Libertarian Ed Thompson Spends $20, Wins Mayoral Election Third Party Watch A Libertarian makes waves in Wisconsin.
With third-party candidates, expect the unexpected Naples Daily News Since 1968, there have been five third-party candidates who have earned from 13.5 percent of the popular vote to just fewer than 3 percent of the popular vote — yet, enough to impact the outcome of the election. Although none of the third party candidates have won the presidency, their presence has had a curious role in their outcome.
Third parties promise undiscovered leadership (Allentown) Morning Call If you want your vote to count, you shouldn't be thinking about whether your candidate can win. The important thing is to choose someone who's in agreement with your principles.
Does Barack Obama need the Democratic Party to be president? Insight Could Barack Obama go third-party if Hillary out-maneuvers him for delegates?
April 28, 2008
A restaurant with only two entrees probably wouldn't last very long. But limited choice seems to be the way Americans prefer their political system, which has been marked by the efficiency and compromise of two-party operation ever since the Founding Fathers went to work.
Yet our electoral annals are full of the detritus of third-party campaigns espousing all manner of issues shunned by the Republicans and Democrats. The current campaign includes at least six recognized third-party candidates (RIP, recently disbanded Boston Tea Party) and dozens of independents.
Unlikely to win anything more than a token share of the vote, do these campaigns serve any purpose other than lengthening an already confusing ballot? Yes and no. Third parties can serve several types of aims even without a reasonable chance of gaining office.
For starters, a third party can be a way for an individual spurned by the majors to promote himself. Theodore Roosevelt personified the tactic when, shunned by the Republicans in 1912, he helped form the Progressive, or Bull Moose, Party. Campaigning under its banner, Roosevelt managed to garner 27% of the popular vote and tilt the election firmly toward Democrat Woodrow Wilson. The "party" was never more than a vehicle for Roosevelt's interests, however, and disbanded within a few years.
More recently, Ross Perot's Reform Party served a similar egoistic purpose in the 1992 election. It also managed to loft professional wrestler Jesse Ventura to the governorship of Minnesota and gave Pat Buchanan and Ralph Nader a place to park their presidential ambitions in the last two elections. Judge for yourself whether the furtherance of those political careers served any national interest.
Alternatively, a third party can focus on a single issue, sometime building enough support to force the major parties to grab a piece. The Prohibition Party (still going not-so-strong!) not only helped turn temperance into a national issue, but also paved the way for women to vote by giving them one of their first major political outlets.
George Wallace and the American Independent Party were so successful in pushing a "tough on crime" message in the 1968 election that the Republicans co-opted it, setting the stage for the Omnibus Crime Control and Safe Streets Act of 1968 and the "law and order" backlash to the 1960s counterculture.
Third parties can also be an outlet for Americans alienated by the two main parties, providing what scholar Richard Winger calls an "emotional bridge" to continue participating in the political system.
And third parties can be an avenue for dissent, a way for voters to register their disgust with the political mainstream in a manner stronger than simply not voting. Decide for yourself how well that worked with Ralph Nader and the Greens in 2000.
What the third parties can't do, by any realistic measure, is win significant political office. Congress contains no real third-party candidates (we don't count the two nominally independent senators who aligns with the Democrats). The Greens, the party with the largest number of registered voters, hold no office higher than mayor of Richmond, Calif.
The astronomical costs of financing major campaigns, the electoral college, and ballot access laws that vary widely from state to state all conspire to maintain this status quo. You tell us whether that's a blot on democracy, or a reasonable price to pay for avoiding the chaos of Italian-style coalition politics.
Myths and Realities of the Third Party Option And Sometimes Tea It is at times like these, when a strong candidate whose values are aligned with Catholic values isn't available, that the objections to the third-party or write in option begin to be heard.
Why Ron Paul Should NOT Run as a Third Party or Independent Candidate Freedom*Prosperity*Peace Ron Paul represents the greatest nightmare as far as members of the established order are concerned. He would actually “steal” votes from both major party candidates.
Third Party Candidates for President Ignored MediaMouse While much of the media focuses on the debate within the Democratic Party...so-called "third party" candidates for the presidency are almost entirely excluded from any discussion of the 2008 election
Which third-party candidate do you wish had won?
38% 23% 8% 0% 8% 23%
The United Kingdom has a workable multi-party system. In addition to the Tories, Labor, and Liberals they have assorted parties that express various viewpoints. Some are quite nutty. There use to be one called "Men in Big Hats". As a political party their candidate couldn't do worse then what they have now. I'm not sure "Men in Small Hats" would get any votes.
Of course, the parliament is effectively split between the two main parties: Labor and Tory. (And these might be "Men with No Hats" for all we know.)
I won't say which party I formerly belonged to in the U.S. I often voted for members of the other party, anyway. Being 'socially liberal" and "fiscally conservative" puts me in no party these days. I'm a small "L" libertarian but not a Libertarian. A Centrist when necessary. I'm a member of "None of the Above". I vote for the best person who will represent my belief in what the Founders wanted with allowances for today's realities.
I will vote for any candidate with a BIG HAT. Why not?
I think that the single-issue parties are very important to the political playing field. When a party like the Prohibition party siphons off some votes, a big party will quickly adopt their platform. Although they haven't garnered a measurable slice of the pie, they've had their voices heard.
There's one in the UK which I support called the UK Independence Party. They only have one issue--removing the UK from the EU. Although they only have one MP, there are more than a few Tories sympathetic to their position. I, for one, wish 'em luck.
As a registered Libertarian, I am well aware of the frustrations of supporting third party candidates. But I continue to state that it is unfair to say that we "can't win significant political office". We simply have yet to do so. The first time has been a long blasted time in coming but that doesn't mean it will never come (or CAN never come).
Another popular insult that is often thrown in the direction of third party voters is the notion that you waste your vote unless you vote for one of the two majors. I have long insisted that this depends on your geography. In some places, voting third party is the ONLY way for your vote to make any real difference. For instance, here in New York, to vote Democrat is superfluous; we already know they're going to win. To vote Republican is hopeless; we already know they're going to lose. But to vote third party helps to increase the percent of the vote your party may receive and assist in their potential eligibility for federal funding once they pass the 5% mark.
I used to live in the right-wing enclave of Joplin, Missouri. Now, I live in the left-wing enclave of New York City. This is why I have ALWAYS voted Libertarian.
rings90 said...
Just wondering Why there is a political movement for ~ removing the UK from the EU? I'm not sure I've ever heard that the EU was a bad thing for the countries involved. Then again I don't live there & the U.S. media rarly reports on the reprocussions happening on the European front so maybe I am misinformed about the actual use of the EU.
Not sure about 3rd parties, not sur ebaout the 1st & 2nd parties also ~ I'm kind of young yet ~ although in all (3) of the Presidental Elections I have been able to vote in the choices seem to get smaller & smaller in terms of what candidate to support.
Being brought up more conservative than liberal has also effected how I view the actual choices ~ last week according to Obama I was a Frustrated Gun Owning Religous Nut ~ This week according to Hillary I am emotional wreck of a wife & need a strong women to guide me & with McCain right now he's just happy to take some slow time on the campaign trail while the Democratics fight out what the ballot name should be......
I'm not sold on the 3rd party candidates & I have no idea how to even make a dent in this system with the 3rd party candidates for a set to a win later on down the road. It jsut seems like those % points get written off by the media & such to begin with & its really the media that sways the public opinions in this day & age.
To directly answer the question as posed, I used to feel it was a reasonable price to pay to avoid “the chaos of Italian-style coalition politics”. I find it increasingly difficult to rationalize that position now. Like all things, the system as designed works, but only as long as it consistently yields the outcome you normally expect from it.
I agree that alternative voices need to be given the opportunity to be heard, even if it is a single-issue party. I believe that adding your vote/voice to a candidate or party that reflects your ideals, but has little chance to win, is far better than being limited to either not voting; or voting for the lesser of two evils.
I feel that the barriers to enabling some of these changes to become more effective, i.e. prohibitive expenses and the Electoral College, be fixed (no pun intended).
Well ….. not that this problem is solved, I already feel so much better. . . . and it’s not even noon!
What the ballots need is a "None of the Above" option. Instead of having to choose the lesser of two (or three) evils, imagine how effective it would be to sweep the slate clean, and send a message that none of the candidates are good enough. It should disqualify them from running again in that election, and bring some alternative candidates to the fore. I'm willing to bet that None of the Above would win by a landslide.
On the other hand, third parties might simply acknowledge that they (probably) will not win the presidency - at least, anytime soon. Maybe the Whigs will come back into style. But for the moment the purpose of third parties is simply to (and I'm sure it's been mentioned before in this article) introduce topics to the forefront of politics that the two major parties might not want to talk about right now, or might think isn't important. Third parties are a way of politics being in touch with people: they act as a voice - a voice on a megaphone - calling out to Washington, "[insert issue here] is a major issue that needs to be discussed," when the [insert issue here]-related party garners enough attention from voters.
The other major role that third parties play is simply to break up the demographic: as Mr Peterman mentioned himself, in the election of 1912, Theodore Roosevelt decided to jump in with his Bull Moose party as a sort of alternate for Republicans. This split the vote, and voila, a teacher was suddenly president.
So.
Spinner said...
I definitely vote with Onc Doc. As I was reading down the comments, I kept thinking, where is the "None of the Above" option here? And there it was. I think that would be much more of a wake-up call than a third party. A third party would really need, not only a win here or there, but a majority of wins to really have some meaningful effect. After all, look at the present situation with one party in the WH and another controlling congress. What is really getting accomplished? If Perot had actually won, he wouldn't have been able to do much of anything. That giant sucking sound from Mexico would still have been heard. Thus a none-of-the-above movement would be a much better statement from the people that we are truly dissatisfied with the way things are.. not getting done in Washington. Maybe they would REALLY have to listen to us.
All thoughtful comments, and good. Expat caught my eye. A little liberal, a little conservative, a little libertarian, a little centrist, a little left and a little right.
I would submit that this is mainstream America. What should we name the new party?
Spinner said...
The PETERMAN PARTY! Peterman for President! Or at least Senator... a great replacement for O'Connell... But I don't want to get into that issue. Just suffice it to say that I apologize to the rest of you out there for us here in KY giving you good ol' Mitch...
jane keller said...
I like the peterman party. Peterman for president! Works for me!
Spinner said...
Addendum: Please excuse the typo... I meant Mitch McConnell
The Common Sense Party (now who would argue against common sense??) might get some votes.
I have too much respect for Mr. Peterman to associate him with politics.
Be well all
j
I've got a good life, why would I go into politics and get rich? Never.
as Douglas Adams wrote, "Anyone capable of getting themselves made president should by no means be allowed to do the job"
Peterman for president! I'll help get the flyers out!