The Primary Problem - Get the Book

IVP Existence Banner

Visit: Independent Voter Project

Footer

2024 Elections

About

Etiquette

Contact

Publish

Donate

DC Campaign to Submit Over 40K Signatures for Open Primaries, Ranked Choice Voting

Virtual Discussion: Who Are Independent Voters?

Ahead of CNN Debate, 71% of Voters Are Not Happy

Only 5% of Voters Will Decide Who Represents VA's 5th District

Bloomberg Editor Frank Barry: 'We've Designed a Government for Dysfunction, Polarization, and Extremism'

Kennedy: My Exclusion from CNN Debate is ‘Undemocratic, Un-American, and Cowardly’

'Democracy' or 'Republic': The Debate Distracts from A Much Larger Problem

Should A Candidate's Age Matter in Presidential Elections?

Gov. Lamont: Growing Consensus of Conn. Voters Favor Ranked Choice Voting

New Poll Shows Kennedy Tied with Biden in Utah; Will Appear in First Debate?

Photo Credit: Gage Skidmore / Flickr

The Libertarian Party of California (LPCA) announced this week that independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr will be a guest speaker at the party's annual convention and will participate in its POTUS Candidate Panel along with Libertarian presidential candidates Dr. Michael Rectenwald and Mike ter Maat.

The LPCA Annual Presidential Convention will be the first time in the 2024 cycle a Libertarian Party affiliate opens its doors to a non-member to engage with its presidential candidates. But it also offers something US voters are not accustomed to seeing in the nation's hyper-partisan political environment -- open and substantiative discourse between opposing sides.

"The legacy parties are too intimidated to give any voices that don't fit their narrative a platform, which is why the Democrats have cancelled their debates. The Libertarian Party is not afraid of hearing from those with whom we don't always agree," said&nbsp;Adrian F Malagon, Chair of the Libertarian Party of California.

"In fact, Libertarians welcome free-flowing discourse with individuals who hold any number of dissimilar views. As such, we welcome the opportunity to have a conversation with and hear from RFK Jr."

The 2024 presidential election is primed to feature independent and third-party candidates in a way the US has not seen in over three decades. Kennedy is currently polling high enough not only to keep him in the conversation, but he could also be the first non-major party candidate since Ross Perot in 1992 to appear on the debate stage with the Republican and Democratic nominees.

The LPCA Annual Presidential Convention will be held at The Hilton Costa Mesa in Costa Mesa, California, between February 23-24. Kennedy will be the featured Saturday Luncheon Guest Speaker. Tickets for the event are available on the party's website for anyone interested in attending.


The Libertarian Party of California (LPCA) announced this week that independent presidential candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr will be a guest speaker at the party's annual convention and will participate in its POTUS Candidate Panel.

Robert F Kennedy Jr to Speak at Calif. Libertarian Party Convention

Photo Credit Gage Skidmore / Flickr

&nbsp;

For the first time in decades, an independent presidential candidate has caught up to one of the two establishment parties in a statewide poll.

To no one's surprise, a recent HarrisX poll shows former President Donald Trump with a commanding lead in Utah. However, President Biden is no longer sitting at second by himself.

The poll results show Biden and Robert F. Kennedy Jr tied at 20% in the Beehive State. This marks the first time an independent candidate has had this type of showing since Ross Perot in the 90s.&nbsp;

"Nationally, Kennedy consistently has the highest favorability among the three major candidates," the Kennedy campaign states.

"He also outpaces Presidents Biden and Trump among independents, who constitute the&nbsp;largest political bloc&nbsp;in the country with 45% of U.S. adults. Only 27% identify as Republicans and 25% as Democrats."

The campaign points out that Biden trails Trump in 6 out of 7 swing states --&nbsp;Arizona, Georgia, Nevada, North Carolina, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin -- and is tied with Trump in Michigan.

Over the last couple of months, Kennedy's team has used polling data to argue that if there is a spoiler in the election, it is not him, but the incumbent president.

They point to a 50-state poll of more than 26,000 voters released in May that shows Kennedy beating both Biden and Trump in one-on-one contests -- and against Biden it wouldn't even be close.

The campaign commissioned the poll from&nbsp;John Zogby Strategies, which remains one of the only polling agencies to gauge how well Kennedy would do in head-to-head matchups against the major party candidates.

While polling data has increasingly shown to be an -- at best -- inconsistent way to show the state of a presidential election, it is still heavily relied on as a tool to shape perception.

This is why the only head-to-head contest polling groups and websites that publish polling averages, like RealClearPolitics, show is between the Republican and the Democrat.

Polling is also a tool the two major parties have used to keep independent and third-party candidates off the debate stage. The perception has to be that voters only have two options.

LEARN MORE: Everything You Need to Know About the Commission on Presidential Debates

But this, too, may change in 2024.

The Trump and Biden camps agreed to ditch the Commission on Presidential Debates in favor of debates that would solely be sponsored by national news companies, like CNN and ABC.&nbsp;

CNN was the first to extend an invite to both campaigns, and the network worked with them on all the details, including rules that would ensure the debate was between Trump and Biden only.&nbsp;

In fact, the Washington Post wrote a detailed description of a conversation between the Trump team and a CNN producer in which the producer promised "RFK will not be on the stage."

It appears all parties involved were on the same page from the start as CNN's invite was sent, accepted, and the rules were established in a matter of hours.&nbsp;

This type of collusion, however, is illegal and Kennedy filed a complaint with the FEC pointing out ways in which CNN and the major party campaigns violated the Federal Election Campaign Act.

One of the major sticking points was the ballot access criteria.

CNN's debate criteria states that in order to appear on the debate stage&nbsp;“a candidate's name must appear on a sufficient number of state ballots to reach the 270 electoral vote threshold.”

While the Kennedy campaign asserts that it has submitted the needed signatures to get him close to this threshold, many states have not certified his name for the ballot -- therefore CNN wouldn't count them.

However, the network made an exception for Trump and Biden. Neither candidate have officially been declared their respective party's nominee, so neither of them appear on any ballot at this point.

The Republican and Democratic Parties do not officially choose their nominees until their conventions, the first of which is the GOP convention in mid-July.

The CNN debate is scheduled for June 27.

CNN claimed the candidates meet the criteria because they are the "presumptive nominee," which assumes they will be on the ballot -- an assumption not extended to any other candidate.

Kennedy asserted that this was not “pre-established” and “objective” criteria to determine debate eligibility and therefore violated federal law. And the FEC agreed.&nbsp;

The agency stated that the phrase "presumptive nominee" "is not in the FEC's debate regulation." This means CNN would not be exempt from prohibitions on excessive campaign contributions.

The FEC did not comment further since there was an open complaint made by the Kennedy campaign.

The irony is Biden and Trump specifically wanted to keep Kennedy off the stage, and they decided to abandon the one group that has successfully kept a third candidate off the debate stage for 7 consecutive presidential election cycles.&nbsp;

Even when the Commission on Presidential Debates was guilty of the same type of collusion, they were shielded by the indifference of the FEC -- protection CNN is not receiving.

"To come into compliance, CNN must apply its criteria objectively," the Kennedy campaign asserts.

"Presidents Biden and Trump have not yet been nominated by their parties and their names are not certified to appear on a single state ballot."

His team points out that Kennedy, in contrast, has been certified to appear on the ballot in 7 states so far, including California, Delaware, Hawaii, Michigan, Oklahoma, South Carolina, and Utah.

"Objectively applying CNN’s criteria requires, at a minimum, that it admit Kennedy into the debate as he is the candidate that is furthest along in complying with CNN’s debate criteria," the campaign argues.

As of this article's publication, CNN has made no changes to its lineup. The deadline to qualify for the June 27 debate is Thursday, June 20, but what actions will be taken if Kennedy is not included remain unknown.


For the first time in decades, an independent presidential candidate has caught up to one of the two establishment parties in a statewide poll.

Editor's Note: This piece originally published on Dan Sally's website, Middleweight Politics, and has been republished on IVN with permission from the author. Photo Credit: David Everett Stickler / Unsplash

&nbsp;

Earlier this month, No Labels officially ended its plans to field a bipartisan “Unity Ticket” in the 2024 presidential election. While most campaigns end due to a lack of voter support or funding, No Labels’s campaign suffered the unique problem of lacking a candidate.

In an&nbsp;op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, No Labels Co-Chair Nancy Jacobson cited how “no one wanted the hellish job we were offering.”

In many ways, it doesn’t seem as if the timing could be any better for No Labels. One recent poll showed&nbsp;only 3 in 10 Americans&nbsp;felt a Trump-Biden rematch was good for the country, a mirror image of&nbsp;earlier polls&nbsp;showing 70% of Americans didn’t want to see either candidate on the ballot in 2024.&nbsp;

Polling by Gallup shows the&nbsp;number of Americans who feel a third major party is needed&nbsp;is at an all-time high and the&nbsp;number of Americans identifying as independent&nbsp;is almost double the number of people who identify as either Republican or Democrat.

At the same time, there’s no shortage of political exiles to choose from. Mitt Romney, Liz Cheney, Joe Manchin, Kyrsten Sinema, and Nikki Haley have all found themselves shunned by their party and have all expressed concern for the “torches and pitchforks” approach to governing that has become all the rage today.

So, with this vast ocean of disaffected independents to choose from, why didn’t one of these savvy political operatives seize the chance to disrupt the system and restore order to Washington?

Because these savvy political operatives know that chance, if it exists at all, is infinitesimally small.

While No Labels’ mission to “elevate extraordinary leaders who put country over party” fills a much-needed void in today’s political landscape, the math behind their third-party bid was flawed, and their efforts would be better spent changing that math.

There’s more than one type of independent voter

Tolstoy wrote, "Happy families are all alike; every unhappy family is unhappy in its own way."

The same could be said for political independents.

Independents are united in their general disdain for both major parties.&nbsp;Research by Pew&nbsp;shows political independents are more likely to view both parties unfavorably and have a higher level of dissatisfaction with the party system itself.

Why they’re unhappy is another story entirely.

The most recent voter survey by the&nbsp;Democracy Fund Voter Study Group&nbsp;revealed that, while independents were the largest group, about half of them - about 23% of respondents in total - identified as politically moderate.

The remainder either identified as liberal or conservative, meaning that while some independents are unhappy both parties have become too extreme others are unhappy the parties aren’t extreme enough.

Independents also comprised 60% of moderate voters - the remainder being Democrats or Republicans.



This would indicate that, while the number of voters who identify as either moderate or independent is larger than those who identify as more partisan, the number of voters who are truly up for grabs by a centrist third-party ticket is under a quarter of all voters.

Those who align as more conservative or more liberal would be expected to vote for the major party they align with the most, or a minor party candidate with more hardline views. While some moderate Democrats and Republicans might throw their support behind a centrist ticket, No Labels would need to win over 60% of them to be competitive in the popular vote - and those numbers don’t account for how the Electoral College might influence the outcome.

Rule by majority, or by default?

The second problem is the electoral math of US elections breaks down once more than two candidates enter the race. America’s first-past-the-post system of elections means the winner is the person with the most votes which, in a three-person race, means the threshold for victory could be as low as 33% +1 vote. That math only gets worse as you add candidates.

Trump’s 2016 victory is a case study of this principle. Many were shocked that Trump managed to win the traditionally blue states of Michigan, Wisconsin, and Pennsylvania. People seemed less curious that he lost those three states in 2020 with almost the same share of the popular vote he won in the prior election.



The key difference in all three states was the share of votes that went to minor party candidates in both years, which were around 3.5X more in 2016 than in 2020.

Both campaigns appear to be keenly aware of this, with Democrats attempting to win over undecided voters by&nbsp;assembling an army of lawyers&nbsp;to challenge the ballot access of minor party candidates and&nbsp;actively campaigning against RFK Jr.&nbsp;The Trump campaign has been doing the exact opposite by&nbsp;campaigning to elevate the presence&nbsp;of independent and minor party candidates while also trying to depress turnout amongst Biden voters by highlighting concerns among liberal voters over the administration's approach to climate change and the war in Gaza.

Effectively, both parties have acknowledged that the election is Biden’s to lose, provided there’s no other choice but Trump.

Making Room for More Choices

What No Labels failed to acknowledge in its push for a more moderate choice in the 2024 election is that their chances of winning the White House without a candidate on the ballot are just about as good as if they’d managed to find someone to run. History shows moderate Democrats and Republicans are too afraid of vote-splitting to defect in large enough numbers to give a third-party candidate the plurality of the vote needed to win.

A better option would be to put their energy and funding behind promoting reforms that would change the math of presidential elections so the support of a true majority of voters would be required to win.

Ranked-choice voting, a method of elections where voters rank their candidates in order of preference, is the best option. This would allow voters who prefer an independent or minor party candidate to cast their ballot for the person they like the most, and still throw their support behind the major party candidate they prefer if their first choice doesn’t win.

While its use in federal elections is limited, elections in Maine and Alaska have shown it to favor more moderate, consensus-minded candidates. Senators Susan Collins (ME) and Lisa Murkowski (AK) were two of seven Senate Republicans who voted to convict Donald Trump after the January 6th attack, and Representatives Mary Peltola (AK) and Jared Golden (ME) lead the Blue Dog Coalition - a group of conservative Democrats who advocate for “bipartisan consensus rather than conflict with Republicans."

Sound familiar?

No Labels is correct in that a large number of voters would prefer a more moderate candidate who could bridge the partisan divide and get government back into the business of governing. The key is changing our system of elections so that preference actually matters.


Earlier this month, No Labels officially ended its plans to field a bipartisan “Unity Ticket” in the 2024 presidential election. While most campaigns end due to a lack of voter support or funding, No Labels’s campaign suffered the unique problem of lacking a candidate.

No Labels' Failed Presidential Math and Why It Should Focus Its Efforts on Reforming the System Instead

Photo Credit:&nbsp;&nbsp;Vladimir Solomianyi on Unsplash

&nbsp;

Tax season is here – a time of year many Americans dread. And like every year, when citizens file their taxes, they will be asked a question:

"Would you be willing to give $3 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?"&nbsp;

It's completely voluntary and goes toward a contribution matching fund for presidential campaigns. But how would voters who contribute to this fund respond if they found out that money isn’t going to its intended purpose?

Congress recently approved a funding package that is typical of what voters can expect from partisan lawmakers who can only agree on the bare minimum to avoid a shutdown and is stacked with over 1,000 pages of things many voters will never hear about.

Like, for instance, how Congress approved moving $375 million out of the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. Raw Story reports that the funds were re-allocated to increase funding for the Secret Service and “election security grants.”

This amounts to a massive chunk of the fund, which is not used by the major parties anymore but is something minor party candidates have benefited from in the past and might benefit from in 2024.

Members of Congress have advocated for changing or outright eliminating the fund. Republican US Sen. Joni Ernst was quoted by Raw Story, saying in 2023, “It's just sitting there … This is just a small effort on many other efforts that we have in trying to tackle this budget.”

“You’ve just got to get out there and raise money if you're gonna play, so why do we do this?” she added.

The North Carolina Green Party said gutting the fund is an effort to “silence the opposition.” Advocates for third party candidates say it can help in an electoral system designed to exclusively benefit the two major parties.&nbsp;

Meanwhile, voters have long been divided on the subject of public financing for campaigns, though the vast majority think the way the US handles campaign finance needs to change. 

Still, millions of taxpayers give to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund each year.

Regardless of how one feels about the public financing of campaigns, is it appropriate to tell voters they are giving to one thing and then use that money for something else? 

Especially if taxpayers give to the program because they support it.

What Is the Federal Election Campaign Fund?

In 1966, Congress passed the Presidential Election Campaign Act. The law began an era of public funding for presidential campaigns and relied only on a voluntary contribution from taxpayers of $1 at the time. 

The maximum contribution was soon raised to $3.&nbsp;

According to the Federal Election Commission, the fund was designed to use taxpayer money to “match the first $250 of each contribution from individuals that an eligible presidential candidate receives during the primary.”

And, “Fund the major party nominees’ general election campaigns (and assist eligible minor party nominees).”

The catch for the candidate is that they have to adhere to certain campaign finance qualifications and restrictions in order to qualify and receive funds.

For example, a candidate seeking primary matching funds has to show broad public support by raising more than $5,000 in at least 20 states, and they must receive this from at least 20 contributors since only the first $250 is counted toward the matching program.

Further, the candidate would have to limit their spending in primary elections, both in terms of total spending and spending per state. In 2024, the national spending limit is $61.79 million (according to the FEC).

Candidates who seek general election funds receive a grant if they qualify and must limit spending to the amount of the grant.&nbsp;

In 1976, each major party nominee received $21.8 million. In 2008, the last time a major party candidate accepted a grant, the amount had grown to $84.1 million and would be $123.5 million in 2024.&nbsp;

In today’s presidential campaign environment, these amounts pale in comparison to the billions raised and spent by the parties, PACs, and major party campaigns. It is no surprise, especially with how campaign finance laws have changed, that major parties opt out of matching funding.

Former President Barack Obama was the first major party candidate to end the standard practice of campaigns using the grant. That year, he raised nearly $745 million – kicking off a new era in presidential campaign funding.

What About Third Party Campaigns?

The FEC says the public funding program is not only meant to fund major party campaigns but help qualifying third party campaigns as well. Third party leaders, candidates, and activists say gutting the Presidential Election Campaign Fund serves to only strengthen the duopoly.&nbsp;

Green Party of California Co-Founder Michael Feinstein wrote about the issue in 2021 in the wake of HR1, touted as a better elections bill, which third party advocates said would make it all but impossible for their candidates to qualify for matching campaign funds.&nbsp;

Feinstein says there is “a strong correlation between the amount [candidates who qualified for matching funds] raised and the number of additional ballot lines they gained, beyond those the Green Party already had going into that cycle,” Feinstein wrote.

Put simply, the Presidential Election Campaign Fund helps third party presidential candidates achieve ballot access in more states.

He specifically looked at the 3 times the 7 historical Green Party nominees qualified for and received matching funds. Dr. Jill Stein, the current party nominee, qualified and received these funds in 2012 and 2016.

Independent and third-party candidates are getting more attention in the 2024 presidential election cycle as the public appears open to consider candidates like Robert F. Kennedy Jr, Cornel West, Stein and others not running on the Republican or Democratic ticket.&nbsp;

As predicted back in December, this has escalated attacks on so-called “spoiler candidates.” And in the 2024 cycle, it goes beyond the standard talking points that voting for one of these candidates is a “wasted vote” or is really voting for the least preferred option.

Mother Jones, which is known for its bias toward the Democrat narrative, recently ran the headline, "Will RFK Jr. and Other Third -Party Candidates Help Doom Democracy?”&nbsp;

The “vote for us or doom” approach has never been so explicit. 

The Democratic National Committee reportedly is building a team and strategy that will specifically “go to war” with third party and independent candidates. It has already tried to convince voters they have no other choice if they value democracy but to vote the way they want.

The irony should not be lost on anyone.

Jason Call, campaign manager for Dr. Stein, said he doesn’t know how the Democratic Party can run on a platform of saving democracy when it is actively trying to kick or keep candidates off the ballot.

“The Democrats appear willing to kill democracy in order to ‘save it,'" he said. He noted that both parties are not beholden to the interests of voters or the democratic process, but rather the corporate interests that fund them.

Members of the Green Party say raiding the Presidential Election Campaign Fund is just the latest attack by the major parties on outside competition.&nbsp;

Feinstein tweeted:

"To eliminate competition to the #duopoly, #Democrats &amp; #Republicans have secretly gutted the Federal presidential primary matching funds program that historically has helped the Green Party make it on the ballot across the nation."

It has not been confirmed who added the Presidential Election Campaign Fund provision in the government funding package signed by President Biden. But it is clearly something that has bipartisan support.&nbsp;

Money in politics continues to be a major issue of concern for voters. Whether publicly funded programs to match campaign funds or place limitations on contributions and spending are the answer remains a topic of debate.

However, one thing is clear: When taxpayers are asked if they want to contribute to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund when they file this year, it is reasonable to ask whether or not the money will actually go to that purpose.

There is a chance it won't.&nbsp;


Tax season is here – a time of year many Americans dread. And like every year, when citizens file their taxes, they will be asked a question: "Would you be willing to give $3 to the Presidential Election Campaign Fund?" 

Search query: RFK