Darcy George Richardson

 

Darcy George Richardson, December 6, 1955 (Pittsburgh, Penn.) -  

VP candidate for Alliance Party (aka Independent aka Independent Republican aka Reform Party of the United States of America aka Natural Law Party aka Independence Party) (2020)

Running mate with nominee: Roque De La Fuente Guerra (b. 1954)
Popular vote: 28,098 (0.02%)
Electoral vote: 0/538

The campaign:

Perennial candidate Rocky De La Fuente had an interesting year in 2020. He initially ran for the Republican Presidential nomination and at the same time entered the Republican primary for the 21st congressional district in California. In the latter race, his son was running in the primary as a Democrat. In all of these cases, victory proved elusive.

Although De La Fuente had initially filed with the FEC as a Republican on May 16, 2019 he went on to gain the Presidential nomination of the Alliance Party on Apr. 25, 2020. On June 20, 2020, the Reform Party also nominated De La Fuente, just as they had in 2016. The Natural Law Party jumped on board and backed his candidacy as well. His 2020 running-mate in each of these cases was Darcy Richardson.

Richardson has a long history with third parties, both as a candidate, political operative, and historian. He is the author of A Nation Divided: The 1968 Presidential Campaign (2002) as well as several works on the history of third parties in US politics. I must say I have consulted his research several times in the course of constructing this blog.

Richardson's fascinating career has included working with Eugene McCarthy during the former US Senator's final two runs for the Presidency in 1988 and 1992. Darcy was the National Chair of The New Democrats during that same time period. He has been a consistent champion and activist for challenging the Republican/Democratic duopoly. In 2018 he was the Reform Party's nominee for Governor of Florida. On July 15, 2019 he had filed with the FEC for President as a Reform Party candidate, but later withdrew as other options surfaced.

More than any other person in my generation, Richardson's political journey is basically the history of third parties in late 20th/early 21st century America. No doubt I am missing a few entities here, he has also been linked as candidate or campaign worker with the Democratic Party, Citizens Party, Consumer Party, New Democrat, Boston Tea Party, Reform Party of the United States of America, Peace and Freedom Party, just plain Independent, Alliance Party, Socialist Party of the United States of America, Independent Republican, Independence Party, Natural Law Party, and Minnesota Progressives. It is possible he holds the record in this regard among third party VPs.

Although the Alliance Party was a new entity it was comprised of several older political parties now operating under one name. The Party's website offered a summary of their genealogy--

How the Alliance Formed

America’s growing dissatisfaction with a failing, polarizing two-party system and recognizing there is strength in numbers and a deep desire to put people and country over politics and greed, eleven independent political parties merged under one banner - The Alliance Party.

On October 14, 2018, in Denver, Colorado, three political parties - the American Moderates Party, the Modern Whig Party and the American Party of South Carolina - agreed to merge to create The Alliance Party.  On January 4, 2019, the Alliance Party officially registered with the Federal Elections Commission.

The following parties merged into the Alliance after the merger of the original three.

    Independence Party of Minnesota (2019)
    American Alliance Party (2019)
    Independent Party of Connecticut (2020)
    American Delta Party (2020)

Prior to the 2018 meeting, six independent parties had merged into the Modern Whig Party between 2008 and 2016.

    USA Party (2008)
    Veterans Party (2008)
    American Centrist Party (2010)
    Center Party (2010)
    National Centrist Party (2011)
    American Moderate Party of California (2016)

Discussions are under way with other independent, grassroots parties and organizations to join the Alliance.

Rather than issuing a platform the Party released a "Manifesto" with a message they viewed as pragmatic and centrist. Instead of picking through this long document, I'll focus on two items that seem to get to the core of their philosophy as it relates to the issues of 2020. First, their requirements in order to be a candidate under their banner, as found in the Nov. 2020 website--

All Alliance candidates are held to high expectations and requirements, because public service by way of elected office is among the highest of callings.

We require, monitor and enforce term limits for all of our federal and state legislative offices.

In addition, we require transparency from candidates when running for office and while serving in office. Requirements for federal and state legislative include fully disclosing all contributions during campaigns and while in office; providing redacted copies of their 1040 personal tax returns from the most recent three years; providing annual disclosure of all income received while in office during the preceding year, including the source and amount.

We expect all Alliance candidates and elected officials to demonstrate civility, honesty, tolerance and humility in their interactions with others. Each candidate enters into a written agreement with the Alliance with regards to these expectations. You may find the State and Federal Agreement HERE, and the Local Agreement HERE. [I did not include hot links here--SW]

We expect all Alliance candidates and elected officials to function as pragmatic problem solvers. Functionally, this requirement means country over party; progress over ideology; with an emphasis on constituent concerns and needs.

The second item I found to be pertinent in regard to the peculiar state of the union in 2020 and the Alliance Party's standpoint came from Richardson's Vice-Presidential nominee acceptance speech on Apr. 25, 2020--

Hello everyone. It’s an honor and a privilege to be addressing the inaugural national convention of the Alliance Party, a party — as fate would have it — emerging on the American political scene in one of our nation’s darkest moments, an uncertain period in which the United States may be facing its greatest challenge in modern history.

The deadly COVID-19 pandemic, which has already claimed more than 53,000 American lives while exposing the inadequacies of the U.S. health care system, coupled with what will almost certainly be an ensuing deep recession or, more likely, a depression from which we are unlikely to soon recover, presents a most unpredictable future for all of mankind.

As national chairman James Rex — I love Jim, he’s great — has eloquently pointed out, the twin crises facing this country demonstrates just how ill-prepared the special interest-​dominated duopoly was in preparing for the kind of pandemic the country is now facing. Knowing that the kaleidoscopic impacts of climate change multiplies the threats of infectious diseases, and given the SARS, the Zika virus, MERS and Ebola outbreaks in recent decades and the very real possibility of a more widespread global pandemic in the near future, both parties share in the blame for this country’s unforgivable lack of preparedness.

As Jim has said repeatedly, the United States had ample warnings — decades, actually — yet our leaders had done little or nothing to prepare the country for the kind of pandemic we’re now tragically experiencing. How pathetic that the United States, once the manufacturing marvel of the world, had to rely on life-saving ventilators, masks and other basic Personal Protective Equipment from counties like China and South Korea at the outset of this deadly crisis.

Making matters worse, President Trump squandered at least eight weeks at the ​beginning of this health crisis calling the coronavirus a “hoax” — and that was only four months after he shuttered the U.S. Agency for International Development’s PREDICT program, which was responsible for identifying and combating new emerging viruses. The President’s slash-and-burn approach to the scientific wing of the federal government also includes trying repeatedly —and sometimes with success — to cut funding for the CDC’s unit for fighting global pandemics. Shame on him.

But the Democrats, who have been reduced to second-guessing the Republicans in recent years, also share in the blame. They, too, have neglected science and research as federal funding for basic research in these critical areas has shrunk markedly over the past two decades during Democratic and Republican administrations alike. The Democrats controlled the House for half that period and, likewise, held a working majority in the U.S. Senate for ten of those twenty years.

​The forthcoming campaign will undoubtedly be a difficult one, but I am deeply honored and humbled to be part of this much-needed effort. I know that Rocky — the favorite son of all fifty states and of every country that still looks to the United States for leadership — feels the same way.

Following a steady forty-year decline, one in which our middle class was virtually hollowed out through misguided trade deals such as NAFTA, the Alliance Party, in my view, is the party this country has been waiting for — a party determined to end, once and for all, the hyper-partisanship and extreme polarization of American politics and, most importantly, a party capable of returning the United States to its historic, independent and positive role as a force for good around the globe.

We should once again be a beacon to the rest of the world, especially at a time when most nations are gripped with fear and uncertainty. We’re Americans, after all.

This is our moment. Let the Bloodless Revolution of the year Two Thousand and ​Twenty begin, ushering in a new and creative approach to the myriad issues facing our country which will once again make the United States of America a Gold Medalist nation in education, the environment and a world-class health care system while creating an innovative economy for the 21st Century that works for everyone, not just the investor class, or the so-called one percent.

Thank you and keep the faith. And stay safe everybody.

Something unexpected happened to the campaign on Aug. 15, 2020.  

The far Right and Christian-based American Independent Party in California, which had nominated Trump/Pence in 2016, chose De La Fuente as their nominee. But Richardson was bumped as the VP and replaced with Kanye West. Apparently this VP choice was accomplished without input from any of the nominees. De La Fuente said, "I was not consulted to see if I wanted Mr. West as my running mate ... Obviously, we're a weird— and I wanted Mr. Richardson as my running mate— but it was their decision and their decision only."

De La Fuente had entered the AIP primary in Mar. 2020, but came in second to Phil Collins, who was also the Prohibition Party nominee for President.

The Independent Political Report quoted Darcy Richardson--

“Please let Rocky know that if he runs with the unstable, bi-polar Trump-loving Kanye West in California that I will withdraw as his vice-presidential running mate nationally,” Richardson declared in a text message to [AIP official Mark] Seidenberg earlier today. “I’ve spent my entire adult life battling the duopoly and certainly DO NOT want my name associated with a candidacy that peripherally includes a Trump/GOP plant like the unhinged rapper….Bill Shearer must be rolling over in his grave.”

It should be noted that Richardson did remain in the race, or at that was my impression when I posted our interview Oct. 6, 2020. In it he said--

Rocky and I are on the ballot in Alaska, Arkansas, Colorado, Florida, Idaho, Iowa, Maine, Michigan, Minnesota, New Jersey, Rhode Island, South Carolina, Tennessee and Vermont.  We also hope to be official write-in candidates in a couple of dozen states.

Rocky is also on the ballot in populous California where --- much to my chagrin --- he's paired with unhinged, pro-Trump rapper Kanye West on the American Independent Party ticket, a remnant of segregationist George Wallace's 1968 presidential campaign.

https://thirdpartysecondbananas.blogspot.com/2020/10/darcy-richardson-2020-vp-alliance-party.html

West was also not pleased with being nominated VP, calling the AIP "deceitful" and issued a statement that included, "I am campaigning to be the next president of our great country — not vice president ... The political party in California that listed my name as its VP candidate has done so without my knowledge ... Californians, I ask for your vote for president and urge you to write in ‘Kanye West.’"

The De La Fuente/West ticket placed 5th out of the 6 positions on the California ballot with 0.34% of the vote in that state. It was by far De La Fuente's largest bloc of votes nationally.

The ticket with Richardson as the VP made the ballot in 14 states and registered write-ins in at least 5 more. The strongest results (with party listing) were in Rhode Island 0.18% (Alliance) -- Minnesota 0.17% (Independence/Alliance) -- Idaho 0.17% (Independent) -- Maine 0.14% (Alliance) -- Arkansas 0.11% (Independent).

Election history:
1979 - Cheltenham Township Commission, Montgomery County, Penn. (Democrat) - defeated
1980 - Pennsylavania State Auditor General (Consumer Party) - defeated
1983 - Cheltenham Township Commission, Montgomery County, Penn. (Democrat) - defeated
1985 - Cheltenham Township Finance Officer, Montgomery County, Penn. (Democrat) - defeated
1988 - US Senate (Penn.) (Consumer Party) - defeated
1990 - US House of Representatives (Penn.) (Democratic) - primary - withdrew
1990 - US House of Representatives (Penn.) (Independent) - defeated
1991 - US House of Representatives (Penn.) (Consumer Party) - special election - replaced by party
1992 - Independent Voters Primary (Mass.) - defeated
2010 - Lt. Governor of Florida (No Party Affiliation) - defeated
2012 - Democratic nomination for US President - defeated
2012 - Reform Party of the United States of America nomination for US President - defeated
2016 - Reform Party of the United States of America nomination for US President - defeated
2018 - Florida House of Representatives (Reform Party of the United States of America) - withdrew
2018 - Governor of Florida (Reform Party of the United States of America) - defeated
2020 - Reform Party of the United States of America nomination for US President - withdrew

Other occupations: steamship industry worker, manufacturing manager for an industrial heat treating equipment firm, financial analyst and operations manager, historian, author, campaign manager, political party executive

Notes:
Winner of the 1988 election was H. John Heinz III.

Luis Javier Rodriguez

 

Luis Javier Rodriguez, July 9, 1954 (El Paso, Tex.) -

VP candidate for Justice Party (aka Independent aka Independent Party of Connecticut aka Natural Law Party aka Oregon Progressive Party aka New Mexico Independent Party aka Nonaffiliated) (2012)

Running mate with nominee: Ross Carl Anderson (b. 1951)
Popular vote: 43,123 (0.03%)
Electoral vote: 0/538

The campaign:

Ross Carl "Rocky" Anderson served as the Mayor of Salt Lake City 2000-2008 and was perhaps one of the most politically liberal politicians to come out of Utah in recent history. A Democrat, he operated to the Left of his party and had the distinction of being one of the few major city mayors to call for the impeachment of President George W. Bush. By 2011 he was disappointed with the Democratic Party and was key in forming the Justice Party, using it as a springboard for his run for the Presidency.  

In July 2012, Anderson found an "Always Running"-mate in Luis J. Rodriguez.

A resident of California in 2012, Rodriguez had an early history of running with gangs and brief periods of incarceration but also desiring to get pursue an academic education where he developed both political and literary interests. By the time Anderson selected him as his VP, Rodriguez had become a well known poet and activist. I first became aware of him through his book Always Running: La Vida Loca, Gang Days in L.A. (1993) which was quite popular with the students I worked with in that era. Although not exactly a household name, Rodriguez enjoyed name recognition among the voter base Anderson was trying to reach.

Anderson's platform was encapsulated in his Washington State Voters Pamphlet statement--

Statement: My campaign is about deeply shared values, focused on achieving greater economic, social, and environmental justice for all. Instead of falling in line with the dominant parties that have created a militarist and corporatist government for sale to the highest bidders, we are calling for people to aspire to a government that is genuinely of, by, and for the people.

Peace and prosperity require (1) proven pre-school and secondary educational opportunities so that everyone has a chance to excel; (2) the chance for everyone to obtain a college or technical education without crushing debt, just as our forebears committed to secondary education for all; (3) returning outsourced jobs to the U.S and putting millions of people to work in a WPA-like initiative; (4) equal rights under the law, regardless of race, religion, and sexual orientation; (5) a restorative criminal justice system that focuses on problem-solving, rather than on punishment and retribution (including an end to the disastrous "war on drugs"); (6) a Medicare-for-all system that will provide essential healthcare for everyone, be less expensive, and provide better medical outcomes; and (7) responsible environmental stewardship, including protection of the climate through utilization of clean energy sources.

My foreign policy will promote peace and respect for human rights, not the empire-building wars of aggression supported by both major parties. I will promote long-term U.S. security and build better relationships with other nations by ending the immoral drone killings that have killed hundreds of innocent civilians, the assassinations of U.S. citizens without any semblance of due process, and the claim of authority to indefinitely detain even U.S. citizens without charges, trial, legal assistance, or right of habeas corpus. I will dismantle the imperial presidency and restore a government in harmony with fundamental U.S. values and our Constitution.

Anderson occupied a place on the political spectrum that was too liberal for mainstream Democrats, but too central for some other progressive groups and he found himself frequently competing with the Green Party for voters. In some cases it appeared his experience as an elected executive robbed him of the "outsider" status that often can be an advantage with disaffected voters, plus the Justice Party was not exactly created as the result of a massive grassroots movement.

Anderson was able to partner with some existing political parties and gain ballot access through them such as the Oregon Progressive Party, the Independent Party of Connecticut, the Natural Law Party in Michigan, and the New Mexico Independent Party. In some ways Anderson was able to rely on groups that had supported and organized for Ralph Nader's 2008 campaign. Nader himself fell short of an endorsement, but he "supported" Anderson. Anderson had actually won the Peace and Freedom Party primary in California, but removed himself from consideration before their convention.

Anderson/Rodriguez were on the ballot in 15 states and write-ins in 16 others, placing 7th nationally. Their strongest results were in Utah (0.52%), Idaho and Vermont (0.38% each), Connecticut (0.35%), Oregon (0.19%), Washington (0.16%), New Mexico (0.15%), Michigan and Tennessee (0.11% each), Rhode Island (0.09%), Louisiana and Minnesota (0.07% each), Colorado and New Jersey (0.05% each).

In 2016 the Justice Party endorsed Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries.

Election history:
1977 - Los Angeles Unified School Board (Nonpartisan) - defeated
2014 - Governor of California (Green Party of the United States) - defeated

Other occupations: bus driver, truck driver, construction worker, factory worker, welder, poet, novelist, journalist, 2014-2016 Los Angeles Poet Laureate, editor, typesetter, publisher, lecturer, National Committee of the League of Revolutionaries for a New America, teacher, steering committee of the National Poor Peoples Campaign, co-founder of the Network for Revolutionary Change

Notes:
2014 opponents included Jerry Brown (winner) and Cindy Sheehan.
Both parents were Mexican born.
In his 1977 election Rodriguez was identified as being a member of the Communist Labor Party of North America.

Matthew Edward Gonzalez

 

Matthew Edward Gonzalez, June 4, 1965 (McAllen, Tex.) -

VP candidate for Independent (aka Peace and Freedom Party aka Unaffiliated aka Independent Party of Delaware aka Ecology Party of Florida aka Independence Party aka Natural Law Party aka Peace Party aka Populist Party) (2008)

Running mate with nominee: Ralph Nader (b. 1934)
Popular vote: 739,278 (0.56%)
Electoral vote: 0/538

The campaign:

Ralph Nader, about to turn 74, announced his intention to run for President as an Independent on the Meet the Press television program Feb. 24, 2008, "Dissent is the mother of ascent, and in that context I've decided to run for president."

The start of Nader's 2008 campaign and Matt Gonzalez's place in it is described on the Matt Gonzales Reader webpage--

In 2008 Ralph Nader decided to run for president and asked Gonzalez to be his running mate. Gonzalez saw himself as a stand-in for Peter Camejo who had run with Nader in 2004 but was now unavailable because he was fighting cancer a second time. Camejo specifically encouraged Nader to select Gonzalez who was one of the few elected officials in the nation to publically endorsed their ticket in 2004. Gonzalez agreed with the condition they not seek the Green Party Nomination. Nader was in accord. Both were supportive of Cynthia McKinney’s efforts to win the Green Party nomination and believed both campaigns could complement one another. The decision not to compete against McKinney for the Green Party nomination and to run as independents meant they could not rely on a preexisting party aparatus to gain ballot status.

Camejo died on Sept. 13, 2008.

Gonzalez gave a thumbnail description of the platform in an interview with Krist Novoselic (Seattle Weekly)--

Single-payer health care, ending the war in Iraq (without leaving any of the private contractor soldiers there), and ending the corporate domination of our society. It’s apparent that corporate money is undermining good government decision-making in our legislative process.

We’re committed to election reform. We support proportional representation for our Congress and direct election of the president by majority vote. We oppose plurality victories, which are common in the U.S., and have occurred in eight of the last 24 presidential contests.

Nader picked up support from a number of regional parties. In California he won the nomination of the Peace and Freedom Party. Also the Independent Party of Delaware, Independence Party (Hawaii), and Natural Law Party (Michigan). The Ecology Party of Florida and the Peace Party in Oregon were created for Nader's campaign. In New York Nader ran under the Populist Party banner.

Although he did not actively seek the Green Party nomination, he still won the most votes in their primaries but the convention nominated Cynthia McKinney. Gonzalez left the Green Party partly as a way to make it easier for Nader to file as a true Independent in several states.

Nader/Gonzalez were on the ballot in 45 states and write-ins in four others. They finished in third place and at a higher percentage than Nader's 2004 run, cracking 1% in a dozen states: Maine (1.45%), North Dakota (1.32%), Arkansas (1.19%), Connecticut and Alaska (1.16% each), South Dakota (1.12%), Idaho (1.10%), Minnesota (1.04%), Vermont (1.03%), Rhode Island and Oregon (1.02%), and West Virginia (1.01%). The only state where it could possibly be argued Nader was a spoiler was Missouri, which barely voted for McCain with a 0.13% difference over Obama. Nader took 0.61% of the vote in that state.

Compared to most of the other third parties in the 2008 election season, Nader's Independent bid went comparatively smoothly, but it ended on a real sour note. On Election Night Nader told a Fox News radio reporter regarding Obama, "He is our first African American president; or he will be. And we wish him well. But his choice, basically, is whether he’s going to be Uncle Sam for the people of this country, or Uncle Tom for the giant corporations who are running America into the ground." A bit later Fox TV reporter Shep Smith played back the statement to Nader, but the quote was cut off after the words "giant corporations." After playing it, Smith looked a bit stunned and said with dramatic pauses, "Really. Ralph Nader? What was that?" and the contentious conversation went downhill from there with Nader exhibiting a special sort of zealous cranky cluelessness about the impact of his choice of words.

And thus ended Nader's final major campaign for the Presidency. I actually saw that live when it aired and remember thinking it was a downer departure from the electoral scene by a candidate who is unquestionably America's greatest consumer advocate and activist.

Election history:
1999 - San Francisco District Attorney (Nonpartisan) - primary - defeated
2001-2005 - San Francisco Board of Supervisors (President, 2003-2005) (Nonpartisan)
2003 - Mayor of San Francisco, Calif. (Nonpartisan) - defeated

Other occupations: attorney, collage artist, writer, editor, teacher, art curator, poet

Notes:
During his 2001 campaign, Gonzalez left the Democratic Party and joined the Green Party.
Winner of the 2003 election was Gavin Newsom.
Played bass guitar in an indie rock band, John Heartfield, 1995-1999.

Mary Alice Herbert

Mary Alice Herbert, February 28, 1935 (Dover, Del.) -

VP candidate for Socialist Party of the United States of America (aka Socialist Party USA aka Socialist Party aka Natural Law Party aka United Citizens Party aka Protecting Working Families) (2004)

Running mate with nominee: Walter Frederick Brown (b. 1926)
Popular vote: 10,606 (0.01%)
Electoral vote: 0/538

The campaign:

In 2004 the Socialist Party of the United States of America nominated 78 year old attorney Walter F. Brown for President. He was a former Democratic State Senator in Oregon (PNW trivia alert!!!) with a long record of progressive activism including being a member of the Socialist Party in earlier days. Mary Alice Herbert, a perennial candidate with the Liberty Union Party in Vermont, was nominated for Vice-President.

Herbert had a political alliance with Eric Chester and ran as his provisional VP in 2004 and in 2008. In the former campaign she retained the position of official running-mate even after the Party selected Walter F. Brown as the nominee.

Even though the SPUSA campaign webpage included: "We support the rights of all women to birth control information and supplies, and to all reproductive health services (including abortion)," it turned out Presidential nominee Brown held anti-abortion views and as a result there was an effort by some factions of the Party to rescind his nomination. Party leaders were also not enamored with Brown's style, as politics1 reported, "Some SPUSA insiders gripe that Brown insists upon total day-to-day control of all aspects his own campaign, even writing his own press releases, newspaper ads, etc. They note it took over a week after Brown won the nomination for him to finalize the press release announcing his victory."

The Liberty Union Party in Vermont, which had endorsed the SPUSA in half of the previous eight Presidential elections including 1996 and 2000, endorsed the Workers World Party for the first and only time in their history. Although Herbert was a long-time member and was listed on their campaign webpage promoting her as the SPUSA VP, Brown's name was totally absent.

Even so, the Brown/Herbert team picked up endorsements from a couple local remaining remnants of the now defunct Natural Law Party in Delaware and Michigan, and the United Citizens Party in South Carolina. In Louisiana they were called Protecting Working Families. 

The Brown/Herbert ticket was on the ballot in 7 states and certified write-ins in 9 others. Their strongest vote results: South Carolina 0.13%, Louisiana 0.09%, Florida 0.05%, and Delaware 0.03%.

Mary Cal Hollis, the 2000 VP was on the ballot with Brown in Colorado only.

In spite the non-support from much of the Party after the abortion issue, the SPUSA enjoyed their highest national vote result since it was founded in 1976 and the number not been matched since then. It was thought the SPUSA picked up a significant amount of voters on the Left  disappointed with Nader's independent run as well being disenchanted with the Greens.

Election history:
1984 - Vermont State House of Representatives (Liberty Union Party) - defeated
1990 - Vermont Secretary of State (Liberty Union Party) - defeated
1992 - Vermont Secretary of State (Liberty Union Party) - defeated
1994 - Vermont Secretary of State (Liberty Union Party) - defeated
1996 - Governor of Vermont (Liberty Union Party) - defeated
2006 - Lt. Governor of Vermont (Liberty Union Party) - defeated
2008 - Socialist Party of the United States of America nomination for US Vice-President - defeated
2012 - Vermont Secretary of State (Liberty Union Party) - defeated
2014 - Vermont Secretary of State (Liberty Union Party) - defeated
2016 - Vermont Secretary of State (Progressive Party) - primary - defeated
2016 - Vermont Secretary of State (Liberty Union Party) - defeated
2018 - Vermont Secretary of State (Progressive Party) - primary - defeated
2018 - Vermont Secretary of State (Democratic Party) - primary - defeated
2018 - Vermont Secretary of State (Liberty Union Party) - defeated

Other occupations: teacher

Notes:
She was Republican earlier in life.
1996 opponents included Howard Dean (winner) and Denny Lane.
First third party VP I have located who was born in Delaware.

Laura Ruth Ticciati

Laura Ruth Ticciati, March 7, 1952 - 

VP candidate for Natural Law Party (aka Independent) (2000)

Running mate with nominee: John Samuel Hagelin (b. 1954)
Popular vote: 4,663 (0.00%)
Electoral vote: 0/538

The campaign:

John Hagelin was running for a third time for President in 2000, but what exact party and who the running-mates were takes some sorting out.

As early as November 1999, Mike Tompkins (the running-mate in 1992 and 1996) was campaigning in Ohio, identified as the Natural Law Party VP. As late as August 2000, when Hagelin was fighting Pat Buchanan for the Reform Party of the United States of America nomination, Tompkins was called the former's running-mate in Iowa. In the same month, when Hagelin was removed from the Indiana ballot as the Reform Party candidate, Tompkins was listed on the ticket. A Hagelin/Tompkins NLP 2000 campaign button was even produced.

But something happened and I could not find any sources that spelled it out.

It was in August 2000 that Hagelin told the press he was considering either Silicon Valley multimillionaire entrepreneur Amos Nathaniel "Nat" Goldhaber as his running-mate, or NASA scientist Bob Bowman. This was right after Pat Buchanan was declared the official Reform Party nominee, a nomination disputed by Hagelin. So at a parallel splinter group Reform Party convention, Goldhaber was nominated as Hagelin's VP. Two weeks later Goldhaber was officially nominated the second spot at the NLP convention as well. Shortly after all of this, the FEC granted the Reform Party nomination to Buchanan, along with the matching funds.

A fellow devotee of Transcendental Meditation with Hagelin, Goldhaber is the son of Jewish refugees who were respected physicists. He was raised in Berkeley, Calif.

Still, Tompkins ended up on the ballot with Hagelin in two states. In Massachusetts they were presented as "Unenrolled" and gained 0.11% of the vote. In Missouri the Hagelin/Tompkins ticket, under the NLP banner, had 0.05%.

Laura Ticciati was on the ballot with Hagelin in Kansas, Louisiana, and New Jersey. In several other states Hagelin was on the ballot with no VP at all.

Ticciati said her goal in entering the race was a "desire to make the hazards of genetic engineering a central issue of Campaign 2000." In the late 1990s she and her husband Robin had co-authored Genetically Engineered Foods: Are They Safe? You Decide.

Hagelin still considered himself representing a fusion of the NLP and Reform Party and indeed was listed as a Reform candidate on the ballot in Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, Wisconsin and perhaps a few others. In New York, the old New Alliance Party leaders Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani were now using the Independence Party as a vehicle and in that capacity ran Hagelin/Goldhaber under their banner. Fulani had made an earlier attempt to be Hagelin's running-mate. Interestingly, Newman and Fulani had originally endorsed Pat Buchanan but changed their minds.

Overall the NLP finished with 83,710 votes (0.08%) in 2000, a decline from their 1996 result. The Hagelin/Ticciati ticket finished with a popular vote vote of: Kansas 0.13%, New Jersey 0.07% and Louisiana 0.06%. There would have been a problem with the Constitution in the event of their vistory sonce both candidates were residents of the same state-- Iowa.

It was their final nationwide election effort. The Party eventually scattered into local chapters, with Michigan remaining the most active. In 2004 the NLP endorsed Rep. Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Party primaries.

Election history: none

Other occupations: author, founded Mothers for Natural Law (M4NL) 1996,

Notes:
The only woman ever on a NLP ticket.

Amos Nathaniel Goldhaber

Amos Nathaniel Goldhaber, February 15, 1948 (Wisconsin)  -

VP candidate for Natural Law Party (aka Independent aka Reform Party of the United States of America aka Independence Party) (2000)

Running mate with nominee: John Samuel Hagelin (b. 1954)
Popular vote: 77,439 (0.07%)
Electoral vote: 0/538

The campaign:

John Hagelin was running for a third time for President in 2000, but what exact party and who the running-mates were takes some sorting out.

As early as November 1999, Mike Tompkins (the running-mate in 1992 and 1996) was campaigning in Ohio, identified as the Natural Law Party VP. As late as August 2000, when Hagelin was fighting Pat Buchanan for the Reform Party of the United States of America nomination, Tompkins was called the former's running-mate in Iowa. In the same month, when Hagelin was removed from the Indiana ballot as the Reform Party candidate, Tompkins was listed on the ticket. A Hagelin/Tompkins NLP 2000 campaign button was even produced.

But something happened and I could not find any sources that spelled it out.

It was in August 2000 that Hagelin told the press he was considering either Silicon Valley multimillionaire entrepreneur Amos Nathaniel "Nat" Goldhaber as his running-mate, or NASA scientist Bob Bowman. This was right after Pat Buchanan was declared the official Reform Party nominee, a nomination disputed by Hagelin. So at a parallel splinter group Reform Party convention, Goldhaber was nominated as Hagelin's VP. Two weeks later Goldhaber was officially nominated the second spot at the NLP convention as well. Shortly after all of this, the FEC granted the Reform Party nomination to Buchanan, along with the matching funds.

A fellow devotee of Transcendental Meditation with Hagelin, Goldhaber is the son of Jewish refugees who were respected physicists. He was raised in Berkeley, Calif.

Still, Tompkins ended up on the ballot with Hagelin in two states. In Massachusetts they were presented as "Unenrolled" and gained 0.11% of the vote. In Missouri the Hagelin/Tompkins ticket, under the NLP banner, had 0.05%.

Laura Ticciati was on the ballot with Hagelin in Kansas, Louisiana, and New Jersey. In several other states Hagelin was on the ballot with no VP at all.

Hagelin still considered himself representing a fusion of the NLP and Reform Party and indeed was listed as a Reform candidate on the ballot in Illinois, Minnesota, Oregon, Tennessee, Wisconsin and perhaps a few others. In New York, the old New Alliance Party leaders Fred Newman and Lenora Fulani were now using the Independence Party as a vehicle and in that capacity ran Hagelin/Goldhaber under their banner. Fulani had made an earlier attempt to be Hagelin's running-mate. Interestingly, Newman and Fulani had originally endorsed Pat Buchanan but changed their minds.

Overall the NLP finished with 83,710 votes (0.08%) in 2000, a decline from their 1996 result. The Hagelin/Goldhaber portion of the NLP vote came to 77,439 popular votes by my estimation. Their strongest showings were: New York 0.36%, Alaska 0.32%, Idaho 0.23%, Wyoming 0.19%, Iowa-Oregon 0.17% each, Montana 0.16%, Colorado-Ohio 0.13% each, Arkansas-Washington 0.12% each, California-Kentucky-North Dakota-Utah 0.10% each

It was their final nationwide election effort. The Party eventually scattered into local chapters, with Michigan remaining the most active. In 2004 the NLP endorsed Rep. Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Party primaries.

Election history: none

Other occupations: venture capitalist, computer entrepreneur, special assistant to Lt. Gov. William Scranton III (Penn.),

Notes:
Private pilot.
Father of triplets.
Austrian mother, German father who met in Israel.

Frank Atwood, Approval Voting Party 2020 VP and 2016 Presidential nominee

Frank Atwood, Approval Voting Party 2020 VP and 2016 Presidential nominee

In 2016 the Approval Voting Party ran Frank Atwood for President and Blake Huber for VP. They appeared on the ballot in Colorado.

In 2020 they have switched roles. Huber is the Presidential nominee and Atwood is the running-mate. Sort of a vice versa thing. Get it? "Vice" versa? My attempt at a political ticket joke. Sorry, couldn't resist.

Well, anyway.

In case you are wondering what the concept of Approval Voting is all about, on April 24 Mr. Huber sent me this nice summation in an email:

In a nutshell Approval Voting allows a voter to mark his ballot for more than one candidate with the candidate marked on the most ballots is the candidate that is elected. The voter can choose all the candidates she agrees with on issues or the ones that have the correct resume for the current election period instead of voting for only one candidate.

Currently each voter marks his ballot for only one candidate, often resulting in voting for the lesser of two evils, the voter also has to consider the concept of electability as a criteria for casting her single precious vote. This concept of vote for one and only one is an archaic concept and limits our choices.

Our efforts are designed to change the voting method to allow voters to honestly and sincerely select the candidates they support and to elect the candidate that has the broadest popular support.

Earlier I interviewed Blake Huber with the same questions:
https://thirdpartysecondbananas.blogspot.com/2020/04/blake-huber-approval-voting-party-2016.html

I would like to thank Eric Bodenstab, VP nominee of the Unity Party of America, for helping me make contact with the Approval Voting Party. The following is my email interview with Frank Atwood, Approval Voting Party 2020 VP and 2016 Presidential nominee--

--------------------------------------------------------------

Q: From what I can ascertain, both of you have a history with the Libertarian Party in Colorado. Did that experience play a role in becoming activists for Approval Voting?

FA: Yes, in 1996, I discovered I was a Libertarian – being both fiscally responsible and socially accepting, the best of what both major parties say they advocate for.  I took the Advocates for Self-Government's "World's Smallest Political Quiz" and realized for myself that as an individual who supported both marijuana decriminalization and Second Amendment rights, I had found a home in the Libertarian Party.  For a decade I vigorously campaigned and advocated for Libertarian candidates watching their support deteriorate in the last month of campaigns from 15 to 5% usually because of the "wasted vote" argument.

Approval Voting - letting the voter vote for all the candidates he approves of, resolves this "wasted vote" dilemma by letting a voter express both his heart and mind.  He can be honest with his heart and strategic with mind.  Another voting possibility is: if he hates one of the candidates, be he / she a Donald or a Hilary, the voter can vote for everyone except that despised candidate.

Q: I see there are Approval Voting groups in different parts of the United States, but you have decided to actually create an authentic and official political party as a vehicle for change. How did that choice come about?

FA: If you study Richard Winger's newsletter Ballot Access News, you'll see that Colorado was not practicing blatant ballot suppression in 2016 and we decided to use the ballot as a vehicle to promote Approval Voting.  When in 2018 the legislature and governor tightened up ballot access we felt we needed to become a party.

Q: Do you see yourselves as a single-issue party?

FA: Yes, we are.  Election reform that successfully minimizes spoilers and sabotage, yet gives viability and visibility to alternative factions is too significant to dilute with any broader distractive agenda.  Stay focused on the message: Election reform through Approval Voting.

Q: Is Ranked Choice Voting an option worth promoting as well?

FA: Both Approval Voting and Ranked Choice Voting are far superior to our current system; however, a century of evidence in the Australian lower house shows RCV single winner method as perpetuating egregious two-party dominance.  I acknowledge neither system promises victory to third parties, however Approval Voting will provide more transparent viability and visibility for third parties than RCV as evidenced in Australia's lower house over the past century.

Q: One critique of Approval Voting I found read, "Approval voting violates 'one person, one vote' and is unconstitutional." How do you respond to that?

FA: I'll let my running mate Blake Huber discuss the technicalities.  Already numerous voters in their municipal at-large elections are voting for more than one candidate.

Currently, we live with "One person, one ballot, vote for as many candidates as there are seats to be filled.  The candidate(s) with the most votes wins."  The Approval Voting Party is focusing on letting the citizen cast his vote for more than just a limited number of candidates.  Approval Voting advocates supporting all the candidates the voter approves of.

Q: What are the demographics of your support base? What part of the political spectrum do you think they are coming from? Are other third parties supporting your efforts at least in spirit?

FA: Our base is disgruntled disappointed voters trapped into voting for the lesser of two evils without the option of expressing themselves further.  The American Solidarity Party, Libertarian Party and elements of the Natural Law Party advocate for Approval Voting.  People are frustrated and they want a better voting system. 

Q: Are you experiencing any backlash to your ideas, and from where?

FA: The faction objecting most to voting method reform are unpopular incumbents scared that a voter will express support for a third party. This faction wants to control / limit / manipulate the outcome to perpetuate his own incumbency.

Q: It is pretty rare to see the same nominees switch the Presidential and Vice-Presidential slots between elections. Lawrence Holmes and Gloria La Riva of the Workers World Party did that in 1992. How is that working out for you two?

FA: Quite well. Blake Huber is bringing fresh enthusiasm for the party.  We expect to double our votes this coming year.

Q: Any life lessons learned from the 2016 campaign that you are applying to the 2020 effort?

FA: Yes, when two such unpopular candidates still get 95% of the vote, without an alternative party getting beyond 4%, the system is broken and it is time for Approval Voting.

Q: What sort of national and support network exists for proponents of Approval Voting?

FA: The most active think tank is The Center for Election Science.  They continue to research other alternatives, yet find themselves continuing to support Approval Voting most recently in Fargo, ND, and through an initiative in St Louis.

Q: How will you measure the success of your 2020 campaign?

FA: The campaign's success will be measured by more voters and candidates endorsing Approval Voting.

Q: Where can interested voters contact you?

FA: The easiest way to reach the party is: our web site Approval Voting Party.com that takes you to our Facebook page, or phone / text 720/439-6000.  I can be reached at 720/260-1493 or Frank.Atwood@Hotmail.com.

Q: Thank you very much for contributing to this project. Please feel free to add any additional information not covered by my questions.

FA: These paragraphs provide additional background to my political activism:

 In the 2000 Bush / Gore presidential election the Nader campaign in Florida reminded me of the significance of spoilers and sabotage which may have prompted the book in 2008, Gaming the Vote why elections aren't fair and what can be done by William Poundstone.  Reading that book and Honeybee Democracy by Thomas Sealey convinced me that the simplest best easy solution for voting reform was Approval Voting.  Letting the voter vote for more than one candidate.  Let the voter mark his ballot for all the candidates he approves of.

There are two very significant political quotes.  The first is Churchill's:  "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others".  What's so good about democracy?  The feedback loops!  The governed express their opinions to the governing and choose who the governing will be.  The exceptions are sometimes spoiler (e.g. Nader in 2000) or sabotage (Perot in 1992) distorting the will of the people.

The second quote is JFK's: "Those who make evolution impossible make revolution inevitable."    How do we provide viability and visibility for alternative factions before they become violently revolutionary?

Approval Voting solves these problems.  With approval voting if you want to vote for a Nader or a Perot, you can hedge your preference with voting for Gore or Bush to minimize the impact of a spoiler or saboteur.  Also, by voting for Nader and Perot you the voter give viability and visibility to third parties and alternative ideas.

In summary, Approval Voting minimizes spoilers and sabotage for the established parties, yet provides viability and visibility for new alternative parties.
           
Historical speculation

However, democracy is about minimizing the trauma of political change and resolving crises peacefully.  There are two famous quotes about democracy.  The first from Winston Churchill: "Democracy is the worst form of government except for all the others."  The second quote is from President Kennedy: "Those who make evolution impossible make revolution inevitable."

American History has two poster children of trauma: prohibition and slavery.  One was resolved peacefully, the other with violence.  Might mid-19th century statesmen have used Approval Voting to provide compromise and less violent binary choices to resolve the slavery issue?

Vinton Douglas Tompkins

 1992

 1996

Vinton Douglas Tompkins, November 29, 1948 (Boston, Mass.) -

VP candidate for Natural Law Party (aka Independent aka Unenrolled aka Nonpartisan) (1992, 1996, 2000)

Running mate with nominee (1992, 1996, 2000): John Samuel Hagelin (b. 1954)
Popular vote (1992): 38,780 (0.04%)    
Popular vote (1996): 113,670 (0.12%)
Popular vote (2000): 3,988 (0.00%)
Electoral vote (1992, 1996, 2000): 0/538

The campaign (1992):

The Natural Law Party was an astonishingly fast-growing transnational organization in the 1990s. Although Party leaders denied it, it appeared the NLP was acting as the political arm for followers of Maharishi Mahesh Yogi and his Transcendental Meditation movement as it  established itself in a number of countries and ran hundreds of candidates for public office. Although the Maharashi described TM as a "path to God," supporters insisted it was not a religious movement. Critics called it a pseudoscience or even a cult. We Boomers remember Maharishi Mahesh Yogi as the subject of the Beatles' song "Sexy Sadie," written after John Lennon had become disillusioned by the guru.

In the United States the NLP seemed to come out of nowhere late in the 1992 campaign season and within a very short time established itself in the top tier of the third parties. Since they already had a pre-existing organized network of followers, they were able to mobilize quite rapidly, not unlike how the evangelicals united for Reagan in 1980.

The NLP nominated physicist John Hagelin of Maharishi University of Management for President and his colleague Vinton D. "Mike" Tompkins as his running mate. Both listed their residences as being in Fairfield, Iowa, which would have posed a Constitutional problem in the event of an electoral victory.

The NLP seemed to say that all problems could be solved, directly or indirectly, if the population embraced TM. In doing so, they stressed how their solutions were "scientifically proven," which in some ways really made this more of a debate for peer reviewed journals than in the political realm. "Americans, as enlightened people," a dubious premise posed as Tompkins continued, "need a political system that is knowledge-based. Natural Law supports principles of intelligence and order in the political system, just as it does in nature ... We believe that all solutions already exist and can be scientifically proven."

Tompkins, who was very active on the campaign trail, told a reporter the role of Transcendental Meditation in the "scientifically proven" process: "Two hundred university studies found Transcendental Meditation has a profound effect on improving health and intelligence. We support it-- in rehabilitation of criminals .. as a powerful strategy in health care ... and as a component in education."

The NLP proposed subjecting all incarcerated criminals to TM. They also promised: " ... The first thing the Natural Law Party will do once elected is create a group of 7,000 experts in Washington (approximately the square root of one percent of the world's population) to re-enliven natural law in national consciousness and to create a life-supporting, harmonious atmosphere in which our government can more effectively govern the nation."

They also wanted to replace Medicaid with a new government health care system, create a national apprenticeship program, end the use of fossil fuels, and abolish the Electoral College. On litmus hot button issues like gun control, abortion, and capital punishment, the NLP sidestepped these controversies by saying that once in office and TM has been nationally implemented for at least six months, the USA  could vote on these topics in a national referendum.

Tompkins was quoted by the press, "People who serve in public office should be those who display the most coherent brain activity in the whole population. They should have EEG testing done to show the level of coherence that their brain activity has."

I'll be blatantly subjective here. I recall in 1992 reading their literature, and not being one who is inclined to follow movements selling Enlightenment, I had a difficult time grasping the specifics of their platform. My initial impression of the NLP was that of an  enormous sales pitch for a corporate New Age business enterprise, what we call today "Spiritual Capitalism." Members of the Party continually denied they were a TM party, but it was not easy getting past their terminology which was that of an encapsulated community. They struck me as a group of well educated, well meaning inoffensive white people who had an unusual political third party organization in the sense they did not seem to demonize any perceived opponents.

During the window of time when Ross Perot dropped out of the race and had not yet re-entered the fray, the NLP was apparently successful in gathering signatures for ballot acccess from disaffected voters who had their hopes dashed but still wanted to support a third alternative.

On the ballot in 28 states + DC, the Hagelin/Tompkins ticket had a remarkable popular vote result considering they were novices with a very new party. They finished in 8th place in an election with two dozen options on the ballots. In Iowa, their headquarters, they actually placed 4th after Perot. Strongest results: Iowa 0.23%, Utah 0.18%, Alaska 0.17%, Arizona 0.15%, South Dakota 0.13%, Mississippi 0.12%, Hawaii ; Vermont ; Washington 0.11% each, District of Columbia ; Nebraska ; New Mexico 0.10% each. They also had significant write-in efforts in most of the states where they were not listed, with the highest local percentages in California, Indiana, Kansas, Oregon, and Wyoming.

The campaign (1996):

The same Hagelin/Tompkins ticket ran in 1996, but this time with a much earlier start, a larger campaign war chest, and with a more ambitious ballot access goal than the previous election. They had hundreds of candidates running for office across the country. Although the platform was basically the same, Transcendental Meditation was not as openly touted as a panacea as it was in 1992. Also, the impression was that the NLP went to great pains not to offend any constituency.

Tompkins described their place in the political grid: "The message is fresh; it's new. It's new ideas, new solutions. It's not the same old tug of war between the liberal and conservatives at the two ends of a one-dimensional spectrum ... I would say we're not left, right or center. I'd say we're introducing a new element. It's like if the problem is darkness, you've got to switch on the light."

Dropping the national public referendum idea on abortion and gun control, the NLP in 1996 took a moderate position on both.

As in 1992, the NLP distinguished itself among all the political parties by running a positive campaign without attack ads or negative electioneering, demonstrating that they did walk their talk to a certain degree. And it looked as if it paid off for them given their popular vote results.

Advancing to a 7th place finish in 1996 they basically tripled their 1992 result. On the ballot in 44 states + DC and significant write-ins in Florida and Indiana, they saw their strongest results in: Montana 0.43%, Idaho 0.33%, Alaska 0.30%, Wyoming 0.28%, Iowa ; Washington 0.27% each, Massachusetts ; Ohio ; Oregon 0.20% each.

The campaign (2000):

Hagelin was running for a third time for President in 2000, but what exact party and who the running-mates were takes some sorting out.

As early as November 1999, Mike Tompkins was campaigning in Ohio, identified as the NLP VP. As late as August 2000, when Hagelin was fighting Pat Buchanan for the Reform Party of the United States of America nomination, Tompkins was called the former's running-mate in Iowa. In the same month, when Hagelin was removed from the Indiana ballot as the Reform Party candidate, Tompkins was listed on the ticket. A Hagelin/Tompkins NLP 2000 campaign button was even produced.

But something happened and I could not find any sources that spelled it out.

It was in August 2000 that Hagelin told the press he was considering either Silicon Valley multimillionaire entrepreneur Amos Nathaniel "Nat" Goldhaber as his running-mate, or NASA scientist Bob Bowman. This was right after Pat Buchanan was declared the official Reform Party nominee, a nomination disputed by Hagelin. So at a parallel splinter group Reform Party convention, Goldhaber was nominated as Hagelin's VP. Two weeks later Goldhaber was officially nominated the second spot at the NLP convention as well. Shortly after all of this, the FEC granted the Reform Party nomination to Buchanan, along with the matching funds.

Still, Tompkins ended up on the ballot with Hagelin in two states. In Massachusetts they were presented as "Unenrolled" and gained 0.11% of the vote. In Missouri the Hagelin/Tompkins ticket, under the NLP banner, had 0.05%.

Laura Ticciati was on the ballot with Hagelin in Kansas, Louisiana, and New Jersey. In several other states Hagelin was on the ballot with no VP at all.

Overall the NLP finished with 83,710 votes (0.08%) in 2000, a decline from their 1996 finish. It was their final nationwide election effort. The Party eventually scattered into local chapters, with Michigan remaining the most active.    

In 2004 the NLP endorsed Rep. Dennis Kucinich in the Democratic Party primaries.

Election history: none

Other occupations: associate director of the Institute of Science Technology and Public Policy, author, editor

Notes:
Ph.D. in Science of Creative Intelligence, from Maharishi European Research University, 1984.
Called "Mike" because he looked like the derogatory caricature pug-nose "Black Irishman" when an
 infant.
Last known to be living in India.
Probably no doubt while repeating a long held family story, Tompkins was touted as a direct
 descendant of President John Adams, President John Quincy Adams, and Vice-President Daniel
 Tompkins. However online genealogical sources have different information. From what I found, if
 the sources are reliable, Tompkins is actually a cousin to both Presidents, the closest shared direct
 family connection being Joseph Adams Jr., the grandfather of our second President, John Adams,
 which is still pretty darn close. All of this also means Tompkins is related to two other third party
 Vice-Presidential candidates, Charles Francis Adams Sr. (Free Soil Party 1848) and John Quincy
 Adams II (Straight-Out Democratic Party 1872). No word if he is also related to third party VPs
 Douglas Glenn Adams (Anti-Doughnut Party 1984) or Megan A. Adams (Independent 1992). As for
 Vice-President Daniel Tompkins (who served under President Monroe) being a direct ancestor, the
 sources say that is not the case. I ran across "family story vs. fact" quite frequently when I assisted
 people during my librarian days. It is pretty common, even in my own family.