(Total votes: 135,500,034)

1,457,050 – Jill Stein (Green) = 0.01%

728,830 – Evan McMullin (Independent) = 0.005%

In a mini-revolt against the top two candidates, a record number of ten faithless electors cast their votes for other candidates, three of which were disallowed. Most of these went to other Republicans and Democrats, but one vote went to Libertarian Ron Paul and Yankton Sioux Nation independent Faith Spotted Eagle.

(Total votes = 129,085,410)

469,627 – Jill Stein (Green) = 0.36%

122,389 – Virgil Goode (Constitution) = 0.09%

67,326 – Roseanne Barr (Peace and Freedom) = 0.05%

43,108 – Rocky Anderson (Justice) = 0.03%

40,628 – Tom Hoefling (America’s) = 0.03%

956 – Andre Barnett (Reform) = 0.0%

216,196 – Others = 0.19%

(Total votes = 131,313,820)

523,715 – Bob Barr (Libertarian) = 0.40%

199,750 – Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) = 0.15%

161,797 – Cynthia McKinney (Green) = 0.12%

47,941 – Alan Keyes (America’s Independent Party) = 0.04%

242,685 – Others = 0.18%

Unity ’08  was an attempt at launching a new centrist third party or fusion presidential ticket, possibly involving somebody like Michael Bloomberg or Joe Lieberman. Defunct – disbanded without ever agreeing on a candidate

Constitution Party — Apparently the Constitution Party does not have primaries, but instead has a shadowy National Convention pick its candidates. However, a few lost causes ran including Don Grundmann, tax denialist and homophobe and Alan Keyes^. On April 26, 2008 the party convention chose Chuck Baldwin, a Baptist preacher from Florida, who thought that 9/11 was an inside job.

Speculation that the Reform Party would not be running a Presidential candidate, but would again endorse a minor-party candidate (as it did with Ralph Nader in 2004) turned out to be incorrect when they nominated somebody named Ted Weill as their 2008 nominee. Weill was only on the ballot in Alabama and Mississippi. The Reform Party has split into about 9 hostile factions since 2000 which only goes to show the only thing they ever were was a disparate group held together by H. Ross Perot fandom that took to ripping each other to shreds as soon as Perot left the room.

The United Fascist Party ran Jackson K. Grimes, again, as the sole member of said party.

(Total votes=122,294,846)

397,265 – Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) = 0.32%

143,630 – Micahel Peroutka (Constitution) = 0.12%

119,859 – David Cobb (Green) = 0.10%

27,607 – Leonard Peltier (Peace and Freedom) = 0.02%

10,837 – Walt Brown (Socialist) = 0.01%

10,791 – Roger Calero (Socialist Workers) = 0.01%

2,387 – Thomas Harens (Christian Freedom) = 0.002%

50,652 – Others = 0.04%

(Total votes = 105,421,423)

448,895 – Pat Buchanan (Reform) = 0.43%

384,431 – Harry Browne (Libertarian) = 0.36%

98,020 – Howard Phillips (Constitution) = 0.09%

83,714 – John Hagelin (Natural Law) = 0.08%

51,186 – Others = 0.05%

Many Gore supporters claimed that third-party candidate Nader acted as a spoiler in the election since Nader votes could have been cast for Gore, and for instance, Nader allegedly threw the election outcome to Bush. Nader received 2.74 percent of the popular vote nationwide, getting 97,000 votes in Florida (by comparison, there were 111,251 overvotes) and 22,000 votes in New Hampshire, where Bush beat Gore by 7,000 votes. Winning either state would have won the general election for Gore. Defenders of Nader, including Dan Perkins, argued that the margin in Florida was small enough that Democrats could blame any number of third-party candidates for the defeat, including Workers World Party candidate Monica Moorehead, who received 1,500 votes. But the controversy with Nader also drained energy from the Democratic party as divisive debate went on in the months leading up to the election.

(Total votes = 96,277,634)

685,297 – Ralph Nader (Green) = 0.71%

485,759 – Harry Browne (Libertarian) = 0.50%

184,656 – Howard Phillips (Taxpayers) = 0.19%

113,670 – John Hagelin (Natural Law) = 0.12%

113,667 – Others = 0.12%

His vote total was less than half of his performance in 1992. The 1996 national exit poll showed that just as in 1992, Perot drew supporters from Clinton and Dole equally. In polls directed at Perot voters as to who would be a second choice, Clinton consistently held substantial leads. Perot’s best showing was in states that tended to strongly favor either Clinton (such as Maine) or Dole (particularly Montana, though the margin of victory there was much closer). Perot once again received his lowest amount of support in the South.

(Total votes = 104, 423, 923)

290,087 – Andre Verne Marrou (Libertarian) = 0.28%

106,152 – Bo gritz (Populist) = 0.10%

73,622 – Lenora Fulani (New Alliance Party) = 0.07%

43,369 – Howard Phillips (US Taxpayers Party) =0.04%

152,516 – Others = 0.13%

The effect of Ross Perot’s candidacy has been a contentious point of debate for many years. In the ensuing months after the election, various Republicans asserted that Perot had acted as a spoiler, enough to the detriment of Bush to lose him the election. While many disaffected conservatives may have voted for Ross Perot to protest Bush’s tax increase, further examination of the Perot vote in the Election Night exit polls not only showed that Perot siphoned votes nearly equally among Bush and Clinton, but roughly two-thirds of those voters who cited Bush’s broken “No New Taxes” pledge as “very important” (25%) voted for Bill Clinton. The voting numbers reveal that to win the electoral vote Bush would have had to win 10 of the 11 states Clinton won by less than five percentage points. For Bush to earn a majority of the popular vote, he would have needed 12.2% of Perot’s 18.9% of the vote, 65% of Perot’s support base. State exit polls suggested that Perot did not alter the electoral college count, except potentially in one state (Ohio), which nonetheless showed a result in the margin of error. Furthermore, Perot was most popular in states that strongly favoured either Clinton or Bush, limiting his real electoral impact for either candidate. He gained relatively little support in the Southern states and happened to have the best showing in states with few electoral votes. Perot appealed to disaffected voters all across the political spectrum who had grown weary of the two-party system. NAFTA played a role in Perot’s support, and Perot voters were relatively moderate on hot-button social issues.