A USA Today, CNN Gallup poll of 1,200 adults from August, 1995 shows the public strongly favors third party and independent candidates. About half of those polled said they would want to see an independent candidate in the race for president and 26 percent said they would vote for Perot before Clinton or Republican candidate Bob Dole.
According to Frank Smallwood's book, The Other Candidates: Third Parties in Presidential Elections (New England Press, 1982), more than 200 third party and independent candidates have tried to duplicate Lincoln's success since 1860, but only eight have been able to gain more than one million popular votes.
Although many people disregard third party candidates as "wasted votes," they still have a profound effect on the political process, and are likely to have an increasing role in the future due to the seeming merger of Democrats and Republicans moving to the center at a rapid pace. Third parties enhance democracy because they give voters a choice of something different that isn’t offered in the status quo.
The first significant showing by a third party candidate in this century was in the election of 1912, when Theodore Roosevelt, a former Republican president, came in second as the Progressive Party candidate. He was bested by the Democrat, Woodrow Wilson, by just over 2 million votes. The Republican, William Howard Taft, another former president, was third, and Eugene V. Debs, the Socialist, was a distant fourth.
In 1924, Robert LaFollette, also made a significant third party showing, garnering over 16% of the vote to come in third when the Republican Calvin Coolidge won. LaFollette finished behind the Democrat, John W. Davis, from whom he siphoned off many possible votes.
Third party politics again looked like it would play a spoiler role in 1948 when two different factions of the Democratic Party broke away and ran separate candidates. However, neither Strom Thurmond, the States' Rights Democrat, nor Henry Wallace, a former Democratic vice president running under the Progressive Party label, managed much over a million votes. Together, they got about 5% of the total vote, as Truman beat Thomas E. Dewey, the Republican.
George Wallace made a credible, but distant third showing, as the American Independent candidate in 1968; less so John Schmitz as the American Party candidate in 1972 and Eugene McCarthy as the Independent four years later.
The 1980 presidential election one again showed a number of third parties competing, the most important of which was former Illinois Congressman John Anderson’s Independent party. Other third parties in the contest were the Libertarians and the Citizens party, headed respectively by Ed Clarke and the environmentalist Barry Commoner. Anderson, who achieved the considerable feat, for a third party candidate, of being listed on the ballots of all 50 states, won 7 percent of the nationwide vote. Originally an unsuccessful Republican candidate for presidency, Anderson adopted a program that was liberal on social issues and conservative on fiscal matters. One of his most controversial proposals was a 50-cents-a-gallon excise tax on gasoline to encourage conservation. The revenue from tax was to be used to cut social security taxes by 50 percent. Although the major candidates tried not to make Anderson seriously, incumbent President Jimmy Carter in particular was worried that Anderson might be a spoiler, drawing away enough votes to defeat him. However, Anderson’s candidacy had little effect upon the final electoral results of 1980.
It was not until 1992 that a third party candidate captured close to 20% of the total vote, when Ross Perot, ran under the banner of United We Stand. There are those who believe that Perot played the spoiler for George Bush by siphoning off votes, to give Bill Clinton, with less than a majority of the popular vote, the presidency.
Though some of them have been mentioned above, it is worth to outline the most influential third parties existing on the American political scene at present, and the reasons of their existence.
The America First Party was founded in Spring 2002 by a large group of Buchanan Brigade defectors who splintered away from the declining Reform Party to form this new, uncompromisingly social conservative and fair trade party (with a strong foundation in the Religious Right movement). The views of the party largely echo those espoused by commentator during his three Presidential bids. The AFP is dedicated to "protect our people and our sovereignty ... promote economic growth and independence ... encourage the traditional values of faith, family, and responsibility ... ensure equality before the law in protecting those rights granted by the Creator ... [and] to clean up our corrupted political system." Within a month of the AFP's founding, ten former Reform Party state chapters formally broke away from the RP and affiliated with the AFP. By the August 2002 National Convention, the AFP had affiliates in around 20 states -- and they expect to be organized in all 50 states by 2003. The party is already fielding various candidates in some states for the 2002 elections.
The Green Party -- the informal US-affiliate of the left-wing, environmentalist movement -- scored a major achievement when it convinced prominent consumer advocate to run as their first Presidential nominee in 1996. Spending just over $5,000, Nader was on the ballot in 22 states and carried over 700,000 votes (4th place - 0.8%). In 2000, Nader raised millions of dollars, mobilized leftist activists and grabbed national headlines with his anti-corporate campaign message. Nader ignored pleas from liberal Democrats that he abandon the race because he was siphoning essential votes away from Al Gore's campaign -- answering that Gore was not substantially different than Bush and that his own campaign was about building a permanent third party. In the end, Nader was on the ballot in 44 states and finished third with 2,878,000 votes (2.7%) -- seemingly depriving Gore of wins in some key states. More significantly, Nader missed the important 5% mark for the national vote, meaning that the party will still be ineligible for federal matching funds in 2004 (Note: a third Nader run is still possible as he said "I haven't ruled out going in 2004" in February 2002). Until 2001, the Greens are largely a collection of fairly autonomous state/local based political entities with only a weak (and sometimes splintered) national leadership structure that largely served to coordinate electoral activities.
Once of rapidly growing, populist third party, the Reform Party shifted far to the right in recent years -- but then experienced massive waves of conservative defections away into the Constitution Party and the new America First Party in 2002. First, some history: after running as an Independent in 1992, billionaire Texas businessman founded the Reform Party in 1995 as his vehicle for converting his independent movement into a permanent political party. In 1996, Perot ran as the Reform Party's presidential nominee (8,085,000 votes - 8%). Although an impressive showing for a third party, it was much less than the 19 million votes Perot carried as an independent candidate back in 1992. The party traditionally reflected Perot's center-conservative fiscal policies and anti-GATT/NAFTA views -- while avoiding taking any official positions on social issues (although much of this group seemed to hold generally libertarian social views). The RP was plagued by a lengthy period of nasty ideological battles in 1998-2000 involving three main rival groups: the "Old Guard" Perot faction, the more libertarian faction, and the social conservative faction. A fourth group -- a small but vocal Marxist faction led by RP activist Lenora Fulani -- generally backed the Perot faction during these fights. To make this even more confusing, the Perot faction ultimately turned to Natural Law nominee and Maharishi follower as its "Stop Buchanan" candidate for President. After several nasty and public battles, the Ventura faction quit the RP in Spring 2000 and the old Perot faction lost control of the party in court to the Buchanan faction in Fall 2000 (and Perot ultimately endorsed Bush for President in 2000). That gave the Buchanan Brigade the party's $12.6 million in federal matching funds. Within months, the Buchanan allies won control of nearly the entire party organization. Along with Buchanan's rise to power in the party, the party made a hard ideological shift to the right -- an ideological realignment that continues to dominate the RP. In the aftermath of the 2000 elections, it is clear that Buchanan failed in his efforts to establish a viable, conservative third party organization (comprised largely of disenchanted Republicans). Buchanan was on the ballot in 49 states, captured 449,000 votes (4th place - 0.4%) -- and later told reporters that his foray into third party politics may have been a mistake. His weak showing also meant that the party is ineligible for federal matching funds in 2004. The new RP had the opportunity to become the leading social conservative third party (think of it as a Green Party for the right) -- but more internal conflicts made this impossible. In Spring 2002, former Buchanan VP runningmate Ezola Foster and the California and Maryland RP leaders jumped to the Constitution Party. Almost simultaneously, the entire RP leadership in nearly 20 other states (the core of the Buchanan Brigade folks) defected en masse to form the new America First Party -- delivering a demoralizing and devastating blow the the future viability of the RP. The remaining pieces of the RP now appear to be trying to reorganize back into a more centrist party -- similar to the original one Perot wanted to create in the 1990s. But -- without Perot's involvement (and deep pockets) – even a new, centrist RP may have serious trouble rebuilding itself.
After two years of openly feuding with Ross Perot's allies in the Reform Party, Minnesota Governor and his supporters bolted from the party to launch the new Independence Party in February 2000. In departing, Ventura denounced the Reform Party as "hopelessly dysfunctional" and far too right-wing (in its embrace of Pat Buchanan's candidacy). While this splinter party shared the Reform Party's call for campaign finance and other political reforms, Ventura's organization disagrees with the more social conservative and trade protectionist views espoused by many new leaders in the Reform Party. The IP -- which is entirely under the control of Ventura and his allies -- describes itself as "Socially Inclusive and Fiscally Responsible." Like Ventura, the IP is pro-choice, pro-gay rights, pro-medical marijuana, pro-gun rights and fiscally moderate. The IP fielded a slate of Congressional and state candidates in Minnesota in 2000. Ventura said he hoped to take this Minnesota party national and possibly field a Presidential nominee in 2004. As of early 2002, the IP had nascent affiliate parties organizing in just a handful of states -- and Ventura's retirement decision in 2002 may spell the end of any national plans for the IP. The is the student wing of the party.
Third parties will continue, from time to time, to offer voters a chance to send a message to Washington expressing their discontent with the governing establishment. And for their part, Republican and Democratic candidates will warn voters not to waste their votes on third parties, which have no chance of victory. The American political system will remain a major obstacle to third-party success, because virtually all politically popular issues find a home in one of the major parties, and sometimes in both.
Moreover, changes in federal election laws have further buttressed the two-party system. The candidates of the two major parties are automatically financed by federal funds if they choose to accept them, whereas third-party candidates must struggle to obtain federal financing. To qualify for public funding, a third party must have received at least 5 percent of the popular vote in the last election. For example, the Federal Election Commission, which administers the financing laws, ruled in 1980 that John Anderson could receive a share of federal funds only if he achieved 5 percent of the vote. In the meantime, Anderson was unable to persuade various banks to lend him money on the chance of a good showing in the fall. Also, political action committees, which have been spurred by the election laws, rarely “waste” their money on minor candidates.
To summarize the mentioned above facts, it’s possible to outline three major reasons of why third parties cannot win on the American political arena. The first, and the most straightforward one has to do with money and the entrenchment of the status quo. The American society unconsciously perceives that Democratic and Republican parties are the only two driving forces, and it is considered absolutely normal that if one does not vote for the Republicans, he (she) votes for the Democrats, who present an only alternative. Moreover, the major parties have a benefit of governmental financing, public familiarity and well established system and organizational structure of electoral campaign. The second reason is that third parties involve themselves into the election race while having no representatives in the Congress or state institutions. Third parties here are presented just by a number of individuals with a number of political and social objectives without any real representation in the American government. It is logically to assume that any party having no governmental representatives will hardly succeed. The final reason third parties have traditionally had a difficult time concerns U.S. electoral rules and conventions which heavily favor existing parties. Even in a state such as New Hampshire, which has a long tradition of people labeling themselves "Independents," a voter must pick one major party or the other in order to vote in the primaries. Americans are accustomed to two-party politics, and any third party must fight this entrenchment, both financially and in terms of publicity. With the backing of billionaire H. Ross Perot, the Reform Party has considerable resources, thus allowing it to stay competitive. Moreover, its decision to use electronic media to hold its primary online, while fraught with difficulties, allows the party to exist without the grassroots organization of the conventional parties.
Given these difficulties, third parties persist and will persist for the presidential race. The origin of it lies in the heart of politics, a game participants often play against virtually insurmountable odds and with little chance of winning. Running for presidency is an “ego trip” for the John Andersons, Ed Clarkes, and Barry Commoners of politics, just as it is for the Carters, Reagans, Mondales, and Kennedys. The seekers of power often find it in their own parties and organizations and need not win the ultimate electoral prize to obtain satisfaction. Also, candidates with an ideological bent find fulfillment in spreading the message and in leading a political cult, even if it is of minor importance. Nevertheless, third parties, some led by committed ideologues, others primarily by power seekers, and the majority by a mixture of both, have taken their place in the American political history.
Assuming all the hardships of the third parties, we should not disregard all the positive contributions they made and continue to make. First of all, it’s worth mentioning that all the famous Democrats and Republicans started out sometimes as third parties. Second, over the years, third parties have helped to energize and enroll new voters who have been alienated by the two major parties. Third, the smaller parties and independents have helped to focus on some key issues in ways which have forced the Democrat and Republican candidates to reshape their platforms and agendas. Fourth, in some states where multiple lines are legal, third parties have helped swing the election to either the Democrat or the Republican candidate who most closely reflects the philosophy of the third party. (Libertarian and other third party candidates have also won state and local offices.)
A good example of third party leverage is here in New York, where for years, the Liberal Party helped the Democrats and the Conservative Party helped the Republicans. In some cases, the candidates of the minor parties have helped determine the standard bearer for the major parties, and James Buckley won a term as US senator on the Conservative Party line alone. (Minor parties get a line and keep it in New York as long as they get at least 50,000 votes in a gubernatorial election.)
In the current United States political system, there is little room for such an eclectic third party, or any third party for that matter. Most third parties are transitional, and their influence is transitory. Third party presidential candidates come and go, and if they are popular enough, they can have some effect on the final elections. Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose candidacy split the Republican vote and helped Woodrow Wilson win the election of 1912. Some analysts feel that Perot's candidacy helped Bill Clinton defeat George Bush in 1992. However, if third parties want to have true power of their own, they must build a concrete network of elected officials, ranging from town councils to United States Senators. Only by infiltrating the system from the ground up can the Reform Party transcend its image as a bunch of political (and literal) wrestlers and become an agent to purify politics.
