Scrapping the Third Party Nominee

Presidential elections have been dominated by the Democrat and Republican parties. George Washington was the first and last president to be elected as a non-major party candidate. This is a major problem. In America, it is nearly impossible for a non-major party candidate to even qualify for presidential debates. The only true possibility at this point in time for these third-party candidates is to take votes away from a Republican or Democrat nominee and sway the election.

If states like Wisconsin and Pennsylvania did not vote for Jill Stein as much as they did and if Michigan did not have as many votes for Gary Johnson, the election could have turned out quite differently. Trump won those states by extremely thin margins. Although those voters may have either stayed or even voted for Trump, it is interesting to think about how we might have a different president if people could not vote for third-party candidates.

Many liberals were extremely incensed at their fellow party members for voting for third-party members. These are the types of voters who were hoping that Bernie Sanders would be the party nominee, but voted third-party to voice their anger once it was Clinton. Since a third-party nominee was never going to win, Democratic Libertarians basically shot themselves in the foot and helped Trump win the election. Democratic Libertarianism issues include drug legalization, gay rights, free expression, privacy, justice reform, and non-interventionist foreign policy (Quora). Trump is not for some of those topics.

Is the third-party actually working? I do not think it is. My standard for evaluating this question is measuring the success that the non-major parties have had altogether. The third-party system has had no success at all. The Commission of Presidential Debates (CPD) requires that candidates poll at 15 percent in five national surveys leading up to the three scheduled debates and that they garner enough spots on state ballots to chart a path to the White House (The Hill). “The game is rigged,” said Gary Johnson, but he knew that going in. He could have sided with a major party and had a high chance of appearing in presidential debates, but he instead decided to run as a Libertarian candidate.

The overwhelming majority of major-party candidates meet all of the prerequisites to appear at presidential debates. The Republican Party had ten different candidates debating various topics on multiple occasions. That is what we need. If we have enough competition within the major-party candidates, there is no need for a third party. We should be able to use a voter model and pick a candidate within either party that they identify closely enough with. America should stop letting third-party candidates steal the election out of a candidate’s hand when they have no real chance of winning.

7 Responses to "Scrapping the Third Party Nominee"

Paige Jordan says:

April 23, 2018 at 12:14 pm

James, thank you for your post. The United States differs from other countries in that once a specific party system is in office, dominant parties often make it extremely difficult for others to join the ballot. In the U.S., these rules are often very strict, where legal obstacles often arise for third parties and independent candidates. As major-party candidates automatically qualify for federal funding upon nomination, the government’s partial funding is a major inconvenience for third parties. Nonetheless, third parties continue to exist in our political culture. IN fact, in a Washington Post article posted in August 2016, it is highlighted how there exist more third-party candidates than there has been over the last century. It is interesting to read an article from this time, as it suggests the odds for third party success within the latest election to be increasing. It also asserts how ove the past 100 years, U.S. third parties have emerged and disappeared, despite the fact that our two-party system is one of the most stable systems in the world. Of course the existence of third parties have been influential to our politics, yet I wonder what the alternative would be if there instead did not exist any. Scrapping all third party nominees, as you seem to suggest, would definitely have its repercussions. I could foresee this to either strengthen our political society, as parties would all stem from the same major parties, or instead ultimately limit our freedom to express our beliefs.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2016/08/31/the-u-s-has-more-third-party-candidates-than-its-seen-in-a-century-why/?noredirect=on&utm_term=.215189d3dfc2
Carlin O'Neill says:

April 23, 2018 at 10:17 pm

Thanks for your post, James. I agree with you that those voting for third-party candidates are probably swaying the election enough so that the likely major-party candidate is being kept from winning, and that this is an ineffective means to voting. After so much struggle for both African Americans and women to attain voting rights, I think that there is a flaw or wrongness to casting a vote for someone who voters know will not win, such as a third-party candidate. Universal suffrage was not guaranteed for all Americans until the twentieth century, even though now it is viewed as a quintessential natural right of all citizens. To cast a vote for a third-party candidate that the voters are aware will not win, and know may skew the outcome of the election, is to somewhat skew the purpose of voting in the first place. However, while franchise is a guaranteed right of citizens today, so is the right to vote however they please and for whoever wishes to participate in elections to do so. While there may be a debate to voting for a candidate who is knowingly not going to win, or who will not be able enact change in the United State, it is the natural right of citizens to cast their vote in whichever way they please.
Timothy Miller says:

April 24, 2018 at 11:10 am

James,
You presented a very interesting point with interesting examples as well. I had no idea that George Washington was the only President outside the two major parties to win an election. I’m not sure if that’s an issue or not, but definitely compelling. It seems like come election time, all third party identifiers do is skew the vote between “true” Democrats and Republicans. It is easy to say they should not be allowed to vote at all because they aren’t contributing to a 100% accurate vote, but removing them or discouraging them from voting would not be democratic. Same thing goes with a third party candidate. It is unfair in our democracy to tell Gary Johnson he is not allowed to run as a Libertarian. I wonder why people like Gary Johnson and other third-party politicians run as a third party rather than a Democrat or Republican if they know they have no chance to be elected. Maybe they do think they can win or maybe they want to just stir things up.
Thanks for your post.
Virginia Myers says:

April 24, 2018 at 9:25 pm

Dear James,

Thank you for your post. You and those who commented on the post raise some interesting points. First, I disagree with your proposition to eliminate the idea for a third party. Although I agree that it is technically “smart” for candidates to put themselves under the label of a particular political party, I think it seems unjust that they must conform to a label or associate with a core set of principles. Instead, they should be able to run without party affiliation. However, given the nature of how candidates become elected, aligning with a political party helps a candidate win office, and by extension, once they win office, it helps them enact certain policies that will let them maintain control. Additionally, to Carlin’s point above, it is a citizen’s decision to vote how they please no matter what their thinking is. However, I think this is a flaw in our system that our citizens may be voting for the wrong reasons, which perhaps points to their political socialization or lack of participation. We need to end the stigma again third party candidates because they may have much better views than those who affiliate with a political party, but they are not given a chance because of the misconception that we as citizens hold against third parties.
Austin Marsilia says:

April 25, 2018 at 12:18 am

James,
You mention a commonly discussed issue with our political system. That is the two-party system. In many other countries we see a multi-party system in which representation is determined by the number of votes a party receives during an election. This allows for more ideas to be articulated from the general public into their government. However, in the United States, we are used to a strict two-party system. Yes there are other parties, such as the Green Party or Libertarian Party, but these candidates often see a small number of votes and almost never win seats in Congress. I believe part of this country’s issue is the stigmatism around third parties. If people were willing to open themselves up to a third party platform they agreed with rather than dismissing them as wasted votes, we may see an increase in platforms to choose from when electing representatives to office. The United States needs to remove itself from the stigmatism around third parties and encourage proportional representation in Congress to eliminate the two-party system. Your post is well written and brings up a topic that is interesting. It is strange that a political system as complex as ours is afraid of a multi-party system, especially with all of the political frustration in this era. However, I do wish that you provided examples of third party candidates on smaller scales, such as governor or local representatives to help articulate your argument.
Alexander Morris says:

April 25, 2018 at 11:29 pm

James,

Great post and intersting points made. I too, believe the system is rigged in favor for the Republican and Democrat nominees. Every time there is a presidential election, you never really hear much from the third party nominee. I agree, as well, that our system is broken in that manner. Our last presidential elect from a third party nominee was from over 200 years ago. Something in our Congress has to be done in order to fix this. Also, I would add that the money that the Republican and Democratic parties pull in for their presidential elections is much higher than those of third party candidates.
I believe that a lot of people stray away from the third parties because they don’t often hear much about them. As an ordinary citizen, when it comes to voting time. How can an ordinary citizen vote for a third party candidate if information is not available to them as it is for Republican and Democratic candidates. My concern, for the future of presidential elections is this very notion. If more information and if we can somehow get a rise in the popularity of the third party, I believe there will be more ways for the public to be heard, whereas just voting for either the classic Republican or Democrat. Overall, great post and interesting topic you brought up.
Sara Milano says:

April 27, 2018 at 8:32 pm

James,

You’re right when you say that politics is a zero sum game and the most a third party candidate can ever hope to do it take away votes from Dems or Republicans. This forces many candidates who do not align with either ideology to choose or risk becoming forgotten. This may contribute to even greater polarization or a rejection of moderate perspectives. I remember, like you said, when democrats were furious at people who voted for Jill Stein or Gary Johnson, convinced that those votes could have made the difference for Clinton. Are they right to be mad? Our discouraging people from voting for who they actually want to vote for may be troubling. Should independents just suck it up and vote for their least disliked candidate from a major party just to prevent the alternative?

I have to disagree that America should do away with third party candidates altogether. Maybe, the system should be changed such that it does not disadvantage third party candidates so overwhelmingly. The idea that Ross Perot garnered 19% of the vote in 1992 and did not receive a single electoral vote is a problem. The electoral college and campaign finance systems favor republicans and democrats to independents, at the expense of moderate ideas.

Comments are closed.