Wrapping Up Our Series on Third Party Candidates
Politics has become viciously polarized in recent times to the point where it has become very difficult for a third party candidate to gain any traction. The infusion of big money into the political process, especially since the Supreme Court decision in Citizens United, has left the two major political parties beholden to the special interest groups that fund them. Third party movements are attached by supporters of the two major political parties for enabling the election of their opponent. Perhaps the strongest examples of this have been Ross Perot, who is blamed by Republicans for the election of Bill Clinton over George H. W. Bush in 1990, and Ralph Nader, who is blamed by Democrats for the election of George W. Bush over Al Gore in 2000.
These arguments ignore the fact that voters have the freedom of choice to reject the two party system and to exercise their freedom of choice as they see fit, and it also neglects to consider that as long as the two major political parties continue to believe in their sense of entitlement to the reigns of power, there will be little incentive for change, especially in areas drastically in need of change. These include campaign finance reform, reducing the influence of special interest groups and of those whose wealth gives them a disproportionate sense of control over the conduct of elected officials.
Einstein is credited with having said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. For decades candidates from the two major parties have promised various incarnations of change, freedom from big government or a draining of the swamp, only to end up with little difference in policy between successive administrations regardless of political party affiliation. Examples of this can be seen in such things as successive increases in military spending, the continuing growth of deficits and debt, and promises of health care reform that never materialize.
Perhaps the least impressive of third party candidates have been those single issue candidates, especially those advocating reprehensible policies of segregation or racist policies. Even those advocating for single issues that are noble in nature, such as the Green Party, have failed to attract support because of the failings in demonstrating an understanding of other complex issues. In other cases, candidates who have advocated for policies at extreme ends of the political spectrum such as those advocating for radical socialism or libertarianism have also been viewed by voters as too risky to attract significant support.
Those third party candidates who have generated the most success have been those who had been more mainstream and more diverse in their policies, and most importantly, more moderate, navigating a course which attracts the best aspects of liberalism and conservatism. The best examples of these are likely Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 campaign on behalf of the Progressive Party, which called for a conservative course in matters of foreign policy and national security, while adopting a more liberal approach to social welfare and labor laws. Ross Perot and his 1992 campaign also adopted aspects of fiscal conservatism and libertarian liberalism that drew support from both parties.
The two major parties like to foster the belief that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, or worse, that it helps to elect their opponent. Generally speaking, it has been shown that third parties tend to attract support from both major parties, or from those who would otherwise not vote. In that sense, third parties perform a valuable service in attracting persons who would otherwise not vote to engage in the democratic process.
In the final analysis, it isn't third parties that skew election results, but rather those who refuse to cast a ballot. The 1996 election generated only a 49% voter turnout, and the 2000 contest only had a 51.2% voter turnout. Voter turnout in a presidential election has never exceeded 60% since 1968. Blaming a loss of a major party's candidate on a third party in a presidential election is disingenuous, when the major party candidates fail to excite enough interest to attract greater voter turnout.
Third party candidates such as Theodore Roosevelt, Ralph Nader or Ross Perot generate real reform in politics. Many of Roosevelt's progressive policies were adopted by Woodrow Wilson. Perot's momentum in subsequent elections was halted by momentary deficit reduction in the 1990s and Nader generated greater attention to many of the issues that he campaigned on. Unlike many European nations where minority parties can cause chaos in their parliaments, the US Constitution has a mechanism to settle the issue of electing a president if no single candidate can win a majority of electoral votes.
Perhaps someday third party candidates will be seen for the real value they bring to presidential politics. Until then, polarization will continue to contribute to their vilification, and Einstein's adage will continue to hold true.
The real
These arguments ignore the fact that voters have the freedom of choice to reject the two party system and to exercise their freedom of choice as they see fit, and it also neglects to consider that as long as the two major political parties continue to believe in their sense of entitlement to the reigns of power, there will be little incentive for change, especially in areas drastically in need of change. These include campaign finance reform, reducing the influence of special interest groups and of those whose wealth gives them a disproportionate sense of control over the conduct of elected officials.
Einstein is credited with having said that the definition of insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. For decades candidates from the two major parties have promised various incarnations of change, freedom from big government or a draining of the swamp, only to end up with little difference in policy between successive administrations regardless of political party affiliation. Examples of this can be seen in such things as successive increases in military spending, the continuing growth of deficits and debt, and promises of health care reform that never materialize.
Perhaps the least impressive of third party candidates have been those single issue candidates, especially those advocating reprehensible policies of segregation or racist policies. Even those advocating for single issues that are noble in nature, such as the Green Party, have failed to attract support because of the failings in demonstrating an understanding of other complex issues. In other cases, candidates who have advocated for policies at extreme ends of the political spectrum such as those advocating for radical socialism or libertarianism have also been viewed by voters as too risky to attract significant support.
Those third party candidates who have generated the most success have been those who had been more mainstream and more diverse in their policies, and most importantly, more moderate, navigating a course which attracts the best aspects of liberalism and conservatism. The best examples of these are likely Theodore Roosevelt's 1912 campaign on behalf of the Progressive Party, which called for a conservative course in matters of foreign policy and national security, while adopting a more liberal approach to social welfare and labor laws. Ross Perot and his 1992 campaign also adopted aspects of fiscal conservatism and libertarian liberalism that drew support from both parties.
The two major parties like to foster the belief that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote, or worse, that it helps to elect their opponent. Generally speaking, it has been shown that third parties tend to attract support from both major parties, or from those who would otherwise not vote. In that sense, third parties perform a valuable service in attracting persons who would otherwise not vote to engage in the democratic process.
In the final analysis, it isn't third parties that skew election results, but rather those who refuse to cast a ballot. The 1996 election generated only a 49% voter turnout, and the 2000 contest only had a 51.2% voter turnout. Voter turnout in a presidential election has never exceeded 60% since 1968. Blaming a loss of a major party's candidate on a third party in a presidential election is disingenuous, when the major party candidates fail to excite enough interest to attract greater voter turnout.
Third party candidates such as Theodore Roosevelt, Ralph Nader or Ross Perot generate real reform in politics. Many of Roosevelt's progressive policies were adopted by Woodrow Wilson. Perot's momentum in subsequent elections was halted by momentary deficit reduction in the 1990s and Nader generated greater attention to many of the issues that he campaigned on. Unlike many European nations where minority parties can cause chaos in their parliaments, the US Constitution has a mechanism to settle the issue of electing a president if no single candidate can win a majority of electoral votes.
Perhaps someday third party candidates will be seen for the real value they bring to presidential politics. Until then, polarization will continue to contribute to their vilification, and Einstein's adage will continue to hold true.
The real