There has been some spirited discussion of third parties in another topic, so I thought I’d just give the subject its own post. Back in the day, I was a big fan of third parties — the Libertarian Party and Ross Perot’s Reform Party in particular.
Nowadays, at least on the federal level, the Bush Republicans have become so objectionable to me that I think third parties just tend to have perverse results – especially in Presidential politics. With the winner-take-all, state-by-state electoral vote method of choosing the President, we have a de facto two party system if not de jure. And so, the egotism of Ralph Nader ended up setting back the causes he purports to champion. It’s a case of the perfect being the enemy of the good.
Even in our two party system, however, third parties serve a necessary function in that they put pressure upon the two major parties to respond to issues they would otherwise ignore. I read somewhere recently that Eugene V. Debs and the Socialists never won more than a handful of offices, but most of their industrial platform was implemented under the New Deal anyway (limited work days, child labor laws, minimum wage laws, social security, etc.)
In my opinion, third parties would do best organizing at the grass roots level and challenging for local offices.
The Greens have won over 200 offices nationwide. They’ve won over 50% of elections entered in 2008. The focus of the Green Party is at the local level. However, we chose to participate in the Presidential Campaign for synergy. We can make nationwide gains by just earning 5% of ballot status in the presidential run. I honestly believe that we can earn 5% of the vote, without hurting Obama. If you listen to McKinney’s campaign, it reaches way beyond the traditional voting base. The Greens offer a whole subset of people who feel they have no representative in the Democrat or Republican party, a chance to vote in the Presidential election. If you believe Obama is your best choice, we urge you to vote for Obama. If you’re thinking about not voting, or holding your nose while you vote, then check out McKinney. The problem is not third parties trying to run, but the system that is rigged against them. We need to implement democratic changes like instant runoff voting, and proportional representation if we want a more effective government that represents a majority of our people.
So, that means the Green party is now at somewhere between total insignificance (zero offices) and statistical insignificance (somewhere well below the even 1% threshold, likely closer to 0.002%, or less). If other parties hold 99.98% of all elected offices in the U.S., then that might seem to make your own party’s accomplishments seem pretty pale in comparison.
I certainly agree that anybody who needs to “hold their nose” while voting should give former Rep. McKinney a sniff.
Still, I (seriously) agree with your statement that “(t)he problem is not third parties trying to run, but the system that is rigged against them. We need to implement democratic changes like instant runoff voting, and proportional representation if we want a more effective government that represents a majority of our people.”
The two party system is only good for the two parties involved, not for the citizens they claim to represent.
As a former Libertarian candidate for statewide office, I have to agree that strategically, it’s an easier road in running for local office than statewide or national. You can’t go door-to-door in the big races, so money matters enormously. In local races, one’s personal reputation and community standing can go a long way toward election, overcoming the inherent negatives unfortunately associated with third parties.
I am a big believer in instant runoff voting, but it isn’t going to happen, because it requires the people who benefit from the two-party stranglehold to agree to a system that stands to diminish their power. Thta power is what it’s all about for them.
Doug’s comment about the successes of the Socialists (and Progressives) in the early part of the 20th Century is most noteworthy. Winning elections is important, but not 100% essential. But, this is where inclusion in debates becomes essential. Where the ideas of candidates can become more widely known, they have the chance of being co-opted by Ds & Rs and made law.
The notion of the Wasted Vote Syndrome is the greatest myth foisted on voters by Democrats and Republicans. If a voter believes in the values of a Libertarian or Green candidate, they’re a fool to play prisoner’s dilemma and vote D or R. You end up incrementally getting policy you don’t want. You end up reinforcing the belief by Ds & Rs that they enjoy widespread support. You end up telling them that they don’t need to take calls for change seriously- after all, they got your vote.
The argument that the two parties should represent opposed ideals and policies, one, perhaps, of the Right and the other of the Left, is a foolish idea acceptable only to doctrinaire and academic thinkers. Instead, the two parties should be almost identical, so that the American people can “throw the rascals out” at any election without leading to any profound or extensive shifts in policy.
— Carroll Quigley, Tragedy and Hope: A History of the World in our Time