I like to make my hubs short, not because I'm lazy or a poor writer, but because in matters of news, politics, science, philosophy, etc., I believe it is most important for the individual to begin their own research once being introduced to a new concept or event. My post tend to be very opinionated, but I try to present a basis for these opinions and direct the reader in the right direction for further personal investigation. Please enjoy, and take from my writing what you will.

In the beginning of the 2008 Presidential Primary season many contenders made way for the center stage, but only a few had anything genuine and honest to say. Dennis Kuccinich with the Demorcats and Ron Paul with the Grand Ol' Party! Kuccinich and Paul were ridiculed by their fellow party members, despite being the only two candidates speaking their philosophical party lines. (Mike Gravel (D) is much respected but not an active public servant nor a billionaire, thus he was never a threat to the status quo) In the beginning both candidates were polled at under-to-around 1% of the popular vote. Kuccinich would drop out early and endorse Obama, Paul would go on to make history (Kuccinich is currently doing this as fulfillment to his congressional duties, but that is another story).

By the end of the primary elections, Paul was garnishing around 20% of the vote in the final states, won 2nd place in three states (some while 3 other "stronger" candidates were still competing) and had raised more money than any of his fellow Republicans (plus the most from active military officers and soldiers). After the final primary election Ron Paul dropped out of the race and immediately began work on creating a political engine for his supporters to continue his fight into the future. Paul (and Obama) proved that small monetary support from the people can and does beat out large financial support from private interests. Ron Paul's campaign has changed the future of not only American, but world politics. 2012 could see a strong, well financed and well polled candidate carrying Dr. Paul's flag in the Republican Primary if McCain happens to lose. I can not see why any of Ron Paul's supporters would vote for John, and with a conservative look at Paul's support in the ballot boxes, they make up as much as 5% of the Republican Party's voters. Enough to guarantee McCain's defeat in November, and their platform taking center stage the year the Mayans predicted a great change in universal existence.

Global Warming, Corporate Welfare, Alternative Energy, Campaign Finance Reform...these were not topics in the 2000 Presidential Debates. These ideas were only being talked about by Ralph Nader and the Green Party, so people who were interested in having these ideas discussed put their support in a third party. We voted for Nader. And Gore lost. To all his credit and decades of work, Al failed to deliver the message to the people, the only ones that could actually do something about it. The election was close enough, due to Gore's inability to motivate the liberal base, driving more Democrats to vote for Bush than they did for Nader; that the election was an easy steal; especially with a Bush-Reagan appointed Supreme Court majority, and a cousin at Fox News to begin the chaos and uncertainity in Florida's vote so the fate of the Presidency would be left up to the highest of Judge and Jury. Bush would have been an idiot not to have taken it. Democrats blamed Nader. The media ran with it (so they wouldn't have to take the blaim themselves). Nader was hated and scorne.

Now sustainability is a buzz word. Alternative Fuels get front pages. "Green" is the new "Diet" - it sells. Nader, because Gore wouldn't, made environmentalism mainstream. (Gore of course, would soon follow suit). Now even McCain, the presumptive Republican nominee, is speaking of the importance of protecting the environment and stopping Global Warming. Obama, the presumptive President, changed Democratic Party policy and halted PAC and lobbyist contributions. In 2008 we have the roofs of Chicago skyscrapers covered in gardens, independent businesses installing solar panels in San Francisco, and biofuel from algae. The Green Party won, their agenda was heard.

While the role of any candidate is obviously to win, winning the election isn't the only way to influence policy. The role of a third-party candidate in a General Election is to pressure the moderates of a certain side to listen to it's more radical members, as with the Greens and the Democrats, or the Libertarians and the Republicans. This is ussually done by threatening to pull enough votes away to sway the election. It sounds like sabotage but holding elected officials accountable for their jobs is the only for the people to control their government. When Ross Perot cost George H.W. the election, the next winning Republican took many plays from his platform (but failed to live up to them). Democrats realized the needed to talk about environmental issues to win their base.

In the case of Ron Paul, and running a fringe campaign in a primary, a person is able to lay out a platform that if shown enough support, can dominate the following party primary if the elected nominee should lose. As example, McCain loses to Obama, Paul's supporter push even harder for a candidate (as the doctor will most likely not run again) that shares their policy ideas in 2012. With a strong showing in 2008, the candidate can forego the fight to have their words heard, and taken seriously, and compete for, if not win, the party nomination.