http://www.devvy.com/thrdprty_20000303.html
WHY A THIRD PARTY PRESIDENTIAL CANDIDATE CAN'T GET ELECTED
Devvy Kidd
February 2, 2000
(Published in Media Bypass Magazine March 2000)
For years we've all heard the polls that say X number of people will vote for a third party presidential candidate,
yet come election night, only the two major new world order parties seem to be able to "win" the presidential
election (and all other levels as well). Why is that? Because the candidate's "message doesn't resonate with the
voters?" Because people run scared at the end and feel their third party vote will just be wasted so they cave in
and vote Republican-Democrat? Because people are completely disgusted with the whole process and simply
don't vote at all?
Some of the reasons above may be valid but the real reason no third party candidate can get elected to the White
House, no matter how many millions of dollars they have to spend, is simple: the electoral college system is set up
to guarantee that no third party can win.
How many people know what the electoral college is, how these delegates are nominated, who nominates them
and how they cast their vote on election night? Anyone who thinks their vote for president counts, is a victim of
wishful thinking. The electoral college picks the President of the United States and folks should make no mistake
about it. How they do this is a mystery to most and since the primary season is gearing up, I think this is the perfect
time for a lesson on the Electoral College.
On election night, what do you hear from all the media talking heads? Such and such candidate must take
California for the 54 electoral college votes. Such and such candidate needs Texas because of the 32 electoral
college votes. That's all you hear on election night. It's already started for the November 2000 illusion:
From the web site: http://www.portraitofamerica.com/
On January 29, 2000, they posted: Likely Electoral College Votes
Bush 327 Gore 56 Toss Up 155
Bush 267 Bradley 82 Toss Up 189
You see, the number one issue is the number of electoral college delegates. I have written extensively in the past
about electronic ballot fraud, anomalies in the voting process and the gigantic fraud being conducted under the
insidious "Motor Voter Law of 1993." Unfortunately, most Americans have paid little attention to the evidence.
This has a direct bearing on the presidential "election."
If you think this is a lot of poppycock, let's take a look at the facts.
According to A Procedural Guide To The Electoral College prepared by The Office of the Federal Register:
"The Electoral College was established by the founding fathers as a compromise between election of the president
by Congress and election by popular vote. The electors are a popularly elected body chosen by the States and the
District of Columbia..."
"The slates of electors are generally chosen by the political parties...The electors meet in each state on the
first Monday after the second Wednesday in December. A majority of 270 electoral votes is required to elect the
President and Vice-President. No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in
accordance with the popular vote in their state."
Role of the States
"The United States Constitution and Federal law place certain responsibilities relating to the Presidential election
upon State executives and the electors for President and Vice-President. Neither the Constitution nor Federal law
prescribe the manner in which each State appoints its electors other than directing that they be appointed on the
Tuesday after the first Monday in November."
In most states, the electors are appointed by state-wide popular election. The slate of electors for the candidate
who receives the most popular votes is appointed. In Maine and Nebraska, two electors are chosen at-large by
state-wide popular vote and the rest are selected by popular vote in each congressional district. As a result, the
electoral procedure in these States permits a split slate of electors to be chosen." (I have never voted for an
electoral college delegate in my life nor have I ever seen one on the ballot.)
"There is no Constitutional provision or Federal law requiring electors to vote in accordance with the popular vote
in their States. In the 1976 election, a Washington elector pledged to President Gerald Ford voted for Ronald
Reagan. In the 1988 election, a W. VA elector voted for Senator Lloyd Bensten as President and for Governor
Michael Dukakis as VP. But some state laws require that so-called "faithless electors" may be subject to fines or
may be disqualified for casing an invalid vote and be replaced by a substitute elector."
Now all that sounds real nice and fair. However, let's take a look at the big banana, California, and how it's
electoral college delegates are selected. Source is the California Legislature's web site.
The Electoral College and Choosing the President
The U.S. employs a presidential election procedure known as the Electoral College. This body consists of 538
persons appointed by various methods in each state. (The total number of electors in the Electoral College is
determined by the total number of federal legislators. Although there are 435 Members of the Congress and 100
U.S. senators, for a total of 535 presidential electors, the 23rd Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants the
District of Columbia 3 presidential electors, therefore brining the total to 538 electors.).....
Currently, most states follow a "winner takes all" process whereby the winner of the state's popular vote is entitled
to receive all the state's electoral votes (e.g. the popular vote winner in California receives 54 electoral votes.)"
From: http://gi.grolier.com/presidents/ea/side/elecollg.html:
"Each party within a state selects a slate of electors numerically equal to the state's congressional
delegation--representatives plus senators. The electors normally pledge to vote for the nominees of their party,
but they are not constitutionally required to do so. When the American people vote for president and vice
president, they are actually voting for slates of electors pledged to their candidates. Because the electors usually
are chosen at large, the electoral vote of each state is cast as a unit, and the victorious presidential and vice
presidential nominees in each state win the state's entire electoral vote. The candidates receiving a majority of the
total electoral vote in the United States are elected."
How many third party candidates serve in your state legislature? Here in California: 0
History of the Electoral College
"....This method of electing the President and Vice-President has been highly controversial over the years and
more than 100 attempts have been made in Congress to alter or abolish the system. The major complaint is that it
is possible for a candidate to receive a greater number of votes than his or her opponent, but fail to win the
requisite number of electoral votes. Thus, it is possible for the candidate receiving a lesser number of popular votes
to be elected president or Vice-President.
"For example, in 1876, Samuel J. Tilden received 4,284,757 votes and 184 electoral votes, as opposed to
Rutherford B. Hayes, who received 4,033,950 votes but 185 electoral votes. Mr. Hayes was elected president. In
1888, Benjamin Harrison received 5,444,337 votes and 233 electoral votes; Grover Cleveland received
5,540,050 votes but only 168 electoral votes. Harrison was elected President.
This problem can be compounded if the House of Representatives elects the President. In the presidential election
of 1824, Andrew Jackson received a plurality of the popular and electoral votes, but in neither case did he receive
an absolute majority. At that time there were 24 states represented in the Congress and, therefore, 13 votes were
required to elect the President. If the Congressional delegations followed the choice of the electors in their states,
Jackson would have received 11 votes; John Quincy Adams, 7; William H. Crawford 3; and Henry Clay, 3.
However, Mr. Adams received 13 votes, and was elected President of the United States. It is evident that several
delegations had not followed the wishes of their constituents. Mr. Clay was shortly thereafter appointed the
Secretary of State.
(From The Smithsonian Treasury: The Presidents, pg 21:
"Of the four candidates - Andrew Jackson, John Quincy Adams, William Crawford, and Henry Clay - who sought
the presidency in the campaign of 1824, Jackson clearly garnered the most popular votes. Unfortunately for
Jackson, however, his plurality did not give him the majority in the Electoral College that was needed to put him in
office. As the Constitution requires in such situations, the task of choosing the nation's next president from among
the four candidates was therefore, left to the House of Representatives, which ultimately selected John Quincy
Adams.
Unfortunately for Adams, however, this victory was not untainted. For he owed his election to a political horse
trade; he had bought the votes of Henry Clay's supporters in the House by promising to make Clay his secretary
of state.")
California's Electoral College Process
"In California, the electors are chosen by each political party to form a "slate" of presidential electors...Each
political party has its own method for selecting its electors. The Democratic Party allows each Democratic
Congressional nominee and each U.S. Senatorial nominee to appoint a person as a Democratic elector. If there is
no party nominee for a particular district, the State Party designates a presidential elector for that respective
district.
The Republican Party appoints its slate of electors in a different manner. Each Republican Party nominee for
statewide office (i.e. Governor, Attorney General, etc.) Serves as a presidential elector. Also, the most recent
Republican nominees for the U.S. Senate, the two Republican state legislative leaders, and other designated
Republican Party leaders also serve as electors. The Chair of the Republican Central Committee fills any
vacancies.
The general election determines which party's slate of electors will travel to Sacramento to exercise their lawful
duties. The presidential candidate receiving the most popular votes on election day is entitled to all 54 of
California's electoral votes. In effect, when citizens cast their votes on election day, they are actually voting for the
candidates slate of presidential electors." End of material from the California Legislative Resource Guide.
Electors for Third Party Presidential Candidates in California
California has a number of duly registered political parties besides Socialist Party A and B: Libertarian, American
Independent and so on. The electors for a third party presidential candidate is non-existent. Only Republicans
and Democrats are electors for the Electoral College because, as it says above: the members of the two
parties do the selecting. Very balanced, wouldn't you say?. As a matter of fact, in the 1992 & 1996 presidential
elections, I could not find a single third party "elector" in any of the 50 states. They are all Republicans and
Democrats and remember: No Constitutional provision or Federal law requires electors to vote in accordance
with the popular vote in their state So, already the chips are stacked against any presidential candidate who isn't
one of the two "main parties."
Vote Fraud and How It Affects The Electoral College
On November 2, 1998, the night before the general election and a full 12 hours before the polls opened in the
U.S., ABCNEWS.COM posted the following: "Earlier tonight, during testing of the ABCNEWS.COM site, we
inadvertently posted results and erroneous predictions on the outcomes of the races. There was no bias intended
by what we posted and the predictions do not reflect the reporting or news judgement of ABC News." Notice
their use of the word "results" in their disclaimer. Guess how far off they were once the "votes were counted" the
next day? .0174%. Gee, what a coincidence.
If you haven't read the latest edition of my Blind Loyalty booklet, you need to do so and then you will fully
understand that we really have no idea of who is getting elected in this country at any level. The facts speak for
themselves. If these electoral college delegates, or electors as they are called, allegedly cast their vote for a
candidate according to the popular vote which comes in electronically, then that vote is being manipulated by our
rigged elections.
If an electoral college delegate is under no obligation or restriction, which they aren't, to cast their vote according
to the popular vote results coming in, who do you think a Republican or Democrat electoral college delegate will
vote for- a Reform Party candidate for President? In a pig's ear.
This article is not about my support for any candidate or an endorsement of any presidential candidate. I want
people to understand that all the hoop-la, rah-rah for a third party candidate, no matter how much money they
may have to run, is meaningless under the electoral college system and our fraudulent election process.
Let's look at what happened to H. Ross Perot in 1992. Mr. Clinton allegedly received 44,908, 254 popular votes,
electoral vote: 370. Mr. Bush, Sr., allegedly received popular votes 39,102,343, electoral vote: 168. Mr. Perot
allegedly received 19,741,065 popular votes, electoral votes: 0.
How come Mr. Perot received 0 electoral votes despite the fact that he allegedly received almost 20 million votes?
Mr. Bush took 168 electoral votes with allegedly twice as many popular votes but Perot gets 0 for about half the
number of votes Bush, Sr. allegedly received. The why is simple: There are no third party electoral college
delegates that I can find in the Electoral College.
Remember, here in California, the Republican Party appoints its slate of electors in a different manner. Each
Republican Party nominee for statewide office (i.e. Governor, Attorney General, etc.) serves as a presidential
elector. Also, the most recent Republican nominees for the U.S. Senate, the two Republican state legislative
leaders, and other designated Republican Party leaders also serve as electors. The Chair of the Republican Central
Committee fills any vacancies. I could find nothing in any records from the California Legislature where the
Libertarian, AIP or Independent Parties have any say in electors for the presidential slot.
In 1996, Mr. Clinton allegedly received 45,590,703 popular votes, electoral vote: 379. Mr. Dole allegedly
received 37,816,307 popular votes, elector vote: 159. Again, Mr. Perot allegedly received 7,866,284 popular
votes and again electoral vote was 0. In a district where the electronic returns come in heavy for Perot in either of
those elections, no delegate voted for him - only for one of the two stooges running in the two "main parties."
Have third party candidates received electoral votes at anytime? Yes, before electronic voting and the stealing of
America became a reality. Back in 1948, Harry Truman received 24,105,695 popular votes, elector vote: 303.
His main opponent was Thomas E. Dewey who received 21,969,170 popular votes, electoral vote: 189. State's
Rights Party candidate, J. Strom Thurmond received 1,169,021 popular votes, electoral vote: 39. Progressive
Party candidate Henry A. Wallace received 1,157,172 popular votes, electoral vote: 0.
The last time any candidate outside the two "main parties" received an electoral college vote was 1960 and 1968.
In 1960, Harry F. Byrd received 15. It was in 1960 that major hearings were held in the Louisiana State Senate
on electronic vote fraud. In 1968, American Independent Party candidate George C. Wallace received 9,906,473
popular votes and 46 electoral votes. Since then, with the two exceptions previously noted on Reagan ('76) and
Bensten ('88), independents have allegedly received large numbers of popular votes but no electoral college
delegate votes.
In 1980, Independent candidate John B. Anderson allegedly received 5,719,437 popular votes but no electoral
votes. Why? Because there were no third party incumbents in any of the state legislatures that I could find. It's the
only conclusion I can reach based on all the election material I have poured over for the past month. There are
other weird indicators and I'll pick Colorado since I lived there at the time of these two votes: In '92, all 8 electoral
votes went to Clinton and in '96, all 8 went to Dole. The whole state flip-flopped? The difference in votes in 1996
was too close for my liking - as I said, I lived there and knew the politics of the state. This makes no sense: In '96
it was Dole 691,848 and Clinton 671,152. If you lived there and studied this like I did, something was very wrong
with those totals.
Patrick Buchanan has jumped from the Republican Party over to the Reform party, some say for the $12.4 million
in matching federal funds. Even if Mr. Buchanan secures the nomination for the Reform Party, it will not get him a
single electoral college vote in the November 2000 election. If for some reason he was given one or two, it will be
because the power manipulators behind the scenes are trying to calm down the ugly tone that is rippling across this
nation as more and more Americans wake up and find out just how they've been had all these years.
I want to close by saying this is one of the most difficult pieces I've done in a long time. Trying to get information
out of the "two main parties" about electoral college delegates in the various states was darn near impossible. Talk
about "mum's the word." What is it they are trying to hide? Don't they want the nation to know and understand that
they put their hopes and dreams into third party candidates who have absolutely zip chance of getting elected
because the system is set up to ensure they can't get elected?
When I ran for Congress, one goal of mine was to introduce a bill to get rid of the electoral college. People looked
at me like I had rocks in my head. Perhaps I do, but the numbers and party affiliations don't lie, check it out for
yourself and then vote third party for president.
You might also consider this: The two "main parties" select the electors for the electoral college, we know this to
be true. Do you really believe the incumbent legislators in the 50 state legislatures - made up only of the two "main
parties" - will find someone from a third party and nominate them for the electoral college? Is someone trying to tell
me that the Republicans and Democrats in the California State Legislature are going to hunt around for a member
of the Reform, AIP, and Green parties and nominate them to the electoral college? I rest my case.
ELECTORAL COLLEGE DELEGATE VOTES BY STATE - 1992 & 1996
STATE
1992 NUMBER OF
VOTES
1992 PARTY
1996 NUMBER OF
VOTES
1996 PARTY
Alabama
9
R
9
R
Alaska
3
R
3
R
Arizona
8
R
8
R
Arkansas
6
D
6
D
California
54
D
54
D
Colorado
8
D
8
R
Connecticut
8
D
8
D
Delaware
3
D
3
D
District of Columbia
3
D
3
D
Florida
25
R
25
D
Georgia
13
D
13
R
Hawaii
4
D
4
D
Idaho
4
R
4
R
Illinois
22
D
22
D
Indiana
12
R
12
R
Iowa
7
D
7
D
Kansas
6
R
6
R
Kentucky
8
D
8
D
Louisiana
9
D
9
D
Maine
4
D
4
D
Maryland
10
D
10
D
Massachusetts
12
D
12
D
Michigan
18
D
18
D
Minnesota
10
D
10
D
Mississippi
7
R
7
R
Missouri
11
D
11
D
Montana
3
D
3
R
Nebraska
5
R
5
R
Nevada
4
D
4
D
New Hampshire
4
D
4
D
New Jersey
15
D
15
D
New Mexico
5
D
5
D
New York
33
D
33
D
North Carolina
14
R
14
R
North Dakota
3
R
3
R
Ohio
21
D
21
D
Oklahoma
8
R
8
R
Oregon
7
D
7
D
Pennsylvania
23
D
23
D
Rhode Island
4
D
4
D
South Carolina
8
R
8
R
South Dakota
3
R
3
R
Tennessee
11
D
11
D
Texas
32
R
32
R
Utah
5
R
5
R
Vermont
3
D
3
D
Virginia
13
R
13
R
Washington
11
D
11
D
West Virginia
5
D
5
D
Wisconsin
11
D
11
D
Wyoming
3
R
3
R
1992 Totals
Dem
370
Rep
168
Perot
92: 19,741,065 - electoral college delegate votes: 0
Bush
92: 39,102,343 - electoral college delegate votes: 168
Billy
92: 44,908,254 - electoral college delegate votes: 370
1996 Totals
Dem
379
Rep
159
Perot
96: 7,866,284 - electoral college delegate votes: 0
Dole
96: 37,816,307 - electoral college delegate votes: 159
Billy
96: 45,590,703 - electoral college delegate votes: 379
Political Party of Presidents:
Clinton D
Bush R
Reagan D until '62, then R
Carter D
Ford R
Nixon R
L.B. Johnson R
Kennedy D
Eisenhower R
Truman D
Roosevelt D
Hoover R
Coolidge R
Harding R
Wilson D
Taft R
T. Roosevelt R but ran on the Progressive ticket in 1912
McKinley R
Harrison R
Cleveland D
Arthur R
Garfield R
Hayes R
Grant R
A. Johnson D
Lincoln R
Buchanan Federalist then Democrat
Pierce D
Fillmore Whig during Presidency, American from 1854
Taylor Whig
Polk D
Tyler Whig
Harrison Whig
VanBuren Democrat during presidency, Free-Soil from 1848
Jackson D
John Q. Adams Federalist until 1808, Democratic-Republican until 1825, National Republican (Whig) thereafer
Monroe Democratic-Republican
Madison Democratic-Republican
Thom Jefferson Democratic-Republican
John Adams Federalist
Washington Federalist