Third PartiesThird PartiesPOLS 125: Political Parties & ElectionsPOLS 125: Political Parties & Elections

“Saying we should keep the two-party system simply because it is working is like saying the Titanic voyage was a success because a few people survived on life rafts.”

—Eugene McCarthy

Third PartyThird Party YearYear% of % of Popular Popular

VoteVote

ElectorElectoral al

VoteVotess

Fate in Next ElectionFate in Next Election

Anti-MasonicAnti-Masonic 18321832 7.87.8 77 Endorsed Whig Endorsed Whig candidatecandidate

Free SoilFree Soil 18481848 10.110.1 00 Received 4.9% of voteReceived 4.9% of vote

Whig-AmericanWhig-American 18561856 21.521.5 88 Party dissolvedParty dissolved

Southern DemocratSouthern Democrat 18601860 18.118.1 7272 Party dissolvedParty dissolved

Constitutional Union Constitutional Union 18601860 12.612.6 3939 Party dissolvedParty dissolved

PopulistPopulist 18921892 8.58.5 2222 Endorsed Democratic Endorsed Democratic candidatecandidate

Progressive (T. Progressive (T. Roosevelt)Roosevelt)

19121912 27.427.4 8888 Returned to Republican Returned to Republican partyparty

SocialistSocialist 19121912 6.06.0 00 Received 3.2% of voteReceived 3.2% of vote

Progressive (LaFollette)Progressive (LaFollette) 19241924 16.616.6 1313 Returned to Republican Returned to Republican partyparty

States’ Rights States’ Rights DemocratDemocrat

19481948 2.42.4 3939 Party dissolvedParty dissolved

Progressive (H. Progressive (H. Wallace)Wallace)

19481948 2.42.4 00 Received 0.2% of voteReceived 0.2% of vote

American IndependentAmerican Independent 19681968 13.513.5 4646 Received 1.4% of voteReceived 1.4% of vote

John B. AndersonJohn B. Anderson 19801980 7.17.1 00 Did not run in 1984Did not run in 1984

H. Ross PerotH. Ross Perot 19921992 18.918.9 00 Received 8% of voteReceived 8% of vote

Ralph NaderRalph Nader 20002000 2.72.7 00 Received 0.4% of voteReceived 0.4% of vote

Barriers to Barriers to EntryEntry

Ballot access Ballot access restrictionsrestrictions

Campaign finance Campaign finance laws laws

Media coverage Media coverage

Presidential Presidential debatesdebates

The “Spoiler” EffectThe “Spoiler” Effect

Access to Presidential Access to Presidential DebatesDebates

1.1. Evidence of Constitutional eligibilityEvidence of Constitutional eligibility Must be at 35 years of age;Must be at 35 years of age; Must be natural born citizen, and a resident of the U.S. Must be natural born citizen, and a resident of the U.S.

for at least 14 years;for at least 14 years; Must be otherwise eligible under the Constitution;Must be otherwise eligible under the Constitution;

2.2. Evidence of ballot accessEvidence of ballot access The candidate must qualify to have his/her name appear The candidate must qualify to have his/her name appear

on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical on enough state ballots to have at least a mathematical chance of securing an Electoral College majority;chance of securing an Electoral College majority;

3.3. Indicators of Electoral supportIndicators of Electoral support The candidate must have a level or support of at least The candidate must have a level or support of at least

15% of the national electorate as determined by five 15% of the national electorate as determined by five selected national public opinion polling organizations;selected national public opinion polling organizations;

The Commission on Presidential Debates selects The Commission on Presidential Debates selects candidates on the basis of the following criteria:candidates on the basis of the following criteria:Is this fair to third party and

Independent candidates? Do we set the bar too high?

The Iraq ballot offered a choice of 111 parties.

Achieving an Optimal ResultAchieving an Optimal Result

How can we best aggregate preferences to:

Determine a clear winner

Avoid “wasted” votes

Prevent “spoilers”

IRV: An Alternative to Plurality IRV: An Alternative to Plurality VotingVoting

The plurality system used in U.S. elections allows The plurality system used in U.S. elections allows voters to cast ballots only for their top choice. By voters to cast ballots only for their top choice. By ignoring how voters might rank the remaining ignoring how voters might rank the remaining candidates, it opens the door to unsettling, and even candidates, it opens the door to unsettling, and even paradoxical results. paradoxical results.

Criticism of IRVCriticism of IRV

More complexMore complex Requires new Requires new

voting machineryvoting machinery Voter fatigueVoter fatigue

Are reforms like this at odds with third parties? More parties could make it cumbersome and impractical.

The Future of Third PartiesThe Future of Third Parties

Will the internet eventually Will the internet eventually displace major parties, to the displace major parties, to the advantage of third party and advantage of third party and independent candidates? independent candidates?

As Everett Ehrlich says: “Now As Everett Ehrlich says: “Now anyone with a Web site and a anyone with a Web site and a server, a satellite transponder and server, a satellite transponder and about $100 million can have—in a about $100 million can have—in a matter of months—much of what matter of months—much of what the political parties have taken the political parties have taken generations to build.”generations to build.”