Given the state of affairs in Washington, where the two parties are constantly stalemated and little gets accomplished, it seems surprising there has not been more impetus for the formation of a third party of the center to change the political dynamic. However, the obstacles placed in the way of establishing a third party makes it a daunting process that savvy citizens are reluctant to attempt.
Third-party candidates have difficulty obtaining ballot access in many states, the result of collusion between Republicans and Democrats working to keep the political status quo. Various state laws insist on petitions and large numbers of valid signatures as a prerequisite to getting on the ballot. And unless a certain number of votes are attained in an election, the process must be repeated for the following contest. This is done purposely to stifle the growth of these fledgling parties. The hurdles differ from state to state, with some less restrictive than others. The regulations seem unrelated to whether the state is controlled by Republicans or Democrats, as in general the two parties will do whatever they can to subvert third party candidates. As an example, Indiana once required minor political parties to poll 0.5 percent of the votes in order to automatically qualify for the ballot in the next statewide election. When the Libertarian Party attained that goal, the state legislature quadrupled that requirement for elections after 1982.
A “duopoly of power” further helps to curb third parties. In the current system, the second party has a privileged position; that of a monopoly on opposition. If the voters are unhappy with officeholders, they can kick them out by voting for other candidates, but their choice is limited to candidates from the second party. The only way they can vent their dissatisfaction is with this one other party, or by not voting. The single party plurality system in each district, with winner taking all, is another significant obstacle for third parties.
Media coverage of politics reinforces the two-party system as well, as every twist and turn of their primaries is reported and analyzed, providing a huge amount of unfunded publicity. This is also true in the general election. The two parties are the power brokers in the American system of
government and they expect the media to disseminate the words and detail the actions of their important players. With Congress and the Federal Communications Commission having a regulatory role in terms of the media, perhaps there is an implied threat if coverage of the parties is
unsatisfactory. The media also hamper the fundraising of third parties by labeling their candidates’ efforts futile, tilting at windmills, and so forth, instead of focusing on substantive issues. Since people rarely want to waste their money or back a loser, financial support for third party candidates never approaches a competitive level.
Notwithstanding the barriers they must contend with, third parties do continue to arise, with some of them making reasonable showings and having influence on the overall outcome of elections. The book Third Parties in America by Rosenstone, Lazarus and Behr, noted in 1996:
Because of third-party strength, 14 of the last 36 presidents haveentered the White House without a popular vote majority. Through the years, third parties have controlled enough votes in the right states to have theoretically changed one-third of the Electoral College results.
Over one hundred lesser parties have participated in American elections since 1840, running the gamut in motivation, ideology, personalities, and financial strength. This points to the reservoir of discontent with the two parties that control the political system.
Throughout American history there have been many successful bids for office by third parties on a state or local level. During the nineteenth century, there were often senators and congressmen who were independent or belonged to minor parties. In the first half of the twentieth century as well, there were some senators and congressmen affiliated with third parties. Over the last half century, however, this has occurred less frequently. Currently, the senators from Vermont and Maine, Bernie Sanders and Angus King, are independents who caucus with the Democrats. Though Joe Lieberman as an incumbent senator lost the Connecticut Democratic primary in 2006, he went on to win the general election as an independent.
There have also been third-party governors, other statewide-elected officers, and mayors of large cities over the last two centuries. Lowell Weicker and Walter Hickel were elected governors of Connecticut and Alaska respectively in 1990 on Independent tickets, Jesse Ventura as a Reform candidate in Minnesota in 1998, and Angus King as an independent in Maine in 1994 and 1998. But none of these successful gubernatorial candidates built permanent state-level parties that could endure to permanently influence the political process.
In addition to the obstacles faced, third parties have not survived because they have not been self-sustaining in terms of organization and platforms. Most national third parties have been devoted to specific candidates or specific ideas. They have not covered the entire spectrum of issues and established a structure to compete for office at all levels of government in sequential elections. Until organization and building occurs at a grassroots level with definite programs and a sense of purpose that has widespread appeal, third parties will remain an insignificant force in American politics.
Resurrecting Democracy
www.robertlevinebooks.com
Political junkie, Vietnam vet, neurologist- three books on aging and dementia. Book on health care reform in 2009- Shock Therapy for the American Health Care System. Book on the need for a centrist third party- Resurrecting Democracy- A Citizen’s Call for a Centrist Third Party published in 2011. Aging Wisely, published in August 2014 by Rowman and Littlefield. Latest book- The Uninformed Voter published May 2020