The press is working overtime to tell us that voters don’t like either Trump or Biden — especially Biden. This is despite the undeniable differences between the two. We’ve seen what both of them are like as President, and night vs. day doesn’t even come close to capturing what the consequences of putting Trump back in the White House would be. And yet the media insists on playing with the idea of an alternative to both of them. They love their horse-race political coverage and they can’t help themselves.
Now there are people who are attracted to voting for a third party/independent candidate simply to register their unhappiness with the two main candidates from both parties — a protest vote in other words. If an alternative candidate had a real chance of winning, that might not be totally unreasonable (it is — but more on that below), but more likely is the chance of taking more votes away from one mainstream candidate than the other and in a worst case scenario, leaving no one to get the minimum number of 270 electoral college delegates to win and throwing the election into Congress to sort things out..
...If neither candidate gets a majority of the 538 electoral votes, the election for President is decided in the House of Representatives, with each state delegation having one vote. A majority of states (26) is needed to win. Senators would elect the Vice-President, with each Senator having a vote. A majority of Senators (51) is needed to win.
State House delegations can cast their vote for president from among the three candidates receiving the most electoral votes, while Senators are limited to the top two candidates in their vote for Vice-President.
Note that the House votes by state delegation — not as individual representatives — and the delegation vote is controlled by the party majority in that delegation. Thanks to extreme gerrymanders and other shenanigans, that gives it to the GOP. Also note that a third party candidate under this scenario might not end up with their pick for VP getting the Senate vote.
The place for a protest vote is in the primary of the party that you believe best reflects your interests. When the general election comes, that’s when you have to remember you are not just voting for the candidate; you are voting for what their party stands for. It may not be the candidate you wanted, but the dirty little secret of democracy is that you may get a vote but that doesn’t mean you get what you want.
Unless your state has open primaries, you’ll have to register with a party to vote in their primary, so you’re going to have to make that choice in any case. If you’d rather not register with a party, should you really have a voice in selecting the candidate that gets the nod? You can still choose to reject mainstream candidates in the general election to ‘send a message’ — but you may not like the reply you get.
Alternatively, you may get the option of voting for a mainstream candidate but on a secondary party line. (Some candidates spread their chances that way.) That’s a less futile way of sending a message — and gives that alternative party a shot at growing and possibly displacing the established parties.
For people who claim they are tired of voting for the lesser evil, 1) saints generally do not go into politics, and 2) if nothing else voting for the lesser evil gets you less evil. That’s not nothing. We do not live in a perfect world with perfect choices, and the choices this time around are not ambiguous.
For those who decide to just stay home because they don’t like any of those choices, ask the people who just couldn't bring themselves to vote for Hillary Clinton over Donald Trump how that worked out.
But let’s put all that aside and consider the possibility that someone who is running as a third party/independent candidate actually gets the 270 electoral college votes and is officially declared the winner. This scene from “The Candidate” shows that winning an election is just the start, not the end of the process.
So now what?
So let’s say the outside candidate wins. Obviously, the shock of this event shows both the Democratic and Republican parties, having had their candidates rejected by the American people, the error of their ways. They put aside their partisan differences and agree to come together under the leadership of the newly elected President for the good of the country.
And if you believe that, Santa Claus and the Easter Bunny would like to have a word with you.
It should not be necessary to remind everyone that even if someone wins the presidency by an undeniable majority of the popular vote with a clear mandate from the people and gets past the electoral college, it means nothing if they don’t also have a working majority in both the House and the Senate. Separation of powers, remember?
If an outside candidate ends up in the White House, every member of Congress has to look at the policies that might be put before them, and would have to decide if supporting them could be squared with the agenda of their own party. While there’s a certain romance about ‘mavericks’, in general they’re a pain in the butt for everyone else and are not rewarded for they independence. Party discipline is important when it comes to getting things done. It would be simple if everyone could agree on the “right thing” to do — but it can take real courage/stubborness/ego to cross party lines. Remember McCain and ObamaCare?
Even having a majority in Congress in either chamber may not be enough. Republicans have a majority in the House, but they are so divided they can’t get anything done. We are facing a likely government shutdown in a few days because they can’t agree on a budget and refuse to compromise with each other, let alone reach across the aisle. In the Senate, the filibuster can stop anything cold; one Senator can block critical appointments as we are seeing with Tuberville. Manchin and Sinema both chose to block the agenda of their own party’s President.
Let’s not forget the Supreme Court either. The current majority has demonstrated that the desires of the majority of Americans mean nothing to them, compared to the wishes of people like Leonard Leo and the Federalist Society that put them there. Their problems with ethics shows they don’t believe they answer to anyone otherwise.
So, if the President is the candidate of a third party, it’s going to be an uphill slog. Unless that party also has enough members in Congress to enact legislation, which involves things like controlling critical committees and the leadership in both houses, nothing is going to go anywhere.
It also depends on how much power that third party has across the 50 states, where Federal legislation gets implemented, voting districts are drawn up, and elections are held. (And where states file lawsuits to challenge Federal actions.)
The Federal government executive branch will have appointments that need to be made — where will the President find those personnel without a party apparatus that can locate them and screen them? How will the President find candidates for judicial openings? These are things that depend on having the backing of a political party with enough numbers, resources, and enough depth to provide the people who will carry out whatever agenda the President hopes to advance, assuming it can get past Congress.
For a President who is a true independent without the backing of a strong party organization, the reality is likely to be even more dire. Moral suasion and good intentions only go so far.
If the voters put a third party/independent in the White House thinking that will turn things around, and if they don’t see results the consequences will be even more disenchantment with government, more dysfunction, and more chaos. This is how democracies descend into collapse. The quest for a ‘strong man’ who can impose order from the top down can become unstoppable.
It should be noted that it’s not just ordinary people who are less than happy with the status quo. Increasingly Republicans are openly at odds over where their own party should be going. They’ve given up on democracy. It doesn’t get them what they want — power over others.
This is why they are talking up a “Red Caesar” — someone who will come in and overturn a system they see as irretrievably broken. They want chaos, they want collapse — so their dictator can come in and magically decree an end to it all — because it’s the only way they can hold onto power. At a guess they’re not looking for a ‘third way’ candidate. In Donald Trump they already have someone who will bring it all down. It would have to be someone who can out-Trump Trump.
Anyone who thinks someone from outside the Republican Party can bring them together with others in some mythical middle had better keep in mind that the party explicitly runs on exclusion these days, not inclusion and compromise.
Bottom line: no third party/independent candidate is going to save us — but could make things worse.
Is there a viable alternative to the two parties?
If someone thinks they can impose/create one from the top down, it’s likely to end in some kind of authoritarian regime if it goes anywhere at all. A change coming from the bottom up, where someone can put together a real political alternative to the two parties that rises from the grass roots up is theoretically the way democracy is supposed to work — but that will depend on what principles, ideas, and policies it adopts, and whether they can draw popular support.
Populism is a tricky thing — it can give us things like the Civil Rights Movement, or the KKK. A charismatic leader can build a following, but a cult of personality is not a sound basis for a political movement and certainly not democracy.
The current back and forth between Democrats and Republicans is somewhat unusual in that it has persisted for so long. David Corn’s book “American Psychosis” spends its first two chapters describing how political parties have risen and fallen in America. Who remembers the Federalists, the Whigs, or the Know-Nothings?
The idea of America as some ideal country built on eternal principles and ideals may be comforting to tell children, but the reality is there has always been controversy over how to respond to the issues of the day. Even those now regarded as among the best leaders we’ve had have often had to embrace less-desirable elements to get their greater accomplishments through the sausage-making that is politics.
(The rest of the book tells us how the Republican Party has become what it is today. It’s a must-read.)
While there are those who’d like to believe we as Americans can all find common ground, there are always going to be issues that lead to disagreements. (There was that unpleasantness in the 1860s for example.)
Political parties rise and fall on how well they can handle the issues of the day and motivate voters.. Sometimes it can be random events that shift the balance; Pearl Harbor crystallized American views on how to respond to the rise of Fascism and made isolationism non-viable. McCarthy and the Red Scare made political paranoia and the Cold War a dominating theme for years. Civil Rights and Vietnam derailed the Democratic Party; 911, Afghanistan, and invading Iraq should have discredited the GOP, but didn't. The election of Barack Obama drove the right wing nuts.
The Republican Party is currently in crisis because they have nothing to offer except tax cuts for the rich, deregulation for corporations, and culture war to keep their base motivated and distracted while they lead us into one disaster after another. They can’t govern, only rule — and they rule incompetently. The only thing that binds them together is the conviction that Democrats/Liberals are the Great Enemy that is destroying their America.
Meanwhile the Democratic Party is dealing with record inequality, the climate crisis, international crises in Ukraine, the Middle East, and with rising anxieties over Iran and China. Dealing with immigrants at the border is also intractable. Let’s not forget that the Republican Party is still pursuing insurrection by other means. It’s hard to see how a third party could arise out of some fusion that could accommodate these conflicting issues.
It’s easy to focus on the person at the top of a party AS the party, but that’s simply wrong. (Even though the press loves the way it simplifies coverage of politics.) The party matters — all of the people that make it up, support its policies — or oppose them. The world is made by the people who show up for the job, and political parties are a way of getting that job done. It's not a solo act.
The Republican Party of today is a long way from the party of Lincoln or Eisenhower. The Democratic Party is still trying to sort out where it goes from FDR and LBJ. Both parties may be approaching an inflection point where they will either evolve or die.
Interesting times ahead.
ADDENDUM: If you are going to vote for a third party candidate or not vote at all, please explain why in a comment.