Kathie Obradovich

kobradov@dmreg.com

The headline on an article that popped up on my news feed was enough to annoy the heck out of me: “How Not to Waste Your Vote: A Mathematical Analysis.”

The top of the article by Stephen Weese was even worse. It presented a definition of a wasted vote from that great oracle of Internet accuracy, Wikipedia. It defined as “wasted” a vote that is cast for a losing candidate or a vote cast for a winning candidate in excess of the number required for victory.

What a dopey premise, I thought. First of all, voters don’t always know in advance in a contested election whether they are backing the winner. Secondly, nobody knows which votes for a winning candidate came in “excess” of the exact number needed to win.

Votes for losing candidates, even those the voter can reasonably expect to lose, aren’t wasted either. And to my delight, that was exactly the point that Mr. Weese would eventually make in his article. This is why we don’t flame articles on social media based on the headline, by the way. But that’s beside the point.

In Iowa, where the major parties are competitive, the concern about “wasted” votes comes up most often in terms of independent or third-party candidates. People may be dissatisfied with the Republican and Democrat on the ballot, but they’re reluctant to “throw their vote away” on a third-party candidate.

Weese points out that third-party candidates can and do win elections, on occasion. Beyond winning, however, there are other benefits for third-party voting. “It makes a political statement to the majority parties. It helps local politicians of that party in elections. It can help change platforms to include third-party elements. And it provides recognition for the party among voters as a viable alternative,” he wrote.

In Iowa, a third party only needs 2 percent of the vote for its presidential or gubernatorial candidate to be considered an official political party. There’s a lot of interesting, data-based analysis in Weese's article, which you can find at the Foundation for Economic Education, fee.org.

Third-party candidates are getting more attention in this year’s presidential race, in large part because of voter qualms with both of the major-party candidates. CNN just held a second town hall with Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson, former New Mexico governor, and his running mate William Weld, the former Massachusetts governor. Green Party nominee Jill Stein is enjoying a higher profile of any candidate from her party since Ralph Nader. And yet both Johnson and Stein will likely fall short of the poll numbers needed to qualify for presidential debates this fall.

Independents and third-party candidates on state ballots have a similar problem, except they’re probably not going to get time on CNN. I’m not here to tell you to vote for any particular candidate — just urge you to give them a few minutes of your attention. I want to introduce you to just two of them today.

Michael Luick-Thrams, an independent candidate for U.S. Senate, has qualified for the ballot. So far, his shoestring campaign is notable mostly for his aggressive efforts to badger mainstream media into paying attention to him. Yet, the Mason City historian has something unusual to offer that makes his candidacy worth voters’ attention: A long-term vision for Iowa’s future.

He proposes a 30-year plan aimed at the year 2046, the 200th anniversary of Iowa’s statehood. Some of his goals include revitalizing county-seat towns, ensuring each has amenities needed to attract and retain residents: healthcare and recreational facilities, vibrant educational and cultural institutions, high-speed Internet, recycling and clean energy.

“I keep telling people we need to drag Iowa out of the ‘80s,” Luick-Thrams said in an interview. He said he was in junior high when Sen. Chuck Grassley, the Republican incumbent, was elected.

“We’re looking toward Iowa’s third century and not to be offensive or morbid, but Chuck (Grassley) and Patty (Judge) will hardly be there in 2046,” he said.

You can read his entire plan at heartlandparties.us. Some of you may think it’s the wrong direction for the state but ask yourselves this: What long-term visions have you heard from the major-party candidates?

Also on the ballot for U.S. Senate is a Libertarian candidate, Charles Aldrich of Clarion. He ran in 2008 for the U.S. Senate in Minnesota and received 0.48 percent of the vote, a fourth-place finish. In Iowa, he says he’s relying on radio ads to spread the word about this candidacy.

Libertarian, independent, seek Grassley's Senate seat

He’s an engineer who has been working in farm implement manufacturing before becoming a full-time candidate. He worked on the petition drive to get Johnson and Weld on the ballot in Iowa.

Much of Aldrich's agenda is rooted in the idea that the United States is spending too much money overseas. He wants to end this country’s involvement in the current wars and military actions, including the battle against ISIS. He would withdraw from NATO, shutter foreign military bases and cut off foreign aid.

“I’m not an isolationist. I think we should have embassies and have trade with countries. But as far as going in there and dictating how they’re going to run their country, which is what NATO does … it’s counterproductive to do that,” Aldrich said.

I disagree with Aldrich that there’s no benefit for U.S. security to fight terrorism in the Middle East or maintain military bases in allied nations. But again, this is a point of view that voters won’t find from either of the major-party candidates.

You can hear from many of the candidates on this year’s congressional and Senate ballot, including Luick-Thrams, at the Des Moines Register’s Iowa State Fair Soapbox, starting Thursday. See the updated schedule here: Desmoinesregister.com/soapboxschedule. And remember, the only wasted vote is one not cast.

Obradovich: Independent candidates: Spoilers or saviors?