Lots of discussion about independent runs these days, whether it would be a good idea or not. People are frustrated. People don’ t feel represented by the Democratic Party (or the Republican Party for that matter).
It’s not unheard of. It happens often enough. Just in the last 100 or so years, we’ve had strong independent runs in 1912 (TR as Bull Moose and Eugene Debs as Socialist), 1948 (Dixiecrat), 1968 (Wallace), 1980 (Anderson), 1992 (Perot), 1996 (Perot), 2000 (Nader).
Now we’re talking about a 2016. So here’s the question:
With all these independent runs, why have none been successful? The most successful one here was TR in 1912, a former president, immensely popular, and he only managed to get 27% of the vote and 88 electors.
Why can’t we seem to get an independent, third party alternative, off the ground?
Well… you know all that talk about how the system is rigged? Here’s where it actually is rigged.
But not how people tend to think.
There was no nefarious plot to limit access to national elections, it’s just that a party system -— and a two-party system specifically — are the accidental byproduct of our constitutional government.
Why Independent Runs Fail:
We have a directly elected national executive office, which makes us nearly unique among industrial western republics. We also have a federal system that is unique in the powers that are reserved by the states — specifically the power to run elections.
What this means is that in order to mount a successful independent run, an individual would have to:
- Get on the ballot in fifty different states under fifty different sets of election laws.
- Develop a campaign infrastructure in fifty different states all of which have differing reporting requirements
- Create a national system for adhering to campaign finance laws that also allow for fifty state variations in tax laws.
- Raise money without institutional support.
In effect, the only people who’ve ever been able to mount more than a regional, single-issue, challenge as a third party have all had one thing in common:
Extraordinary wealth.
Middle-Class folk and working stiffs cannot make an independent run. Never have been able to, and under our current system, we never will.
A Third (Or Fourth, Or Fifth) Party
But what about a third party? If we developed a third (or fourth, or fifth) party, we would have the infrastructure necessary to meet all 4 difficulties outlined above.
Short answer: Yes, if the third (or fourth or fifth) party were able to:
1. Garner enough long-term support to maintain a campaign infrastructure in non-campaign years.
2. Consistently raise money even when there was no presidential election or big name candidate.
3. Maintain a campaign presence in every state that ensures local laws regarding elections, ballot-placement, and fundraising are respected.
So let’s say we get it done: A third party for all the homeless democrats and left-leaning independents. The Working-Person’s Green Party. We get the flood of volunteers, the massive fundraising we need, we get to hire our permanent staff, and we develop the sustainable structures we need to compete in election after election.
Yay Us!
But here’s the second problem, which is the one that precludes not only independent runs, but successful third party bids.
It’s the Twelfth Amendment to the US Constitution which reads, in part:
“The person having the greatest number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President.”
Our elector system requires that the victor in a presidential election must earn a clear majority of electors (currently the well-known 270) or the election is thrown to the House of Representatives who will vote, one vote per state, for the president from the top three vote getters.
Currently there are more states with republican dominated slates than ones without. Even so, the third party would be highly unlikely to win this Congressional Presidency — they aren’t likely to be terribly well represented in the house.
So what do we do?
There are four options, so far as I can see:
1. Amend the constitution to do away with the electoral college. This has been proposed multiple times, but small states reject it because it reduces their clout.
2. Amend the constitution to Federalize our Presidential Elections. This has been discussed, but is generally thought to be unwinnable because it reduces states rights.
3. Support the effort to create a national majority of electors that are representative of their states actual voting wishes — proportional representation of electors. There is a measure that has been passed by multiple states, but will not go into effect until states with electors equal to the magical 270 pass it.
or, my favorite:
4. Do what we’ve always done: Coalitions.
People point to European (and Canadian, and Israeli) parliaments which seem to have a vast number of party options. They do, but after the voting is done, the elected members of the plurality party form coalitions with the smaller parties in order to secure a majority. Each party negotiates, and in the end the governing coalition’s positions are altered to reflect he desires of the smaller parties.
The only difference between that and what we are currently doing is that we do our jostling and negotiating during the primaries. By the time we’ve nominated a candidate, we have (hopefully) incorporated the requirements of the minority voices into the overall platform and our final candidate moves to adopt the issues of importance to his/her minority party members.
This is exactly what seems to be happening. The process isn’t complete yet, but it’s already begun.
The system is working, and it will continue to work if those who want to be heard shout loudly and stick with the party.
If they leave, they will remain voices in the wilderness.
If you want to change the system, see the list above for the ways in which that would be possible.
And, please, don’t mistake disagreement for apostasy.