In every election it seems there is one or two people that come out of the woodwork to run as an independent candidate in various races across this fine land.  We saw a 3rd party candidate almost win in the NY-23 special election which gave some established politicos pause and sent shockwaves across both parties.  But does that mean the 3rd party is viable or does it give a warning that if we are not careful, we'll end up with the same incumbents in Congress and in Springfield that we have spent all of last year rallying against?

NY-23 gave 3rd party candidates a boost, but what are the lessons learned from that race?  First, we know that the GOP candidate in that race, Dede Scozzafava, was nothing more than a Democrat in a pants suit.  We also know that the Constitution Party candidate Doug Hoffman was the real conservative in the race.  But what was the overall outcome?  First, conservatism gained a renewed interest and respect within the GOP and those "leaders" within the GOP and outside the GOP who supported Scozzafava had egg on their face the second she dropped out of the race and supported the Democrat Bill Owens.  One lesson learned - vet your candidates.  However, the largest lesson learned was that the Democrat still won the seat in that race.  So did conservatives or the GOP win that election night?  Not so much, but many began to see a shift in the political winds.

In 1992, President George H.W. Bush was running for re-election against a Governor from Arkansas named Bill Clinton.  There was another candidate in that Presidential race as well - H. Ross Perot.  In November 1992, Clinton won the White House with by a plurality - 43.01% versus Bush's 37.45%.  Where did the rest of the votes go?  They went to H. Ross Perot - 18.91%.  Now, if you peel off just 6% of Perot's vote count, Clinton loses (at least the popular vote; I don't have the time or the resources to break down the Electoral College state by state).  If Perot was not in the race at all, how might that election and the next 20 years have played out?

In 2000, Texas Governor George W. Bush was up against Vice President Al Gore for President.  There was also a 3rd party candidate in that race - Ralph Nader.  The Electoral College decided that election (some would say the US Supreme Court) with Gore winning the popular vote and Bush winning the Electoral College vote.  Bush won 47.87%, Gore won 48.73% and Nader took 2.73%.  Now, considering the intense closeness of that race, what if Nader hadn't been in the race and his 1.73% of the vote he got in Florida went to Gore?  Considering that Gore lost Florida by .01%, that's a difference maker to say the least because Florida's .  I can't imagine the ridiculousness of a Gore presidency, but how would the last 9 years been different?

In the 2006 Illinois Governor's race, a soon to be disgraced Rod Blagojevich was up against Judy Baar Topinka.  In this race, Blago won 49.79%, Topinka won 39.26%.  Again, a 3rd party candidate was in the race - Rich Whitney.  Whitney took 10.36% of the vote.  Despite Blago winning by a good margin, one can only wonder how the vote count might have been different if Whitney wasn't in the race.

In the 2008 Minnesota Senate race, the incumbent - Sen. Norm Coleman - was going up against a blowhard comedian Al Frankin.  Again, there was a 3rd party candidate in this race - Dean Barkley.  After the polls closed, Coleman's lead was very, very slim.  After a recount (with possible shenanigans with ballots), Frankin came out on top and took his seat in the Senate.  How did a clown become a Senator?  Dean Barkley is how.  After the recount, Frankin had 41.99%, Coleman had 41.98% and Barkley had 15.5%.  It doesn't take a math major to figure out the results if Barkley had not been in the race. 

We bring ourselves full circle to the elections of 2010.  Much has been made about the possibility of the Tea Parties starting a 3rd Party.  In my opinion, this would be absolutely disastrous.  We live in a two party system, like it or not.  3rd parties serve a purpose by bringing issues to the forefront of elections that might have otherwise been ignored or glossed over by the major party candidates.  But that's where it ends.  Too many times the 3rd Party has played the spoiler rather than the victor.  Why do I bring this up?  Three reasons...

First, one of the dangers the GOP face is a Sarah Palin independent run.  She has left the door open to such a possibility in previous interviews, but recently has said that the Tea Parties need to "pick a party". She goes on to state that the party chosen should be an "R or a D" due to our two party system.  Even the "Rogue One" gets the idea that a 3rd party is dangerous to enacting real change. 

Second, Illinois is the epitome of a two party system state.   In addition, we face the danger of 3rd party or independent runs here in Illinois regarding the US Senate race.  Now I know most of us have some serious issues with Mark Kirk, and Alexi Giannoulias is a definite no, however, a 3rd party run would hand Giannoulias, Obama's protégé, the open Illinois Senate seat.  Right now, there are 3 candidates that have declared or are considering declaring their intentions to run as an independent against Kirk and Giannoulias - Robert Zadek, Dr. Eric Wallace, and Michael Niecestro.  All three are self-described conservatives that would peel votes away from Mark Kirk.  Whether any of them can put together a strong enough campaign is one thing, but with many Tea Parties, 9-12 groups, and conservatives looking for someone or anyone who is aligned with their beliefs to support, they could pose a serious risk to turning Illinois back toward the shade of red.

Third, Sen. Harry Reid (D-NV) is in serious trouble in his re-election bid.  JD Hayworth is ahead in the polls against Reid, which would be awesome to say the least if Reid is defeated.  However, there is a wrinkle in the race now because the Tea Party in Nevada has entered a candidate as a 3rd Party run risking splitting the conservative vote and endangering a Reid defeat.  Time will tell if

I have to admit there is a bit of romanticism voting for the 3rd party as a protest against the 2 major parties, however, as I always write about on here, the law of unintended consequences will ALWAYS come up and bite you in the butt.  Take another look at some of the examples I sited above.  If enough people vote 3rd party, the 3rd party doesn't necessarily win, but they effect an entire outcome of an election and therefore the policies supported or enacted by those that won said elections.  In the 2008 Minnesota Senate race, Frankin became the 60th Democrat vote in the US Senate making any GOP filibuster a moot point (until Scott Brown's election changed that).  Blago won re-election here in 2006 and helped send Illinois further down the spiral.  Those are just two examples, but it has been repeated time and time again.  Sure, you can point at Jesse Ventura winning Governor in Minnesota as an independent, but for every Ventura, there's a hundred or more examples than just the ones I stated above.  So I urge you to resist the temptation of voting 3rd party, because nothing good can possibly come from it.  I'm not saying we all need to automatically jump on the Mark Kirk bandwagon or any other GOP or Democrat with questionable votes or records, but at least wait to make your decision - the fate of Illinois and our country depends on it.