[UPDATED BELOW]
ANSWER – They can in theory, but maybe they don’t in practice.
On Tuesday, Joshua Spivak wrote a column in the Atlantic on the likely impact of a third-party candidacy on the presidential election later this year. There are a number of problems with his piece (for more on those you can see our comment below his column), but the one we want to focus on now is Spivak’s repetition of the claim that third-party candidates spoil presidential elections.
Spivak cites Ross Perot in 1992 and Ralph Nader in 2000 as “spoiler” candidacies. However, it is not at all clear that either candidate cost a major party candidate the victory. You can read strong counter-arguments here, here, here, and here. Regardless of whether those third-party candidacies actually cost Bush or Gore victory, certainly in theory a minor party or independent candidate could split a major party’s candidates votes. Yet despite writers so frequently warning us of the danger that a third-party candidacy could pose by splitting the vote in 2012 (and assuring us that at best a third party could achieve nothing), they never—as far as I can tell—provide any meaningful support for it. To them, it seems to go without saying that a vote for a third-party is a vote against the preferable major party so voters should always pick their preferred major party candidate. I am very skeptical of that for the reasons laid out below. However, the point of this post is not to disprove the potential for vote splitting or discount its effects in a real election. Rather, the intent here is to provoke a serious discussion of its potential to affect the 2012 election.
Fair Vote provides a good explanation of the “spoiler effect:”
“Since plurality races with three or more candidates allow a winner to be elected with less than 50% of the vote, two like-minded candidates can split their base of support, allowing a less desired candidate to win. This is known as the ‘spoiler effect.’ This winning candidate, if elected with less than 50% of votes, does not necessarily have the support of most voters and may in fact represent views in conflict with the majority of voters. In some instances, vote-splitting between two candidates can lead to the election of a candidate whose views are the polar opposite of the majority of voters.”
It is with this in mind that the writers in the above linked-to articles oppose third-party candidacies – in the end, they think that a third-party vote leads to a perverse result or no result. As best I can gather, their belief rests on the following assumptions:
- People who vote for third parties would vote even if there were only the two major party options;
- Votes for a third party candidate would otherwise all go to one of the major party candidates;
- The two major parties are separated by a meaningful ideological divide, and together they encompass every voter’s political views—or could if the views are properly advocated and not extreme—so that every reasonable voter should prefer one major party to the other;
- A victory for the least preferred candidate must be avoided, so any expected advantages of voting for a third-party are moot in comparison;
- The two major parties have a presumptive right to people’s votes by virtue of their major party status.
Let’s address each assumption briefly in turn.
1. An average of 43.6% of the voting eligible population (VEP) did not vote in the last six presidential elections (data available here). Of those elections, 1988 had the lowest VEP turnout at 52.8%, while 2008 had the highest at 61.6%. Thus, in every single election a large portion of voters chooses not to vote for either the Democrat or the Republican candidate. Given that fact, it is strange and probably erroneous to assume that all or nearly all third-party voters in an election would have voted if there were only a Democrat and Republican option.
2. Evidence tends to show that voters for a particular third-party candidate do not favor one major party candidate over the other as a rule. For example, exit polls from the 1992 election show that Perot voters split evenly between Clinton and Bush as their second choice. Even a fair number of Nader voters in 2000 said they would have voted for Bush, although significantly more preferred Gore. Because the Americans Elect bi-partisan ticket will likely represent the biggest third-party challenger in 2012, it is fair to assume that in 2012 third party voters would as likely choose a Democrat as a Republican as their second choice.
3. I get the impression that the writers who discourage third party voting because of the spoiler effect believe that Democrats and Republican candidates broadly represent opposite sides of a linear political spectrum, so that their platforms are not only different but in opposition. Thus, every rational voter should prefer one major party to the other. Whether you agree or disagree, it is a subjective call. I think it fair to say that some voters do not believe that either party will represent their interests, or that voting for either major party would violate their own principles.
Rather than going through a litany of reasons why some voters may feel that way, it is more instructive to simply look at the candidacy of Ron Paul. Paul has done very well with independents and against Barack Obama in polling, but he cannot succeed in the party-dominated primary process. Thus, his candidacy and the support it has received strongly indicate that there are very popular views that neither party has adopted; and, moreover, that the policies of the major parties—at least on some important issues, like civil liberties—are neither in opposition nor clearly distinct. In general, one should expect that. But one should also expect some voters to reasonably reject the major parties as a result.
4. This assumption relates to number three, but requires a separate discussion. When writers raise the peril of the “lesser evil,” they never mention the long-term effect of the lesser-evil strategy on policy. It is as if they believe each presidential election is the last. We know this is not true, so why not discuss the impact of the lesser-evil strategy on the policies of future candidates?
Let’s assume that the Democratic Party nominates a candidate who is more conservative than its base in order to capture voters from the Republican Party. The base votes for the Democrat, as do some other, more conservative voters. In this scenario, the Democratic Party loses none of its core support while it gains conservative votes. In the next election, the Democratic candidate becomes a little more conservative. Again, s/he captures conservative voters while losing no voters on the left. Clearly, the Democratic Party has an incentive to become more conservative. Not only that, the base signals to the party that it should become more conservative by essentially telling it to win at all costs.
There is no boundary to the lesser-evil policy “push” unless voters impose it as an electoral cost. And only by imposing that cost can voters hope to bring a party that has strayed back to its base values. This is a unique advantage that the invocation to the spoiler effect intends to shut down.
5. No writer claims that the Democratic and Republican parties have a “presumptive right to people’s votes.” If asked, the writers would probably say that they presume no such right, but think it is wiser for people to vote for a major party given their size and status, and the nature of our electoral system. However, the writers’ treatment of third parties belies that. For example, the term “spoiler,” itself, carries a very negative connotation (although, admittedly, they did not invent the phrase). Ralph Nader called “spoiler” a “politically bigoted word.” Bigotry is “intolerance of any creed, belief, or opinion that differs from one’s own.” To spoil is to devalue, harm, taint, damage, or impair.
Nader is right. People who use “spoiler” most often employ it to discourage people from voting for the candidate of their choice, telling them that they ruin important elections by expressing their political views when it matters most. That’s oppressive. Instead of criticizing politicians for their policies that repelled voters, the writers instead blame the voters who were too foolish to realize that they voted against their own best interests. The use of “spoiler” is inherently paternalistic and patronizing. It would be better to use another term or expression (neither Ezra Klein nor Harold Meyerson used “spoiler” in their articles above).
The lack of analysis regarding vote splitting also suggests the presumption, as does the writers’ lack of consideration for the possible impact of a vote on future elections, and their exclusion of non-voters from the discussion (suggesting that you don’t have to vote, but if you do, you have to vote major party). I suspect that the presumption comes from the systemic two-party bias within a first past the post system, and the predominance of the two-party mentality in the United States.
—————————————————————————————-
I think that the points above illustrate that the “spoiler” tag for third parties is tenuously based and politically incorrect. Again, though, the goal here is to spark a discussion of the role third parties have played in past elections, and may play in 2012. ACED hopes to hear from you.
UPDATE: To recapitulate, if you cannot show strong evidence of the effect in practice, using it as a bogeyman makes your writing appear to have a specific political agenda.
UPDATE 2: We should have also included the assumption that third party candidates do not attract voters to the more similar major party candidate. The “lesser-evil” effect explains why this might occur. For example, if a third party contender emerged to the left of the Democrat, some voters that otherwise would vote for the Republican would choose the Democrat out of preference for the Democrat over the third party. The third party candidate may simply make the Democrat appear more conservative, and thus more desirable, by comparison.
Whatever the reason, it seems to be exactly what happens in real elections. That is, third party candidates hurt the candidate furthest, not closest, to their own ideology.
Trackbacks/Pingbacks
[...] reality besides the dominance of the major parties in out first past the post (FPP) system. As we attempted to show, however, facts absolutely basic and fundamental to a discussion of voting dynamics in the United [...]