Beyond Democrat and Republican: A Closer Look at Third-Party Campaigns (ContributorNetwork)

There has been plenty of recent speculation in the media about a possible third-party run for president by current Republican candidate Ron Paul. Whether Paul, or any other candidate, will make a third-party play against President Barack Obama and the Republican nominee this November remains to be seen. In the meantime let's look at some of the more creditable third-party presidential runs of the past one hundred years:

* Theodore Roosevelt (1912) -- A century ago the old "Bull Moose" founded the Progressive Party after a rift with his hand-picked Republican successor William Howard Taft. Roosevelt was upset with Taft for not continuing his progressive platform after he had left office. Roosevelt was so fired up that the former president decided to enter the 1912 race as the candidate for the new Progressive Party. Predictably Roosevelt split the vote and handed the election to Woodrow Wilson. Still, TR's 27 percent of the popular vote remains the high-water mark for third-party candidates still today.

* Strom Thurman (1948) -- Aside from being considered by many historians as the biggest upset in presidential election history -- incumbent Democrat Harry S. Truman beat Republican challenger Thomas Dewey -- this election was famous for Thurman's State's Rights (or Dixiecrat) Party. The Dixiecrats were white Southern Democrats who deplored the moves that the Truman Administration were making toward desegregating the South. They formed their own party and chose Thurman to run against Truman and Dewey. Thurman won four Southern states and 39 electoral votes and managed to get 2.4 percent of the popular vote.

* Ross Perot (1992) -- The Texas pro-business billionaire decided to throw his hat into the ring as an Independent candidate in the 1992 election. Concerns about the state of the economy, and a general distrust-as always-of Washington insiders, helped fuel a surge of support for his candidacy. In May, six months before the election, Perot was actually polling ahead of the incumbent Republican George Bush and Democratic challenger Bill Clinton. In the end Perot captured nearly 20 million votes and almost 19 percent of the electorate.

* Ralph Nader (2000) -- This was Nader's third run for president and, while his ultimate vote count was modest (about 2.8 million total votes and 2.73 percent of the electorate) his presence on the ballot might have proven to be monumental. That's because Nader took part in one of the closest presidential elections in U.S. history between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. Many have suggested that, had Nader not been in the race. Gore, who actually won the popular vote, would have captured enough electoral votes to win the White House.

View the original article here

Indiana union bill: Even with Dems AWOL, lawmakers move closer to vote (The Christian Science Monitor)

Chicago – Most Indiana Democrats were absent from the House floor in Indianapolis Friday, the third day of session they skipped to protest a proposed bill they say is harmful to unions.

But their absence Friday did not prevent a House committee from hearing more than five hours of testimony on the bill in question, which would ban negotiations between a union and company if workers are forced to pay fees for representation.

The committee ended the day by voting to send the bill to the House for a full vote, which Republicans say will happen next week. However, a quorum in that chamber is needed for the vote. Actions by Democrats suggest they are not worried about the fines, at $1,000 per day per lawmaker, that they face for not showing up.

RECOMMENDED: Top 5 fastest-growing states 

Republicans will get their vote, but it’s a matter of when, says Brian Vargus, a political scientist at Indiana University in Indianapolis. Democrats are reluctant to give the Republican majority a victory because it may weaken union support.

“Unions are big contributors to the Democrats, and they feel with the decline of unionization, it would solidify Republicans. It simply comes down to that,” Mr. Vargus says.

The area’s diminished role in the steel and automotive industries has resulted in declining membership for Indiana unions. In 2010, the share of workers in Indiana who were unionized was 10.9 percent, lower than the national average of 11.9 percent, according to the US Bureau of Labor Statistics.

Last year, Indiana’s Republican leadership passed a collective-bargaining law that weakens the negotiating power of public unions in the state. The so-called right-to-work bill being contemplated this session would further clamp down on union activity.

Collective-bargaining legislation has been a bumpier road for neighboring states in the Midwest. For example, although Wisconsin Gov. Scott Walker (R) saw his collective-bargaining bill become law, it was not without a major fight that continues today with a recall effort to remove him from office. In Ohio, voters repudiated a collective-bargaining law in November. And in Michigan, Gov. Rick Snyder (R) is on record as saying it is not the time to push for such legislation, which he called “divisive” last month.

Indiana Gov. Mitch Daniels (R) and House Speaker Brian Bosma (R) are ignoring the potential backlash because they probably see it as an opportunity “to weaken the Democrats in the state” in an election year, says Vargus. “If they can limit union power and union strength, they will feel it will benefit their candidates,” he says of the state Republican leadership.

Friday’s testimony came from both sides of the issue. Keith Busse, a former chief executive officer of Steel Dynamics in Fort Wayne, Ind., described the bill as a “jobs boon” because it would convince companies outside the state that Indiana is business-friendly and prepared to help create job opportunities.

The NFL Players Association also weighed in, most likely because this year’s Super Bowl is set in Indianapolis on Feb. 5. In a statement, the organization, which is based in Washington D.C., criticized the legislation, calling it “a political ploy designed to destroy basic workers’ rights.” The statement added, “it’s the wrong priority for Indiana.”

Democrats say they will not return for a vote until Republicans agree to hold a series of public hearings around the state to justify the bill’s passage to voters. Republicans say they will probably start enforcing the $1,000 penalty next week.

That threat has already been enough for three Democrats to show up since Wednesday, which was the first day of the session. One of those Democrats, Vanessa Summers of Indianapolis, told reporters Thursday that she “cannot stand the fine” because she is a single mother with a son in college.

“I’m on the right side of history. So whatever happens is going to bless me,” Representative Summers said.

Online fundraising efforts via ActBlue, a Democratic political-action committee, launched Friday to help offset costs for the Indiana Democrats still staying away.

RECOMMENDED: Top 5 fastest-growing states 

Get daily or weekly updates from CSMonitor.com delivered to your inbox. Sign up today.

View the original article here