Thomas L. Knapp wrote <http://groups.yahoo.com/group/marketliberal/message/2475> :
TK) In 1998, Kubby got 24% of the third party vote, competing against four third party opponents. In 2002, Copeland got 21% of the third party vote, competing against three other third party candidates. In 2006, Olivier got 30% of the third party vote, competing against three third party opponents. (TK That's a very good explanation. Several of us in the LPCA have analyzed such statistics for California congressional races, and indeed found that there is a "third party vote" that is easily subdivided by extra third party contestants. For example, in my 3-way congressional race in 2004, I got 3.6%, but in my 2006 4-way race, the Green and I each got 2.3%, and I slightly outpolled her in a district where Greens outnumber RegLibs 2-1. Stats for all >2-way California congressional races in 2006 are at http://marketliberal.org/LPCA/2006%20CA%20House%203+way%20races.xls TK) If I was in the business of defending Kubby (I am), I'd say "look, if it hadn't been Kubby in 1998, the LP candidate would likely have come in fifth instead of fourth, Copeland would have placed dead last in 2002, and we'd be behind the Peace and Freedom and AIP folks to this day. Instead, Kubby held the line remarkably well given the appeal of the Greens to many California constituencies, probably at least in part because he appeals to some of those same constituencies in a way that the LP in general is over-cautious about approaching. His 1998 campaign made it possible for even an unappealing candidate like Copeland to keep the LP in fourth place in 2002, and that in turn made it possible for Olivier to start bucking upward against the long-term trend in 2006." (TK That's a very dubious explanation. You should stick with the first one. :-)
