base-map above shows Japan on the left, as a reference point for its offshore whale grounds. Beginning in the 1830s and onwards, some Native Hawaiian whalemen traveled on ships to whale grounds off the "Northwest Coast" of North America, the region near British Columbia and Southern and Southeastern Alaska. By the end of the period I am looking at, especially from the 1850s through the 1870s, the Bering Strait region and the Arctic seas north of the Alaskan and Chukchi Peninsulas were a center of this industry.

The base map above covers all those regions, but I couldn't really figure out how to map "whale grounds." I had imagined that these grounds were just big circles on the ocean, and ships sailed out into them and then just waited around for whales to pass by. But then as I went into the archives and looked at a few ship logs, I realized that ships were constantly on the move through these "grounds." These were not just static, stable places, but, in fact, both whales and ships were constantly on the move through them. I really could not, then, find a way to accurately map that, since nothing was historically staying put! (Although take a look at this map from 1851 for an example of how people did try to map "whale grounds" in the nineteenth century. This map is highly problematic, as I discuss in my dissertation chapter. But it is also fun to look at.)

So, deciding against option one, I decided instead to 2) map points of reference across the ocean. Mapping whale "grounds" is complicated, but it couldn't be too hard to map single points, right? Port cities, islands, bays, landforms, etc. What I call "landmarks" and "seamarks": places across the ocean that were well-known to Hawaiian migrant workers in the nineteenth century. And we know these places because Hawaiians wrote about them, or we at least have evidence that Hawaiians lived or worked there.

But I couldn't possibly map every place that fits the criteria above. I have to make choices. And in making choices, map makers thus make an argument for what they think really matters, and what doesn't matter. I had to make a choice, and so I decided to make this argument: Hawaiians got around. Seriously. They went to and knew landmarks and seamarks in a surprising variety of places, and in extreme places, too! Mexico, the United States, Canada, Russia, China, and all across the North Pacific Ocean. This was, as I am trying to argue in my dissertation, the "Hawaiian Pacific World":

The Hawaiian Pacific World, c. 1870
(Source: I made this)

So here it is. This map has gone through many changes, and probably will go through many more. It is not just a whaling map. It is a map, I hope, to describe the near totality of the Hawaiian labor experience in the nineteenth-century Pacific. And it makes sense to map all the industries together, because when Hawaiian men worked in the whaling industry back then, they also sometimes knew people living and working in California or working on the guano islands, and some workers even worked in one industry or one environment and then moved on to another and so knew many workplaces themselves. There especially were significant overlaps between these various industries and environments in the 1850s and 1860s. Then, in the 1870s, as I argue in my dissertation, this "Hawaiian Pacific World" started to disintegrate. It's not that every Native Hawaiian came home and their knowledge of, and experience of, the world shrunk. But a new world rose in its place after 1880 or so.... a world with new dynamics, like plantation economies, "coolie" labor, racial eugenics, the peak of European (and American and Japanese) imperialism in the Pacific, etc. Perhaps there was a Hawaiian Pacific World post-1880, but it looked quite different than the one mapped above.

In 2013 I hope to post a fourth installment of "Mapping Hawaiian Labor History." Next up will be either 1) an examination of the rise of sugar plantations in the Hawaiian Kingdom; or, 2) maybe something about Hawaiʻi's very early salt industry (in the late eighteenth and early nineteenth centuries). We'll see! Mahalo for reading.

Thursday, November 8, 2012

Election Results and Analysis

Forgive me. This is going to be a long post full of lots of data, charts, and graphs. But I want to just get it all out there...

First, an updated Popular Vote Tracker:
as of 3:45PM on November 8, 2012 (out of 120,434,200 total votes cast):
Johnson (Libertarian): 1,167,148 votes = 0.97%
Stein (Green): 409,594 votes = 0.34%
Goode (Constitution): 115,294 votes = 0.1%
Anderson (Justice): 36,589 votes = 0.03%

My data here and at "Liveblogging the Election" is/was from the New York Times. I have collated the results from each state by hand in a spreadsheet and then added them all up.

Now, I must address the five questions I posed a few weeks ago in my post, "Five Things to Watch for on Election Day." Here are the questions (rephrased in the past tense) with their accompanying answers:

1) Was 2012 the best Libertarian Party performance ever? Yes and No.

2) Was 2012 the best Constitution Party performance ever? No.

3) Was 2012 the best Green Party performance since Nader [2000]. Yes. 

4) Were any third party candidates "spoilers" in 2012? No.

5) Did the two-party paradigm crumble and begin a slow death in 2012? Nope.

And at "Liveblogging the Election" Tuesday night I added a sixth question:

6) Is the new Justice Party worth paying attention to in 2012? The answer is, frankly, no.

So, as you can see, my historically-informed questions (with their implicit accompanying predictions) were not as "spot-on" as Nate Silver's statistical analyses proved to be. My blog hasn't received the same attention (of course) as Mr. Silver's has, but I do think there are some useful data/analysis here to mull over...

So let's now go through each of the five questions and their answers one-by-one.


1) Best Libertarian Party Performance Ever?

Gary Johnson, the 2012 Libertarian candidate for president, received well over one million votes. This made him the first presidential candidate in the Libertarian Party's forty-year history to ever win more than one million votes. The previous best by a Libertarian candidate was in 1980 when Ed Clark won approximately 920,000 votes in the presidential race. So, best performance ever? Yes.

But, when Ed Clark ran for president, only 86 million American voted. This year (2012), we know that at least 120 million Americans voted. So even though Johnson may have won 200,000 to 300,000 more votes than Clark did thirty-two years ago, if a third party is to survive (much less grow), its numbers must inflate at the same pace as total voter turnout increases. As a percentage of the popular vote, Ed Clark in 1980 won 1.06% of the vote. But Johnson, based on my latest estimates, won only 0.97%. I hope that when all votes are counted Johnson can cross the one percent threshold, but it is extremely doubtful that he will catch up to Clark's 1.06%. So, best performance ever? Almost, but not quite.

Third Party Presidential Election Results (Select Parties), 1972-2012
(Source: I made this!)

As can be seen in the graph above, Gary Johnson's performance in 2012 was pretty amazing nevertheless. He took a party, the Libertarian Party, that had just one amazing year in 1980 but since had achieved only one half of one percent of the popular vote (or less) for the next seven election cycles (three decades, almost) and he brought the party's share of the popular vote back up to 1 percent. People are talking about libertarianism now. The rise of the Tea Party has helped, as has the popularity of Ron Paul. All of this helped Gary Johnson pull off such a strong win. Of course, Libertarians could have done better. I am sure that if Paul had sought the party's nomination (as he did in 1988 — he won the nomination that year, but did poorly in the general election as can be seen above) that the Libertarian Party could have won something more like Nader's 2.7% in 2000. So, perhaps that will happen in 2016. Or perhaps Gary Johnson — because he was an excellent candidate and appealed to so many young people — will run again in 2016 and break Ed Clark's 1.06% record.

Percentage of Voters Selecting Libertarian Party Candidate Gary Johnson, on a scale from 0% to 3%
U.S. Presidential Election, 2012 (Source: I made this!)

The above map might be a bit confusing. But it tells the viewer two different things. The yellow shading shows the intensity of voter support for Gary Johnson in that state. (Lighter colors indicate Johnson received closer to 0% of that state's vote; darker colors indicate he received closer to 3% [or even higher] of that state's vote.) Johnson's best state in 2012 was New Mexico, his home state, where he won 3.5% of the vote. It is harder to speak of his "worst" states, since in every state where he appeared on the ballot he received at least 0.5% of that state's vote. Being that Libertarian candidates for President have never really won more than 0.5% of the national vote for three decades, it is astounding that Johnson exceeded that mark in every single state in which he competed. Of course, the GOP used their armament of cash to sue Johnson off the ballot in Michigan, and Oklahoma prohibits any third party from participating in the presidential election. So those were his worst states. 

The second thing that the map tells us is how Gary Johnson's results compare to those of his predecessor, Bob Barr, from the 2008 presidential election. Basically what we see is that in every state  where Johnson competed he performed much better than Barr did in 2008. Only in Michigan, where Johnson was kept off the ballot, did the Libertarian Party fare worse in 2012 than in 2008. The Libertarian Party's state of greatest improvement was New Mexico, where Johnson improved upon Barr by 3.25 percentage points. (But of course that's because New Mexico is Gov. Johnson's home state.) The party's greatest growth however was definitely in the Plains states and Rocky Mountain states.


2) Best Constitution Party Performance Ever?

Virgil Goode, the Constitution Party candidate for president, won over 115,000 votes on Tuesday night, securing 0.1% of the national popular vote. But this was worse than that of his predecessor, Chuck Baldwin, who in 2008 won nearly 200,000 votes and secured 0.15% of the popular vote. So, best Constitution Party performance ever? No.


Third Party Presidential Election Results (Select Parties), 1972-2012
(Source: I made this!)

Goode's loss on Tuesday came as a bit of shock to me. I had predicted that he would take the Constitution Party to its best-ever showing, but as can be seen from the above graph, 2012 turned out to be not only worse for the Constitution Party, but it was actually one of the party's worst performances in a presidential election ever in its twenty-year history. Goode's performance was certainly the party's worst since 2000 when Howard Phillips won only 0.09% of the vote. With most votes counted, it looks like Goode has done just a bit better than Phillips did twelve years ago. The party's best performance was in 1996 when perennial candidate Phillips won nearly 1/5 of one percent of the popular vote. Overall, Goode's lackluster performance Tuesday night might lead the Constitution Party to do some soul searching. After twenty years and six election cycles running presidential candidates, they might ask themselves: what can we do in 2016 to try to at least break the 0.2% barrier and compete evenly with the Greens and Libertarians?

Part of Goode's problem was ballot access:

Percentage of Voters Selecting Constitution Party Candidate Virgil Goode, on a scale from 0% to 3%
U.S. Presidential Election, 2012 (Source: I made this!)

Unlike Gary Johnson's map above, we can see in this map that Goode's shades are lighter in every single state as compared to the Libertarians. I had predicted that Goode's best state would be Virginia, since it was his home state. He did well there (although not as well as Johnson). But in fact Goode's best states were South Dakota (0.65% of the vote) and Wyoming (0.59%). The numbers within each states show how much better or worse Goode performed as compared to his predecessor, Chuck Baldwin, in 2008. As already mentioned, Baldwin did better all around, and this is apparent in the map above. Despite Constitution Party gains in Virginia, South Dakota, and Wyoming, on a whole the party fared worse in almost every state in 2012 than they did in 2008. This is partly because the party lost ballot access in so many states. (See Alaska, Oregon, Nebraska, and Arkansas on the map above, for example.) Constitution Party support was highest in the upper Plains and Rocky Mountain states, but we've already seen that that ground is also dominated by Libertarians (and Republicans, for that matter). If the Constitution Party is going to grow (or even stay in the game in the 2010s) they probably need to focus on the South. But for whatever reason, Goode was not able to win the South as well as Baldwin did four years ago.


3) Best Green Party Performance since Nader [2000]?

Jill Stein won over 400,000 votes on Tuesday night, and secured 0.34% of the national popular vote. She easily outperformed her predecessor, Cynthia McKinney, who won only 161,000 votes (0.12%) in 2008. She nearly tripled the Green Party's share of the popular vote this time around. She also easily outperformed David Cobb's 120,000 votes (only 0.1%) from 2004. In 2000, Ralph Nader won nearly 3 million votes and secured 2.7% of the national popular vote. So, Stein came nowhere near that level of support, but at the same time she easily brought the Green Party back from the brink of irrelevancy from the 2000s. So, best Green Party performance since Nader? Yes. I was right!

Third Party Presidential Election Results (Select Parties), 1972-2012
(Source: I made this!)

Stein's success on Tuesday night is readily apparent in the graph above. In 2004 and in 2008 the Green Party had performed worse than both the Libertarians and the Constitutionalists. In nearly tripling the party's share of the popular vote, the Green Party's growth from 2008 to 2012 is actually more substantial than that of the Libertarians'. But in so many ways, both parties—Greens and Libertarians—have a lot to celebrate in 2012. Of course, Ralph Nader is lurking behind this data. He was responsible for the Green Party's successes in 1996 and 2000 (as seen above). Then, when the party refused to nominate him in 2004, he ran as an independent candidate. He ran again as an independent in 2008. I have suggested that Nader's presence in those races probably explains partly why the Greens did so poorly in the 2000s. 2012 was the first election cycle in two decades in which Ralph Nader was not running for president. This might help explain why Jill Stein was able to secure hundreds of thousands of more votes than her predecessors did.

Percentage of Voters Selecting Green Party Candidate Jill Stein, on a scale from 0% to 3%
U.S. Presidential Election, 2012 (Source: I made this!)

As can be seen in the map above, the Green Party made substantial gains in most states in 2012. First, the shading indicates the level of support for Jill Stein within each state, from light green to dark green. Stein's best states were Maine and Oregon, the only states in which she won over 1% of the vote. (Maine=1.28%; Oregon=1.07%). She did generally well on the West Coast (including Alaska) and in the Northeast, but the Green Party continues to struggle to achieve ballot access in much of New England where she might have done well, as she did in Maine. The numbers within each state indicate her success as compared to her predecessor, Cynthia McKinney. We can see that in all but one state (Louisiana), wherever Jill Stein was on the ballot in 2012 she helped increase the Green Party's share of that state's vote. But she was unable to achieve ballot access in Nevada, Nebraska, and elsewhere, meaning the Green Party lost some votes. Overall the 2012 data demonstrates that the Green Party does have a future, although its post-Ralph Nader future is still (from this historian's perspective) a bit uncertain. 



4) Spoiler States?

I had predicted that there would be at least some states where a third party candidate's share of the vote would exceed the difference between the two major candidates, Barack Obama and Mitt Romney. This is the situation that occurred in 2000 in two states, New Hampshire and Florida, when Ralph Nader received more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore. 

The closest state this year was/is Florida (Obama is ahead as of today, but the race has still not be called in his favor). Currently, out of over 8 million votes cast, Barack Obama leads Mitt Romney in Florida by just over 50,000 votes. Gary Johnson received over 44,000 votes in Florida (one of his worst performances in any state, only winning 0.5% of the vote). All other third party candidates received less than 10,000 votes. So, was/is Florida a "spoiler" state? Not at present. As all votes are counted (and potentially recounted), the gap between Obama and Romney might decrease. But no one has been labeling Johnson a "spoiler" in Florida so far, probably because whether or not Romney wins the state Obama will still win the White House. So who really cares what happens in Florida? :)

As Nate Silver had predicted, Ohio was the "tipping state" in 2012: the state that pushed Obama over the edge in the electoral college and handed him the presidency. But if Ohio was so important, the role of third parties there was not. Obama won the state by over 100,000 votes, more, it seems, than the combined results of all third party contenders combined. So, no spoiler here.

In every other state, either Obama or Romney won by at least two percentage points. I had predicted that if there was a "spoiler" effect this year it would 1) raise the profile of third parties (which is good), but also 2) potentially turn people off from voting third party as happened in 2000 (which is bad). So, let's just say there is no reason to be disappointed that there was no "spoiler" effect this year. Third parties need time to grow slowly... 


5) Death of the Two-Party Paradigm?

No. Not yet. This will take more time...

Total Third Party Presidential Election Support, 1960-2012 
(Source: I made this!)

It's not as if third party candidates made no progress in 2012. In fact, whereas only about 1.48% of voters selected a third party candidate for president in 2008, 1.56% of voters did the same in 2012, a 0.08% increase. Statistically significant? Probably not. As you can see in the graph above, support for third party candidates has risen slowly since 2004, but in the big picture (from 1960 to the present), little rises don't really matter. The differences in third party support between 1972 and 1976, say, don't matter when compared to 1968 or 1980. Same with the years 1984 and 1988. What is startling about the above data is that it seems that the 2004-2012 period represents the first time in at least half a century that three election cycles have come and gone without a major third party challenge to the two major parties. 1960-64 was interrupted by George Wallace's 1968 bid. 1972-76 was interrupted by John Anderson's 1980 bid. 1984-88 was interrupted by Ross Perot's two bids in 1992 and 1996. Nader did well in 2000, but not as well as any of those former third party challengers did, so in some ways we are in the midst of a four-election-cycle of third party irrelevance. To put this another way, come the 2016 presidential contest, it will have been 20 years since we last saw a third party candidate win over 5% of the popular vote, something that used to happen at least once every three cycles from the 1960s through the 1990s.

So, in many ways, we're not anywhere close to seeing the "death of the two-party paradigm." The question for 2016 is: do we strive to keep inching up support for third parties, maybe to 2% nationally? Or do we strive for a big win from a "celebrity" candidate — a Wallace, an Anderson, a Perot — even if it means more up-and-down-and-up-and-down support for third parties over the next fifty years?


6) The Justice Party?

I had wondered if Rocky Anderson's Justice Party might emerge in 2012 as a viable third party to challenge the Constitutionalists, Greens, and Libertarians. It did not.

Rocky Anderson, Justice Party presidential candidate, received less than 40,000 votes, securing only 0.03% of the national popular vote. That's not a horrible start. When the Libertarian Party ran their first presidential candidate in 1972, they received less than 0.01% of the popular vote. When the Constitution Party ran its first presidential candidate in 1992, they received only 0.04% of the vote (similar to Anderson's 0.03%). The Greens did better because they had Ralph Nader (winning 0.7% of the vote in 1996). So maybe the Justice Party has a future. Anderson's best performance was in Utah (his home state) where he won 0.5% of the vote. But in the fourteen other states in which he had ballot access, he performed rather poorly, usually worse than Johnson, Stein, and/or Goode. And of course, in the thirty-five states where he received only write-in votes (not yet tallied) if he received any votes at all, the Justice Party's lack of ballot access had the effect of pulling down Anderson's overall numbers nationwide.

I'm not saying that there isn't a future for the Justice Party in 2016. But we won't really know until then.


Odds & Ends

Top Third Party Presidential Candidates per State, shaded by their percentage of that state's vote, on a scale from 0% to 3%
U.S. Presidential Election, 2012 (Source: I made this!)

Readers really got a kick out of this map when I produced it a few weeks ago using the results of the 2008 presidential election. Well, here is the same map with the 2012 results. This map (like the red and blue maps we so often see) assigns each state a color based on which party won the most votes in that state. Only here I am excluding the Republicans and Democrats to see what the results would look like if only third parties ran for president! Gary Johnson and the Libertarian Party would have won every state in the union except for Oklahoma, Michigan, and the District of Columbia (D.C.). Jill Stein of the Green Party won Michigan (largely because the Libertarians were kept off the ballot there by GOP shenanigans). But she legitimately won more votes than Johnson did in D.C., making the District the only place in the entire United States where Greens regularly perform better than Libertarians! (And, of course, Oklahoma doesn't allow any third parties at all.)

Percentage of Voters Selecting Third Party Presidential Candidates, on a scale from 0% to 4%
U.S. Presidential Election, 2012 (Source: I made this!)

This maps tells the viewer two things. The shading of each state (from light red to dark red) indicates the intensity of voter support for third party presidential candidates in 2012. The number within each state indicates the change in support for third parties from 2008 to 2012. So, first, we can see that in 2012 New Mexico, Alaska, and Maine led the way in terms of overall support for third party candidates. 4.1% of New Mexicans, 3.4% of Alaskans, and 3.1% of Mainers voted third party on Tuesday night. The data compares interestingly to 2008 when Montana led in support for third party candidates. I am not sure New Mexico would really be so red if not for Gary Johnson (since that is his home state), but Alaska and Maine are definitely long-term friends for third parties. Maine, for example, has the highest percentage of enrolled Greens of any state in the union. And Alaska was, by my reckoning, the last state to ever hand over 10% of its vote to a third party candidate for president. (That was Ralph Nader in 2000.) 

The numbers within each state are also interesting. The map demonstrates that support for third party candidates increased in every mid-Atlantic state as well as across the Rust Belt. From New York down to Virginia and west to Illinois, voters in every state came out in greater numbers for third party candidates in 2012 than they did in 2008. In New England, though, with the exception of Maine, support either remained the same (no number is listed in that case) or decreased since 2008. Elsewhere, across the entire South, for example, support for third party candidates either stayed the same or increased in 2012. However, starting with Michigan and heading west across the northern half of the western U.S., most states in 2012 gave less support to third party candidates than they did in 2008. This is especially true in some of the Rocky Mountain states. But support for third parties did increase slightly on the west coast. Overall, as already mentioned, support for third party candidates rose 0.08 percentage points in 2012 from 1.48% of the national popular vote to 1.56%.


Last but not least: Jill Stein Breaks the Glass Ceiling...

It has gone completely unreported, so I am going to report it: Jill Stein, Green Party candidate for president, won over 400,000 votes (0.34%) on Tuesday night, making her the most successful female presidential candidate in American history

Previous to Stein's historic success on Tuesday, the most votes ever received by a female presidential candidate were the nearly 220,000 votes won by Lenora Fulani, New Alliance Party candidate for president in 1988. That year, Fulani won 0.24% of the popular vote, coming in fourth place. By comparison, on Tuesday night Jill Stein won over 400,000 votes, won 0.34% of the popular vote, and also came in fourth place. In terms of her overall vote count and share of the popular vote, Jill Stein made history in 2012! (Of course, female vice-presidential candidates, such as Geraldine Ferraro and Sarah Palin, received more votes than Stein did, but Stein is the first woman at the head of a ticket to either win over 400,000 votes or over 0.3% of the popular vote.) Congratulations, Jill!!

Tuesday, November 6, 2012

Liveblogging the Election


12:41 AM: Popular Vote Tracker
As of 12:30 AM (out of 97,373,992 total votes cast):
Johnson (Libertarian), 0.9%
Stein (Green), 0.3%
Goode (Constitution), 0.09%
Anderson (Justice), 0.03%

This will be my last update of the evening. With over 97 million votes counted, there will still be more returns (and likely more wins for third party candidates since most of the uncounted votes are in the third party-leaning western states). But the race is beginning to wind down. The data has stayed basically the same over the past hour. The thing to watch into the morning is to see whether or not Gary Johnson can get over 1% of the national popular vote. And if he gets over 1.1% he will have the best-ever showing for a Libertarian Party presidential candidate. But at this moment it is not clear whether he will cross that barrier.

More updates to come in the following days... Thanks for reading.


12:06 AM: Gary Johnson wins county in Kansas?
I wasn't sure if a third party candidate could win any counties this year, but yes, it has happened! According to the New York Times, Gary Johnson won Marshall County in northeastern Kansas with an amazing 66.7% of the vote. Is that for real??

12:46 AM Update: Whoops. Looks like the New York Times messed up. In fact, it was Romney who won Marshall county with 66.7% of the vote, not Johnson.


11:41 PM: What's Going on in Virginia?
With 93% of the vote tallied, Obama is up by only 9,000 votes in Virginia. Gary Johnson is holding 27,251 votes, which would make him a "spoiler." Virgil Goode is also holding 12,464 votes, which would make him a "spoiler," too. Even Jill Stein, at nearly 8,000 votes, is close to "spoiling" the race, although she couldn't really "spoil" it if Obama wins, right? :)


11:35 PM: Has Obama actually won Ohio?
All the TV networks and NPR have called the election for Barack Obama. This is because they believe he has won Ohio. But Obama is only up by 30,000 votes in Ohio right now with only 76% of votes tallied. Gary Johnson, meanwhile, has nearly 40,000 votes. So even if Obama does eventually actually win Ohio tonight, what will be the narrative about Gary Johnson's 0.9% of the vote? Will the GOP blame him for "spoiling" Romney's chances in the state? Many folks are going to bed now, but the really interesting narrative about what happened in Ohio is just beginning...


11:20 PM: Popular Vote Tracker
As of 11 PM (out of 45,013,013 total votes cast):
Johnson (Libertarian), 0.9%
Stein (Green), 0.3%
Goode (Constitution), 0.08%
Anderson (Justice), 0.02%

One hour later, with 45 million votes tallied, Johnson is up, Stein is up, Goode is up another little bit of a percentage point, and Anderson is holding steady. I am a little worried about the quality of this data, though. Some of the data I was using was posted earlier but then was retracted. I am not sure why that is. Every hour I am updating the data, though... 
Also, I think what I predicted before is proving to be true, which is that third party candidates are receiving more support in the western states rather than the eastern ones. This might explain why we are seeing Johnson and Stein's shares of the popular vote going up now.


10:45 PM: It All Comes Down to Florida?
An hour later and Florida is still the closest race in the country right now. Obama is up by about 40,000 votes. Gary Johnson currently holds 40,187 votes. If this was it, Obama's margin of victory would just barely overcome Johnson's share of the vote, so Romney would not be able to cry "spoiler" over Johnson. Obama is up by 0.6 percentage points and Johnson holds 0.5% of the vote. Almost 90% of the votes have been counted. If things stay as they are, Obama will win it.


10:18 PM: Popular Vote Tracker
As of 10 PM (out of 35,754,495 total votes cast):
Johnson (Libertarian), 0.8%
Stein (Green), 0.2%
Goode (Constitution), 0.07%
Anderson (Justice), 0.02%

Out of over 35 million votes cast, it is becoming apparent that well over 1% of voters this year have voted for a third party candidate. Since last hour, Gary Johnson's share of the vote has increased 1/10 of one percent up to 0.8%. Stein is holding steady at 0.2%. Goode and Anderson are both up very slightly. 


9:34 PM: Florida, oh, Florida!
Florida is a mess right now. With 75% of the votes counted, the only difference between Obama and Romney is about 5,000 votes. How are the third party candidates doing? Gary Johnson has over 35,000 votes. Spoiler? Jill Stein has over 7,000 votes. Spoiler? Roseanne Barr, former TV star and comedian, has nearly 7,000 votes! Spoiler? If anything, Florida in 2012 is going to prove what we already learned in the same state in 2000: that third parties matter. I've got a lot of respect for those Floridians who have the courage to vote their conscience and vote third party, despite knowing that their neighbors are going to hate them tomorrow over this! :)


9:24 PM: Gary Johnson and New Mexico
The polls in New Mexico just closed, and it behooves us to take a closer look at the results there. That's because Gary Johnson was once the Governor of New Mexico; as it is his home state, he is expected to do quite well there. Currently, with 15% of the vote counted, Obama has a solid lead (over 10 percentage points) over Romney. But Johnson is also doing well; he is holding 3.5% of the vote. If the Obama-Romney race tightens and if Johnson makes gains, New Mexico could possibly be in play as a "spoiler" state.


9:17 PM: Gary Johnson and North Carolina
With over 40% of the vote counted, it looks as if North Carolina might actually end up a "spoiler" state for Gary Johnson. At least that's a possibility. Currently Romney leads Obama there by less than 40,000 votes. Gary Johnson has won almost 25,000 votes. In other terms, Romney is ahead by 1.2 percentage points while Johnson currently holds 0.8% of the vote. This is not quite in "spoiler" territory yet, but this race could be interesting.


9:02 PM: Popular Vote Tracker
As of 8:45 PM (out of 17,585,619 total votes cast):
Johnson (Libertarian), 0.7%
Stein (Green), 0.2%
Goode (Constitution), 0.06%
Anderson (Justice), 0.01%

There are so many states in play now that with this report I begin to update the Popular Vote Tracker only once an hour (rather than twice an hour). With almost 18 million votes counted, Johnson holds steady. Stein has jumped up to a solid 0.2% from 0.1%. Goode is up just a bit. Anderson is down just a bit. Overall, these numbers are lower than I expected, but we need to take into account that support for third party candidates is historically highest in the U.S. West, not in the East. So I predict these numbers will be going up as the night continues.


8:37 PM: Gary Johnson and Florida
Right now the closest race in the nation is in Florida. With over 30% of the votes in, Obama and Romney are only about 10,000 votes apart. Meanwhile, Gary Johnson has over 20,000 votes. To put it another way, the difference between Obama and Romney right now in the state of Florida is 0.2 percentage points, and Gary Johnson's share of the vote is at 0.5%. This is a race to watch!


8:27 PM: Popular Vote Tracker
As of 8:15 PM (out of 7,852,375 total votes cast):
Johnson (Libertarian), 0.7%
Stein (Green), 0.1%
Goode (Constitution), 0.05%
Anderson (Justice), 0.02%

With about half of the states in play now, it is taking a lot longer to tabulate all this data. Almost 8 million votes have been counted so far. Johnson and Stein's respective shares of the vote are stable. But we see that Virgil Goode and Rocky Anderson are very, very slowly inching up in their share of the popular vote as well.


8:09 PM: Will New Hampshire Live Free, or Die?
New Hampshire is supposedly a haven for libertarians. Its state motto is "Live Free or Die." Gary Johnson's campaign slogan is "Live Free." As more and more results start to come in from New Hampshire, Gary Johnson is holding steady at 1.8% of the vote there. But if the difference between Obama and Romney in New Hampshire ends up being less than Johnson's overall catch, Johnson will be labeled a "spoiler." Then will we see New Hampshireans reconsider their love for all things "liberty"? Or will they welcome Johnson and embrace the Libertarian Party as their own?


7:54 PM: Popular Vote Tracker
As of 7:45 PM (out of 3,155,344 total votes cast):
Johnson (Libertarian), 0.7%
Stein (Green), 0.1%
Goode (Constitution), 0.03%
Anderson (Justice), 0.01%

Finally, Virgil Goode and Rocky Anderson are on the map, both having picked up a few votes in Florida tonight. Jill Stein is holding steady at 0.1% of the national vote. Gary Johnson has taken a big hit since thirty minutes ago. This is, I think, largely because about 2/3 of the 3 million votes counted so far are all from one state: Florida. And so far Johnson only has 0.4% of the vote in that state.


7:38 PM: Three More States
Polls just closed in three more states (as of 7:30 PM): North Carolina, Ohio, and West Virginia. All eyes of course will be on Ohio all night long...including mine. If ever there was a possibly serious "spoiler" state, it is Ohio.


7:31 PM: Who will Spoil Virginia?
This is a good question to ask while watching the Virginia results coming in. If the race is tight, both Gary Johnson and Virgil Goode each have the potential to win more votes than the difference between Obama and Romney. In such an event it will be quite fascinating to see who gets labeled the "spoiler." Virginia happens to be Goode's home state. But Johnson may likely be a "spoiler" elsewhere, meaning that he will get more media attention for his overall "spoiling." Remember that in 2000 it wasn't just Ralph Nader who won more votes in Florida than the difference between Bush and Gore; practically every third party candidate in that state won more than the difference between Bush and Gore. So how come Nader got the "spoiler" label and the other candidates, like Pat Buchanan, were let off the hook??

Presently, Johnson has claimed 0.8% of the vote in Virginia and Goode has 0.3%.


7:19 PM: Popular Vote Tracker
As of 7:15 PM (out of 224,815 total votes cast):
Johnson (Libertarian), 1.5%
Stein (Green), 0.1%
Goode (Constitution), 0%
Anderson (Justice), 0%

Johnson and Stein are both up a bit from where they were thirty minutes ago.


7:09 PM: Indiana and the Libertarian
Actually not much happening yet in the 7 PM states... But back in Indiana, where 3% of the vote has been tallied so far, Gary Johnson is still doing quite well. He currently has 1.8% of the vote there.


7:01 PM: Open the Floodgates!
Polls have just closed in six states: Florida, Georgia, New Hampshire, South Carolina, Vermont, and Virginia.
Plus there are two more (that are now totally finished): Indiana and Kentucky.
Lots of data is going to come pouring in. Yikes!


6:48 PM: Popular Vote Tracker
As of 6:45 PM (out of 105,861 total votes cast):
Johnson (Libertarian), 1.4%
Stein (Green), 0.07%
Goode (Constitution), 0%
Anderson (Justice), 0%


6:36 PM: Indiana and Kentucky
Right now a very small number of votes are being tallied in two states: Indiana and Kentucky.

Anything worth watching here in term of third parties? Yes. Interestingly enough. In 2008, the Libertarian Party candidate Bob Barr had his best performance of any state in Indiana. He won over 1% of the popular vote there. (You can see the high level of Libertarian support in Indiana very clearly in the map I've posted at "Mapping the Election.")

The question tonight is: how will Gary Johnson do in Indiana? We'll have to wait and see, but as of right now he is currently at 1.4% of the vote in that state, better than Barr in 2008.


6:20 PM: Popular Vote Tracker
As results trickle in from Indiana and Kentucky, I thought I'd give the number-crunching a shot just to see how long it takes me to aggregate all the data. I estimate that by the time I can post the data here, it will be about 10-15 minutes old.

Anyway, here it is as of 6:15 PM EST:

Johnson (Libertarian), 1.0%
Stein (Green), 0.2%
Goode (Constitution), 0%
Anderson (Justice), 0%


5:50 PM: Five Things to Watch For — Plus One More
As we await the 6 PM hour (when some results from a few states might start trickling in?), I thought I would re-cap the "Five Things to Watch For on Election Day" that I wrote a few weeks ago. Here they are:

1) Best Libertarian Party Performance Ever?
In a nutshell, the best Libertarian Party performance in a presidential election occurred in 1980 when Ed Clark won just over 1% of the national popular vote. He did not win any states in the electoral college. Clark's 1% seems like a small hurdle for this year's candidate, Gary Johnson, to exceed. I predict Johnson will easily give the Libertarians their best performance ever tonight.

2) Best Constitution Party Performance Ever?
Basically, a Constitution Party presidential candidate has never won more than 1/5 of one percent of the national popular vote. This year's candidate, Virgil Goode, has a shot at passing that barrier and giving the Constitution Party their best performance ever.

3) Best Green Party Performance since Nader [2000]?
Nader won about 2.7% of the national popular vote in 2000. Since then the most successful Green presidential candidate, Cynthia McKinney, won only 0.12% of the popular vote in 2008. This year's candidate, Jill Stein, should easily exceed McKinney's results, but probably will not match Nader's successes of 2000. 

4) Spoiler States?
The question really is not "if," but "how many"? In 2000 when Nader was declared "Spoiler Extraordinaire," he actually won more votes than the difference between Bush and Gore in only two states: New Hampshire and Florida. Gary Johnson, the 2012 Libertarian Candidate, might surpass Nader's level of "spoilerhood" tonight. It all depends on how many "swing states" end up being really tight races. If the difference between Obama and Romney is less than 1% in at least three or more states, then I predict Johnson will outdo Nader's "spoilerhood" of 2000. Get ready for the hand-wringing and whining about third parties all over again! :)

5) Death of the Two-Party Paradigm?
It's a good question, but I would safely say the answer tonight is: No. Not yet. It will take much more time and hard work.

Tonight I am adding one more thing to watch for:

6) Rocky Anderson and the Justice Party?
Once in a while a political party is formed simply as a vehicle for a particular "celebrity" candidate. Ross Perot had the Reform Party in 1996. And so Rocky Anderson has the Justice Party in 2012. The history of the Reform Party tells us that when the "celebrity" candidate retires, the party soon falls apart; by the early 2000s, the Reform Party had largely disappeared on the national scene. So how will Mr. Anderson's Justice Party perform tonight? Will the Justice Party have legs, so to speak, or will it disappear as quickly as it appeared?

For more on my "Five Things to Watch For on Election Day," please read the original post here.


4:53 PM: Third Party Support in the U.S. House
Earlier today I posted some historical data on third party support for U.S. senatorial candidates over the past three decades. The graph above shows the corresponding data for the U.S. House.

What is immediately apparent from the data is that since about 1990, 4-6% of the popular vote has been the "normal" catch for third parties in the U.S. House popular vote. This is much improved from the overall third party performance in the 1980s. Another clear trend is the steady growth seen in support for U.S. House candidates from all major third parties, including the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties.

Things to watch for tonight? Will the Libertarian Party beat its former best of 1.6% of the popular vote (achieved in 2000) in this year's house races? Will Greens top their 2008 performance and break the 0.5% barrier in 2012? Will the Constitution Party continue its (quite) slow growth, or will it stall out at 1/10 of 1 percent?

Just as in the U.S. Senate, it is important to note that no third party candidate has actually won a seat in the U.S. House since around the 1940s or '50s.

To understand the differences between third party support way back in the 1940s versus today, I figured I would graph the whole thing (or as much as I have data for) from 1942 to the present. (I have excluded noting the actual third parties on the graph from the 1940s and 50s, but they were the American Labor Party, the Progressive Party, and the Farmer-Labor Party, mostly...):
What I find most interesting about the above data are two things: 1) that support for third party candidates was so low from the 1950s through the 1980s (perhaps a reflection of Cold War politics?), and 2) that support for third party candidates is at an all-time high (well, at least since 1942) now.


2:45 PM: Popular Vote Tracker
One of the tools I will unveil tonight I call the "popular vote tracker." As each state's results come in I will keep a running tally of the percentage of the popular vote that each of four major third party presidential candidates is receiving. (Those candidates are Gary Johnson [Libertarian], Jill Stein [Green], Virgil Goode [Constitution], and Rocky Anderson [Justice].)

I was just reading an article at npr.org and discovered (to my great surprise) that at least two towns in New Hampshire have already finished voting today! And, despite NPR's "Incoming Results" page which erroneously lists only Obama's and Romney's share of the popular vote, everyone should know that Gary Johnson also received one vote in New Hampshire this morning. (That's one vote out of 43 cast.)

So, here is the popular vote tracker as of 2:45 PM on Election Day:

Obama (Democrat), 65%
Romney (Republican), 33%
Johnson (Libertarian), 2.3%
Stein (Green), 0%
Goode (Constitution), 0%
Anderson (Justice), 0%

2:52 PM Update: Some sources are reporting Gary Johnson actually got two votes this morning. That would place his share of the popular vote at 4.7%.


1:21 PM: Third Party Support in the U.S. Senate
In anticipation of the polls closing this evening, let's not forget that there are more races worth watching tonight than just the presidential race. Across all fifty states, candidates from various political parties (including many third parties) are vying for seats in both the U.S. House and U.S. Senate.

The above graph charts the level of third party support over the past 28 years (or over the past 14 election cycles) for U.S. senatorial candidates. The thick black line shows the total third party share of the popular vote for senatorial candidates. As you can see, support for third party candidates has increased on a whole over the past three decades. In 2010, a peak of 6.65% of voters selected third party candidates for the U.S. Senate. Of course, no third party candidate has actually won a seat in the senate in at least half a century (although many independent candidates have been more successful).

Things to watch for tonight? I don't expect any third party candidate to actually win a seat this year. But will the Libertarian Party best its previous record of 1.75% of the popular vote in 2002? Will the Green Party break the 1% barrier that has eluded them for two decades? Will the Constitution Party continue its slow but steady growth?

It will take a few more days to crunch the 2012 senate data after it comes in tonight. When it is ready, I will definitely post an updated version of the graph above.


8:55 AM: Welcome
Starting at 6 PM EST I will be liveblogging the U.S. presidential election. I'll be focusing on two things all night: 1) analyzing the results of third party candidates, and 2) placing those results within a historical context. Feel free to check-in throughout the night for interesting charts and data and discussion. Also feel free to leave your comments or questions below and I will do my best to address them throughout the evening.

In the meantime, feel free to read my previous posts about the election:
Five Things to Watch For on Election Day / Will Our Democracy Survive? (October 20)
Mapping the Election (October 24

Wednesday, October 24, 2012

Mapping the Election

My last post about the history of U.S. political parties included a number of charts detailing a history of change over time in voter support for third party presidential candidates. Historians, like myself, tend to handle "change over time" well. But where we are often less skilled is in making sense of spatial change in contrast to, or even in addition to, temporal change. It is easy enough to explain that things used to be one way, then some time passed, and now things are a little bit different. And, of course, historians not only produce these kinds of narratives of "change over time" but also provide an analytical interpretation of why those changes occurred.

But after posting last week's essay and accompanying figures, I realized that my analysis was missing one big component. I got "change over time" pretty well, but I totally neglected to discuss "change over space."

Therefore, below is a bit more analysis to accompany my earlier post. After reading the first post, come back here and check this out. What I have done is map third party presidential candidate support not over time, but over space. And what I found is that space matters a lot in U.S. politics. To put it another way, in presidential elections states matter a lot more than the federal or national level does. This is partly because of the Electoral College system, and partly because of extremely complicated and sometimes quite arcane ballot access laws within each state. We already know that the race for the presidency is a race to win just a few key "swing states." But what I did not know until I looked more closely at the data was that third party candidates are also racing for states as well.

The Geography of Third Party Presidential Support

Percentage of Voters Selecting Third Party Presidential Candidates, on a scale from 0% to 4%,
U.S. Presidential Election, 2008 (Source: I made this!)

The above map graphs the intensity of voter support for third party and independent presidential candidates in each state for the 2008 presidential election. I chose to analyze the data from 2008 because it wasn't an especially good year for third parties (although all three parties I have been analyzing in this study — Green, Libertarian, and Constitution — did better in 2008 than they did in 2004) and also because it was the most recent U.S. presidential election. Therefore the data is (for the most part) not skewed by the presence of a "celebrity" third party candidate (but we'll have to deal with Nader as an independent candidate) and also is hopefully close to the way American voters still feel about third parties in 2012.

The intensity of voter support for third party presidential candidates in 2008 ranged from a high of 3.2% of voters in Montana to a low of 0% of voters in Oklahoma. (It seems that Oklahoma did not allow a single third party candidate onto its ballot in 2008. So is Oklahoma the center of anti-democracy in this country? I actually have no idea why their ballot rules are so strict; something to explore...) Overall, the map makes clear that western states (including Alaska) were generally much more willing in 2008 to vote third party than eastern states were, with the exceptions of a few interesting outliers in New England.

Before I made this map, I considered this hypothesis: voters in "swing states" are probably less willing to vote third party, whereas voters in "solidly red" or "solidly blue" states are probably more willing to give their vote to other parties and candidacies. But this map has largely proved that hypothesis wrong. Sure, it should be no surprise that Montana and Utah voters gave over 3% of their votes to third party candidates in 2008; they are solidly "red" (Republican) states and voters knew that Obama had no chance of winning their state. Same thing could be said, perhaps, for "solidly blue" (Democratic) states like Maine, Massachusetts, and Vermont. 

But when you look at the "swing states," the data is a bit inconsistent. For example, over 1.5% of Ohio voters supported third party candidates in 2008, more so than any of the "safe" or "safer" states around Ohio. However, in other "swing states," like Florida (0.75% third party support) and Virginia (1% third party support), the hypothesis seems to have held true. But then I look at my home state of New York, a "solidly blue" state, and see that just 1.1% of voters supported third party candidates. Why did so few New Yorkers vote third party when they knew that Obama was going to win? So, in the end, the hypothesis of "swing states" vs. "safe states" doesn't hold up. Some states prove the hypothesis; others do not. So we must throw it out. People didn't choose to vote or not vote third party in 2008 because of the "redness" or "blueness" of their state. There must have been other factors involved.

In fact, while it seems to be generally true that western states and some parts of New England are more "independent" than other states in the nation, I think each state has its own specific reasons for why it either goes or does not go third party. These may include: ballot access laws, third party support at the local/regional/state level within each state, swing state/safe-state status, hometown heroes and allegiances among the candidates and the places they hail from, et cetera.

For example, just look at Montana. It looks like Montana had the highest third party presidential support of any state in 2008. But in fact, over 2% of the total 3.2% of Montanans who went for third parties in 2008 wrote in Ron Paul for President even though Dr. Paul was not actively campaigning for the office. Yup, that's right. More people in Montana voted for Ron Paul (who wasn't running, and voters had to write-in his name) than voted for Ralph Nader plus all three major third party candidates combined!!

So, to figure this situation out, I determined that it would be helpful to see how each third party candidate performed, state by state, in the 2008 race:

Percentage of Voters Selecting Libertarian Party Candidate Bob Barr, on a scale from 0% to 1%,
U.S. Presidential Election, 2008 (Source: I made this!)

Bob Barr, Libertarian Party candidate for President in 2008, did a good job in 2008. He did not achieve the best showing ever for a Libertarian candidate, but he performed better than all other third party candidates that year (and only slightly worse than Ralph Nader who ran as an independent). He won about 0.4% of the national popular vote. But as you can see from the map above, his support varied across the country from state to state.

Barr's best performance was in Indiana where he received just over 1% of the total vote. It is not clear why Barr did so well in Indiana. He seems to have had no personal relationship with the state. But, on the other hand, it seems that he was the only third party or independent candidate to achieve ballot access in Indiana. By virtue of that, almost all votes placed against Obama and McCain therefore went to Barr. Barr also did well in Georgia (his home state), where he received about 3/4 of one percent of the vote. And he also received the same share of the vote in Utah and in Texas. As you can see, Barr's worst performances were generally in the east, especially the Deep South and the Northeast. (Also, gray states represent those states where Barr failed to achieve ballot access.)

The fun thing about this map will be to compare it to Gary Johnson's performance two weeks from now in the 2012 election. Most people predict that Gov. Johnson will win much more of the national vote than Barr did four years ago. But where will his strong states and weak states be? Will we see a pattern in Libertarian support across the country from 2008 to 2012? Or will Johnson's results look completely different than Barr's?


Percentage of Voters Selecting Constitution Party Candidate Chuck Baldwin, on a scale from 0% to 1%,
U.S. Presidential Election, 2008 (Source: I made this!)

Constitution Party candidate Chuck Baldwin won only 0.15% of the national popular vote in 2008. Compared to Barr's performance for the Libertarian Party (above), it is clear from this map that Baldwin's performance was more scattered. He did well in some states but also very poorly in others. 

Baldwin's best performance was in Utah, the only state in which he won over 1% of the vote. He won 1.26% of Utah voters' support, better than Barr performed in any state, in fact. Beyond Utah, Baldwin's best performances were in Idaho, Alaska, and South Dakota. He performed very poorly, however, in many large states like California and New York, and he generally performed poorly in the South and in the Northeast. Like other third party candidacies, the Constitution Party performed best, generally, in the west. I wonder if Mormon support wasn't perhaps critical in states like Utah and Idaho for providing Baldwin with his best showings.

This year the Constitution Party candidate is Virgil Goode of Virginia. He is expected to do better than Baldwin did in 2008. But where will he find support? As the only southerner on a major ticket for the Presidency, will he do particularly well in the south? Or will the west still be his best shot at glory? Of course Chuck Baldwin was also a southerner (if you count Florida) but he didn't do well there. So native place might, after all, not always count for much in third party politics.


Percentage of Voters Selecting Green Party Candidate Cynthia McKinney, on a scale from 0% to 1%,
U.S. Presidential Election, 2008 (Source: I made this!)

Green Party candidate Cynthia McKinney did not do very well in 2008. She received only 0.12% of the national popular vote. The Greens only got on the ballot in 32 states, limiting their chances to receive more votes nationwide. Their struggle with state-by-state ballot access laws as well as weak support elsewhere (perhaps due to Ralph Nader's independent candidacy) resulted in a scattering of support across the country, as seen in the map above.

McKinney's best performance was in Louisiana (of all places) where she received just under 1/2 of one percent of the vote. She did much better than all other third party candidates in Louisiana. I never thought of Louisiana having a very active Green Party, but perhaps they do. Or perhaps McKinney focused much of her campaign effort in that state. I know that bringing attention to the government's failures to help black residents of New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina was an important issue at that time, and she may have won support among Louisiana's African-American population in 2008. McKinney also did well in Maine (0.4% of the vote). It is known that Maine has the highest percentage of enrolled Greens of any state in the nation, so the Green Party could have expected to do well there. But elsewhere, support for her candidacy was lukewarm, and as can be seen, in nearly twenty states in the middle of the country she was not even on the ballot.

This year's Green Party candidate, Jill Stein, is expected to perform better than McKinney did in 2008. But it is not clear where she will find the most support. She has achieved ballot access in many more states than her predecessor did, so that will help. It will be interesting to see if perhaps the Greens buck the trend of other third parties and find more of their support in the eastern rather than the western states. Or perhaps we will find that all third parties do better in the west than in the east, perhaps because people there are just more independent thinking? Let's wait and see.

Top Third Party Presidential Candidates per State, shaded by their percentage of that state's vote, on a scale from 0% to 1%, 
U.S. Presidential Election, 2008 (Source: I made this!)

Lastly, I thought I'd share this final map. The map above shows which of three major third parties (Constitution [purple], Green [green], and Libertarian [yellow]) performed best in each state, as well as showing the overall level of voter support within each state for that candidate on a scale from 0% to 1%. It is an interesting map, but mostly because I look forward to comparing it with data from the 2012 election just two weeks away.

You can see that in 2008 the Libertarian Party candidate performed best in most states of the union. Libertarian performance was strongest in the west, as mentioned, but also in Georgia (the candidate's home state) and in Indiana. The Constitution Party did best in at least eight states: Alaska, Oregon, Idaho, Utah, Nebraska, Mississippi, West Virginia, and Connecticut. The party did best, as mentioned, in Utah and Idaho, and just barely bested the Libertarians in the other six states. Meanwhile, the Green Party only performed best in two states (Louisiana and Maine) and in one district (the District of Columbia — perhaps you can see the little green dot I put on the map!). 

If you left this to my imagination, I would have imagined the Greens sweeping the Northeast and the West coast, while Libertarians would win all the rest of the west, and the Constitution Party would excel in the South. But that's not exactly what these maps have demonstrated. We know that things are much, much more complicated. And that complication should bleed over into the way we view "red" versus "blue" states. These maps get us to think beyond the simple binary of "red" versus "blue." What about "green states," "yellow states," "purple states?" we might ask. Yes, they also exist. Or at least, as of right now, we have red states with hints of yellow and blue states with hints of green and all kinds of other beautiful combinations of colors. In two weeks, our country is not just going to decide whether we want a "red" or "blue" president. We are deciding, in each of fifty different states, whether we want a red, blue, purple, green, yellow, or other-colored president. You see, democracy is all about choices, and our country's democracy will become stronger only when we start celebrating the rainbow of political perspectives, platforms, parties, and candidacies that exist, and giving each color its fair share, rather than continuing to see the world in black and white.