5

Half Million Votes for Green Senate Candidates

The eleven Green Party candidates on the ballot this year for US Senate netted a combined half million votes. The 510,000 votes is the highest combined total for Green Party Senate candidates since 2000, when Medea Benjamin won 326,000 votes for US Senate in California and Vance Hansen picked up over 100,000 in Arizona.

The 2010 results were clearly led by Tom Clements in South Carolina, whose 118,000 votes gave him 9.37% of the total. Clements had the most votes and the highest percent of the vote of all Green Party US Senate candidates in 2010.

LeAlan Jones was the second big finisher with 116,000 votes, 3.19% of the total. Interestingly, in 2008, Kathleen Cummings running for US Senate in Illinois finished with 115,621 votes for 2.56% of the total.

All (unofficial) results for 2010 Green Party US Senate candidates:

  • Tom Clements (SC) – 118,952 (9.37%)
  • LeAlan Jones (IL) – 116,685 (3.19%)
  • Bob Kinsey (CO) – 36,323 (2.17%)
  • Jim Brewer (HI) – 7,756 (2.10%)
  • Jesse Johnson (WV) – 10,048 (1.91%)
  • John Gray (AR) – 14,402 (1.87%)
  • Jerry Joslyn (AZ) – 20,235 (1.43%)
  • Duane Roberts (CA) – 93,178 (1.19%)
  • Kenniss Henry (MD) – 19,324 (1.13%)
  • Colia Clark (NY) – 39,536 (0.97%)
  • Cecile Lawrence (NY) – 33,768 (0.83%)

Total: 510,207 votes (1.86%)

These are preliminary election results, subject to change.

For a spreadsheet that lists historical election results for Green Party US Senate candidates, click here. Much appreciation is shown toward Green Party Executive Director Brent McMillan, whose election database is my primary source for historical election information for Green Party candidates.

Ronald Hardy

5 Comments

  1. Do they keep track of how many people do a straight ticket? i’m sure that his percentage would have been MUCH higher with out it

  2. In Colorado an interesting post election poll revealed the following.
    According to the November 4 Denver Post, 63 percent of Bennet’s votes were from people whose main voting issue was preventing Buck from winning. That amounted to 523,423 votes. Suppose these 63 percent voted Green. (After all, if I was feared as a Bennet spoiler–then don’t I deserve those votes.) Add that to my total of 36,363 and I end up with 559,832. Bennet ends up with 275,552. And Buck? 31% of all Buck voters similarly described their main voting issue as not liking Bennet. Supposing those folks voted for the Libertarian instead. Buck is left with 539,600 votes. The Libertarian would come in third with 300,000+ votes unless of course some anti Bennet voters liked me instead of Libertarianism. Results?

    Kinsey (Green) wins 559,832
    followed by
    Buck (Corporate Republican Tea Party) 539,600
    Stringer (Libertarian) 300,000
    Bennet (Corporate Militarist Democrat) 275,552
    “Other” equals 32,000 (split among 3 unaffiliated candidates.)

    With instant runoff voting who knows how the number 2 and 3 votes would spread out and choose the winner. But from the above results it is clear that the Press and the Corporate Parties, by pretending all third party candidates were a fantom and fantasy, spoiled the election for voters by preventing them from considering either Kinsey or Stringer. They don’t even break us out in their reporting. We are just lumped together as “Others”.

    The idea that there is a two party system based on people chosing the lesser of two evils rather than from a list of candidates who offer their history of service and analysis of what must be done, is what has destroyed democracy in the United States and turned it into a blame game. The Corporate Money has gamed the game and as Nader said, even made it a profit center of the Media.

    George Washington warned us against parties. The Fourth Estate along with the crippled Electoral College has kept them long past their usefulness if they ever were good. But until that halcyon day in the future when the electoral system is reformed , the best course of action is to build a third party that can compete with the corporate parties because it is composed of voters who are commited to an agenda that addresses the future using rationality and science, not ideology and racism.

  3. My congratulations to the SC folks and the fine vote they got for a wonderful candidate, Tom
    Clements. What I post here should not be interpreted as diminishing Tom’s effort in any way. But in Illinois, there were two Senate races, both the full term that you have reported on and the short term that was for the remaining Obama cycle, roughly seven weeks only. In that race, LeAlan Jones got nearly 130,000 votes, or 3.7% of the total running against Kirk, Giannoulias, and Mike Labno, the Libertarian. We in Illinois are saddened by the loss of our ballot status but were marginally encouraged by the performance of a young and very bright African-American whom I’m sure will be heard from again in the future.

  4. While Clements ran a strong campaign, I find it incredibly disheartening that more people ended up voting for the Democratic joke. The proclivity to vote straight ballot is strong. What an embarrassing display by the voters of South Carolina.

    LeAlan Jones was a great Senate candidate and I hope he continues his efforts.

  5. What I found even more disheartening is that straight party voting – not just in the literal sense, but people voting out of loyalty or habit, or paying attention only to the top of the ticket and unthinkingly marking the party line down the whole ballot – foiled some state rep campaigns where we had awesome candidates with strong grassroots support, like Jeremy Karpen, Ben Manski, and Hugh Giordano, not to mention the close calls in Massachusetts and Maine. I believe that in these heavily Democratic districts, many voters are voting for the New Deal legacy of the Democrats, and end up defeating Greens who represent the New Deal’s progressive populist legacy much better than their Democratic opponents who routinely sell the people out to curry favor with corporate lobbyists. It’s another catch-22: people say that Greens should focus on winning small races before running in the big ones, but then we lose the small races we should have won because people just aren’t paying attention – they’re focused on the big races. They say Rich Whitney should drop out because the Green Party isn’t viable, when they know full well that the laws they passed make the Green Party’s ballot line dependent on garnering 5% for governor. Voters say they want change – so they change from corrupt, corporate-sponsored Democrats to corrupt, corporate-sponsored Republicans and back again, so that the more things change, the more they stay the same.

    The flip side of this lament is that we actually had so many viable state rep campaigns that were so painful to lose, and that in a few chosen districts around America, growing numbers of voters demonstrated their willingness to step outside the Democrat/Republican box. Lesson 1 from last week was that it’s even more painful to lose 55-45, 38-34, 49-31, or 65-35 than it is to lose 99-1. But another lesson is that, like Greens and democratic reformers around the world have shown, if we persevere we can gradually change long-conditioned habits. As argued in an excellent article I recently read by Jamie Court of Consumer Watchdog (http://www.alternet.org/story/148761/10_rules_of_populist_power_–_the_progressive%27s_guide_to_raising_hell?page=entire ), what may seem to be losses now often pave the way for future victories, and in fact may be pre-requisites for those future victories. So once again, it’s time to heed the words of the immortal Joe Hill: “Don’t mourn, organize!”

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.