Of all the blogs out there that are not strictly devoted to third parties, ours (
SoapBlox/Chicago) writes a lot about them. As much as we might like and as natural as it may seem though, third parties simply are not viable in our current political system. Why is this? Why aren't third parties and differing points of view encouraged?
It is freedom that defines American culture. It is fairness that forms the foundation of our country. We should be free to vote for whomever we choose without the fear that doing so will only enable those with whom we disagree. We should know that the system is fair to those who play by the rules. Without viable third parties we don't have freedom to vote our beliefs. We are forced to vote for Republicans or Democrats. Doing otherwise is "throwing your vote away". Without voting reform we don't have fairness in our electoral system. Third parties are forever marginalized, "spoiling" the true results and desires of the American people.
We must return freedom to our voting choices and we must return fairness to our electoral system. We have a method of doing this. It is instant runoff voting.
The problem is that it has been difficult to convince Americans that it is in their best bet to impliment the reform. Cynthia McKinney
introduced a bill to allow states to use IRV for congressional election. It never went anywhere though. What will it take for Americans to force their Congressmen to get behind IRV and electoral system reform?
The results of the 1992 Presidential election, which put Bill Clinton into office, were strongly affected by the third party candidacy of Ross Perot.
Candidate | Popular Vote | Percentage | Electoral Vote |
Clinton/Gore | 44,909,806 | 43.0% | 370 |
Bush/Quayle | 39,104,550 | 37.4% | 168 |
Perot/Stockdale | 19,743,821 | 18.9% | 0 |
Despite what some may believe (and much to the chagrin of Republicans), Perot's candidacy probably lost the election for George H. W. Bush.
The 1996 Presidential election is not traditionally thought of as one in which the third parties had a major impact, but did you know that without third parties it is possible that Bob Dole would have won the popular vote?
Candidate | Popular Vote | Percentage | Electoral Vote |
Clinton/Gore | 47,400,125 | 49.2% | 379 |
Dole/Kemp | 39,198,755 | 40.7% | 159 |
Left-leaning third parties (Green) | 685,297 | 0.7% | 0 |
Right-leaning third parties (Perot/Libertarian/Taxpayers/Natural Law) | 8,869,690 | 9.2% | 0 |
Now obviously the Electoral College wasn't close and there's no guarantee that third party votes would have broken so clearly, but did you even imagine that it might be possible to see Bob Dole within 17,000 votes of Bill Clinton? That's less than two hundreths of one percent, and it was the most decisive two-party victory in the last 16 years.
The role of third parties in the 2000 Presidential Election is so well known that it has become a common part of political discourse. This time it was the Republicans turn to get lucky as third parties pulled just enough support from the Democrats.
Nationally:
Candidate | Popular Vote | Percentage | Electoral Vote |
Gore/Lieberman | 51,003,926 | 48.4% | 267 |
Bush/Cheney | 50,460,110 | 47.9% | 271 |
Nader/LaDuke | 2,883,105 | 2.7% | 0 |
Florida:
Candidate | Popular Vote | Percentage |
Gore/Lieberman | 2,912,253 | 48.841% |
Bush/Cheney | 2,912,790 | 48.850% |
Nader/LaDuke | 97,421 | 1.633% |
Buchanan/Foster | 17,412 | 0.292% |
Browne/Olivier | 16,102 | 0.270% |
Hagelin/Goldhaber | 2,274 | 0.038% |
Phillips/Frazier | 1,378 | 0.023% |
Sure the Nader vote would have put Gore over the top in Florida and won him the Presidency, but so would the votes of four other third party candidates.
Perhaps because of the 2000 election, third party voting was at its, ahem, nadir in 2004 with only 1% of the popular vote going to any third party candidacy. That vote total for third parties was the second lowest since LBJ defeated Barry Goldwater in 1964. (Only the third party proportion of the vote in 1984 when Reagan defeated Mondale was lower.)
Now third party candidacies are becoming more and more commonplace. We see them in our local Congressional Races and now with the very real possibility of affecting three different Senate races (Connecticut, Pennsylvania, and Virginia). Basically, almost anywhere where a race is close, a third party candidate can be found having a major effect.
Perhaps of greater concern is the fact that the major parties (currently only the Republicans, but if the Democrats have any sense they will begin exploiting the situation as well) are beginning to use third party candidacies as a means of manipulating the electoral system. We are seeing this in Pennsylvania with the Republicans propping up the third party campaign of the Green candidate Carl Romanelli and we are seeing this in Connecticut with tacit Republican support of Joe Lieberman in his independent run.
It isn't fair, but it will help the two parties win. Why shouldn't they take advantage of it? The fact of the matter is that they will and they will continue to do so until the American people demand reform.
George Washington warned against political parties in his fairwell address:
I have already intimated to you the danger of parties in the State, with particular reference to the founding of them on geographical discriminations. Let me now take a more comprehensive view, and warn you in the most solemn manner against the baneful effects of the spirit of party generally.
This spirit, unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. It exists under different shapes in all governments, more or less stifled, controlled, or repressed; but in those of the popular form it is seen in its greatest rankness and is truly their worst enemy....
It serves always to distract the public councils and enfeeble the public administration. It agitates the community with ill-founded jealousies and false alarms; kindles the animosity of one part against another; foments occasionally riot and insurrection. It opens the door to foreign influence and corruption, which finds a facilitated access to the government itself through the channels of party passion. Thus the policy and the will of one country are subjected to the policy and will of another.
There is an opinion that parties in free countries are useful checks upon the administration of the government, and serve to keep alive the spirit of liberty. This within certain limits is probably true; and in governments of a monarchical cast patriotism may look with indulgence, if not with favor, upon the spirit of party. But in those of the popular character, in governments purely elective, it is a spirit not to be encouraged. From their natural tendency it is certain there will always be enough of that spirit for every salutary purpose; and there being constant danger of excess, the effort ought to be by force of public opinion to mitigate and assuage it. A fire not to be quenched, it demands a uniform vigilance to prevent its bursting into a flame, lest, instead of warming, it should consume.
We need to return our country to the freedom and fairness in which it was intended. We need to return to the moral vision it was founded upon. Encouraging the growth of third parties through instant runoff voting is a method towards accomplishing this.