Third party (United States)

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This article or section is not written in the formal tone expected of an encyclopedia article.
Please improve it or discuss changes on the talk page. See Wikipedia's guide to writing better articles for suggestions.

Third parties in the United States are secondary political parties that participate in national and state elections. Historically, America has a two-party system. Following Duverger's law, the Electoral College with its "winner take all" award of electors in Presidential elections has, over time, created the two-party system. Another contributing factor is the division of the government into three separate branches which differs from the parliamentary system.

Although third parties rarely win elections, they play an important role in democratic government. Third parties draw attention to issues that may be ignored by the majority parties. If the issue finds resonance with the voter, one or more of the major parties may adopt the issue into its own party platform. Also a third party may be used by the voter to cast a protest vote as if in a referendum on an important issue. Third parties also helps voter turnout by bringing more people to the polls.

Contents

[edit] Third parties in past presidential elections

[edit] 1832

The Anti-Masonic Party, seeking the eradication of the Freemasons and other secret societies from the United States, nominates former U.S. Attorney General William Wirt for President. Wirt, a former Mason, garnered only seven U.S. electoral college votes from the state of Vermont, coming in third to President Andrew Jackson and Henry Clay.

[edit] 1892

James Baird Weaver runs as presidential candidate for the Populist Party. The Populist Party garners 22 electoral votes and 8.6 percent of the popular vote. The Democratic Party eventually adopts many Populist Party positions after this election, making this contest a prominent example of a delayed vote for change.

[edit] 1912

Republican Theodore Roosevelt runs as the Bull-Moose Party (Progressive Party) nominee in the 1912 election and garners more votes than Republican incumbent William Howard Taft, who becomes the first (and to date, only) incumbent President seeking reelection to finish third. (Former Presidents Martin Van Buren and Millard Fillmore both finished third in the 19th century, but neither was the incumbent President at the time.) The split in the Republican vote propels Democrat Woodrow Wilson to victory with 42% of the popular vote, but 435 electoral votes. Socialist Party candidate Eugene Debs receives 6% of the vote.

[edit] 1920

Eugene Debs, imprisoned in 1919 for violating the Espionage Act of 1917, receives nearly 900,000 votes for President.

[edit] 1924

Erstwhile Republican Robert M. La Follette runs as a Progressive. He captures 17 percent of the popular vote and wins his home state of Wisconsin.

[edit] 1948

Strom Thurmond runs on the segregationist Dixiecrat Party ticket in the 1948 election, splitting the Democratic vote and winning 39 votes in the electoral college from Southern states. Former Vice President and Cabinet Member Henry Wallace also challenges for Democratic votes by running for the Progressive Party and receiving 2.4% of the popular vote, though no votes in the electoral college. Despite both challenges Democratic incumbent Truman still defeated Republican Dewey in what was widely regarded at the time as an upset.

[edit] 1968

Former Democratic Governor of Alabama George Wallace of the American Independent Party runs in the 1968 election. Wallace captures 13% of the popular vote, receiving 46 electoral votes in the South as well as many votes in the North. Republican Richard Nixon wins the election with 43% of the popular vote and 301 electoral votes.

[edit] 1972

Republican Roger MacBride casts his electoral vote for John Hospers and Toni Nathan of the newly formed Libertarian Party. This is the first electoral vote received by a woman. John G. Schmitz, the American Independent Party candidate claims 1.5% of the vote, or 1.1 million votes.

[edit] 1976

Eugene McCarthy wins 740,460 votes for President as an independent candidate.

[edit] 1980

Congressman John B. Anderson captures 5,719,850 votes or nearly 7% of the vote as an independent candidate for President. Libertarian candidate Ed Clark wins 921,128 votes, or 1% of the total.

[edit] 1992

Ross Perot, an independent, wins almost 19% of the popular vote (though no electoral votes), possibly helping Democrat Bill Clinton to win the Presidential election with only a 43% plurality of votes.

[edit] 1996

Ross Perot ran for president again, this time as the candidate of the newly formed Reform Party. He received 8% of the popular vote.

[edit] 2000

In the 2000 Presidential election, George W. Bush wins the deciding state of Florida by fewer than 600 votes. Some Democrats accuse Green Party candidate Ralph Nader of having cost them the election, and in discussion of strategies for the U.S. presidential election, 2004 both parties weigh the costs to the Democrats of another Nader presidential run.

[edit] Winner-take-all vs. proportional representation

In winner-take-all (or plurality-take-all), the candidate with the largest number of votes wins, even if the margin of victory is extremely narrow or the proportion of votes received is not a majority. Unlike in proportional representation, runners-up do not gain any representation in a first-past-the-post system. In the United States, systems of proportional representation are uncommon, especially above the local level, and are entirely absent at the national level.

American legislators have traditionally had wide discretion to vote as they or their constituents please. A Democrat representing a rural area can be pro-life and anti-gun control; a Republican representing a suburban district can be pro-choice and pro-environment. Thus, even though there are only two parties represented in most American legislatures, there are different shades of opinion.

In America, if an interest group is at odds with its traditional party, it has the option of running sympathetic candidates in primaries. If the candidate fails in the primary and believes he has a chance to win in the general election he may form or join a third party.

[edit] Other obstacles to success by third parties in the U.S.

Aside from the mechanics of winner-take-all, the Electoral College, and the use of primaries, third parties are hampered by restrictive ballot access laws that force them to spend the bulk of their resources just to get on the ballot. Such obstacles include the requirement in several states that third party candidates obtain thousands of signatures of registered voters in order to get their candidates listed on the ballot. If they manage to get on the ballot, third party candidates are often not allowed. Socialist Party leader Morris Hillquist said in 1910 that America's presidential system has a role in hurting third party chances even further down the ticket.

In the United States the ticket handed to the voter contains the names not only of candidates for state legislature or congress, but also for all local and state officers and even for President of the United States. And since the new party rarely seems to have the chance or prospect of electing its candidate for governor of a state or president of the country, the voter is inclined in advance to consider its entire ticket as hopeless. The fear of 'throwing away' the vote is thus a peculiar product of American politics, and it requires a voter of exceptional strength of conviction to overcome." (Ibid 202)

Because of the difficulties third parties face in gaining any representation, third parties tend to exist to promote a specific issue or personality, often an issue which either or both of the major parties may eventually end up co-opting. As a counterexample, H. Ross Perot eventually founded a third party, the Reform Party, but he apparently intended it to exist solely as a vehicle to support himself and his agenda and never intended it to field any Congressional or Governatorial candidates. In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt made a spirited run for the presidency on the Progressive Party ticket, but he never made any efforts to help Progressive congressional candidates in 1914, and in 1916 he supported the Republicans. The next third party candidate to win a major portion of the popular vote was independent Ross Perot, who won 18.87% of the popular vote in the 1992 Presidential election.

There have been few third party governors in the past few decades. The last was Jesse Ventura, a member of the Reform Party and later the Minnesota Independence Party, who governed Minnesota from 1999-2003.

One way in which third parties can influence elections in certain jurisdictions in the United States (notably New York state) is through electoral fusion.

[edit] Third Parties as tools of major parties

A growing trend in US elections is for a major party and its supporters to help a third party with the idea of taking votes that would otherwise be likely to go to the other major party's candidates. This is the classic "divide and conquer" tactic. The idea is that if a third political party normally pulls far more voters from one major party than the other, the other major party can benefit by the third party doing well in the election. Currently in the US, the Green Party is viewed as pulling more from the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, and the Libertarian Party is viewed as taking more votes from the Republican Party than the Democratic Party.

Some third party advocates object to the notion that third parties "take votes away" from major parties, on the grounds that the major parties were never entitled to anyone's vote to begin with. (See the discussion below, concerning "wasted" votes.)

In 1992, some political observers attributed the "success" of Ross Perot and his Reform Party for Democratic presidential candidate Bill Clinton's defeat of incumbent Republican President George Herbert Walker Bush.

In 2000, the victory of Republican presidential candidate George W. Bush over incumbent Democratic Vice President Al Gore for the US Presidency was widely attributed to the "success" of Ralph Nader, running on the Green Party's ticket.

In 2004, both parties showed strategic interest in Ralph Nader's presidential campaign). Concerned that Nader might "spoil" the election for their candidate John Kerry (by attracting votes that would otherwise go to Kerry), the Democratic Party attempted to deny Nader ballot access in many states. The effort was largely successful. Even where the party failed to keep Nader off the ballot, the Nader campaign had to devote resources to ensuring ballot access. It was also reported that the Republican party assisted Nader's efforts to get on the ballot.

Nader's 2004 run was as an independent candidate; he generally emphasized his independence from any political party. He did, however, accept the nomination of the Reform Party in several states to gain ballot access. In other states, where the laws made forming a new party easier than qualifying as an independent candidate, Nader's campaign revived the Populist Party in order to assure ballot access.

[edit] Whether Third Party voting is a wasted vote

The most common argument against voting for a third party candidate has been that one's vote is "wasted" in that one's vote for a losing candidate won't count for anything, whereas the same vote cast instead for a candidate who is the "lesser of two evils" and who has a chance of winning might help that candidate win the election. In 2000 and 2004, Democratic supporters commonly told potential voters for Ralph Nader that a vote for Ralph Nader was a vote for Republican George W. Bush.

There is a great deal of debate whether voters who didn't vote for a third party candidate would have then voted for a major party candidate. It might be just as likely that the voter would not have voted at all if there had not been a third party candidate to vote for. Saying it is true, in this instance, such a vote could be viewed as wasted.

Typically, the more votes a third party receives, the more attention incumbent parties pay to the campaign issues being advocated by that third party. In 1992, Ross Perot's main "gripe" (as he said) was the growing national debt and the budget deficit. After 1992, many political analysts say both incumbent parties paid special attention to this issue and the result was the temporary reduction in and then elimination of deficit spending and actual reductions in the national debt for a brief period. Such a vote for a third party is then viewed as an indictment of both incumbent parties that neither is doing a good job on certain issue(s) to the point where voters reject both and vote for a third party candidate. Given this, a vote for a third party can be viewed as a delayed vote for change, not affecting the immediate outcome of the current election but affecting the incumbent parties after that election as they try to address the reason why voters voted for a third party in the last election, attempting to garner the supporters of third party voters who see this issues being addressed in an attempt to influence these voters to return to or join the major party that did address those issues in the next election. A prominent historical example is the presidential election of 1892, during which the Populist Party (otherwise known as the People's Party) achieved massive success by U.S. third party standards, picking up 22 electoral votes and 8.6 percent of the popular vote. After the 1892 election the Democratic Party adopted many of the Populist Party's positions, so many in fact, that the Populist Party nominated the same candidate as the Democrats in the 1896 presidential election (essentially marking the end of the Populists as a separate party). The Populist Party was able to do this using the process of electoral fusion. In 1992, Ross Perot campaigned telling his supporters to "send a message" to the incumbent parties about the national debt and budget deficit, which apparently was heeded, at least temporarily. If the case for the "delayed vote" can be made to the public by third parties, third parties might be able to change their "spoiler of elections" image to a "force for change" image.

Finally, voters in a "safe state" for either major party are unlikely to influence that state's electoral vote. These voters, if they choose to vote for a third party, will be drawing attention to that party, while if they vote for the major party they most closely agree with, they will not change the national contest. A preferential voting or instant run-off voting system could allow for more people to vote for a third party.

[edit] Notable Third Party Presidential Candidates

[edit] Notable 2006 Third Party/Independent Candidates

  • Gail Parker Independent Greens of Virginia 2006 U.S. Senate candidate. Retired U.S. Air Force officer 2008 Presidential candidate (source www.VoteJoinRun.US

[edit] Current Largest U.S. Third Parties

[edit] Conservative

  • Constitution Party - Socially conservative, economically libertarian.
  • Independent Greens of Virginia www.VoteJoinRun.US Fiscally conservative, socially responsible

[edit] Moderate

[edit] Liberal

[edit] Libertarian

[edit] Other Minor Third Parties

[edit] Resources

[edit] External links

[edit] See also

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/i/Third_party_%28United_States%29_f0c0.html"