I’ll admit it’s incredibly tacky to hate on third parties these days. Attempting to do so, especially within my college-aged demographic, could be likened to the police using nightsticks on a hapless protester, recently wheel-chaired by a bad snowboarding accident. So, to avoid such imagery, let’s be clear: I have nothing against third parties.
In fact, one could say I’m a strong supporter of third parties, or some alternative to the current two-party system, perhaps even fourth and fifth parties. But the only time we ever seem to talk about them is within the context of presidential elections. You either claim the moral high ground by voting your convictions, despite the third party candidate’s hopelessness, or you begrudgingly choose the lesser of two evils.
Clearly, this is a game third parties cannot win. Even calling them third parties is problematic. Calling a them third implies that the other parties are somehow first and second, so that they’re always behind.
Nomenclature aside, third parties face dozens of other challenges: ballot access laws that reinforce the two-party establishment; being banned from the candidate debates; a constitutional structure with little proportional representation, which inevitably leads to gerrymandering; the outdated electoral college; the funding disadvantages faced by every nascent venture; and on and on and on. The parliamentary system of Europe is so much more accommodating. It seems like our only option to get third party candidates elected to office is to have some kind of violent revolution to change the governmental structure.
Still, every four years, third parties end up burning away their meager cash simply doing the procedural task of getting on the ballot. After collecting the required signatures, they have pocket change with which to promote their candidate, who then receives a whopping one percent or something of the vote, but only in the more open-minded states. Occasionally, an extremely charismatic candidate, or an unusually fed-up populace, will reward a third party with as much as 18 percent of the vote, as was the case in 1992, and maybe even pick up an electoral vote or two, as with the 1972 Republican convention (at which Libertarian Party candidate John Hospers and his running mate, Eugene resident Tonie Nathan, received an electoral vote from disenfranchised Nixon pledge Roger McBride). But for most of American history, it has been rare that a third party ever takes a significant foothold, with a few exceptions.
Some suggest this problem is fundamental to democracy. After all, there are generally only two ways to vote: either for it or against it, with two opposing ideologies at stake, and so two political parties to represent them. This might well be true.
Some, however, argue that there is a “conspiracy” against third parties – that the bourgeoisie establishment preserves its power through the laundry list of third party challenges. This is probably somewhat true. But whether or not “the Illuminati,” or whoever, keeps us stuck with the lesser of two evils is a question difficult to answer. (And if they do, we’re probably totally screwed anyway.)
But I can’t help but think that the third parties are missing out on opportunities to start their own political dynasties when thousands of races go uncontested nationwide. Even in the more active election of 2006, positions as powerful as a federal Senate seat went uncontested. And in these races, so-called third parties tend to find their most strength. Dick Lugar, a Republican from Indiana who faced no Democratic opposition, saw his Libertarian opponent rake in 12 percent of the vote, which, in a presidential election, would be a massive third-party success. This is, perhaps, a hint.
There are countless local races that are glossed over by the more glamorous, media-gripping presidential races. In my own hometown, two school board members and two state house seats went with literally no opposition (I mean, no one even filed). The resources spent on getting on the presidential ballot may have won one of these tiny races, or at least given the Illuminati-backed Demopublicans a run for their money. So why do they get off so easy?
The simple answer is that I don’t know. Sometimes, third parties feel they get the most done by using their national spotlight to call attention to their platform, or to spoil the big parties into paying attention to the issues, otherwise forgotten about in the pro-choice, pro-life rat race.
But third party candidates that start in small races could also use their established local reputation to run for higher office, as did Bernie Sanders, an independent socialist from Vermont who, as of 2006, sports the Senatorial purple. There are also several Green Party mayors serving in small towns – Richmond, Calif., Boswell, Pa. and Cobleskill, N.Y. Yes, it may be hopeless to win the presidential contest, but if third party candidates began quietly targeting the local seats, it may just be possible that a third party could develop the loyal following needed to catapult them to the national capital.
[email protected]