The two party tyranny in the United States relies on myths. Those myths are the keystone of our government as it is – but not as it must be. I do not believe for a moment that people’s allegiance to the Democrat and Republican Parties would continue if not for the partisan fear of the “other” and misconceptions stoked by our media and politicians that pumps out arguments against third parties, which in turn become part of the every-day political discourse.
This post will attempt to address all of the major arguments levied against a third party presidential strategy. We probably confronted each in prior blog posts, but we thought readers might find a short and comprehensive list useful. Articles by so-called experts, pundits, and the like contain the arguments in various forms.* As seen in the comments sections of news articles, regular, “lay” people echo them.** We note this to show that we are not creating straw men arguments to advance our own ideas: These are the actual contentions we confront in the media and in the real world.
1. The political system in the United States precludes meaningful third party candidacies, or It’s a two party system.
We know this statement is false. The history of the Prohibition Party illustrates this. It was formed in 1869, and played a pivotal role in the movement that led to the 18th Amendment, which prohibited the “manufacture, sale, or transportation of intoxicating liquors within, the importation thereof into, or the exportation thereof from the United States.” After the Amendment was adopted, the Party’s prominence quickly faded but it remains in existence today. Even though Americans never elected a Prohibition Party President and the 18th Amendment was eventually repealed, the impact of the party and the movement cannot be denied.
Perhaps more relevant, the Republican Party began as a “third party” in the middle of the 19th century. Before its ascendance, the Whigs and the Democrats dominated American politics. So, even if one assumed that our political system tends to produce two dominant parties, it does not follow that the two in power are permanent fixtures. The Republican Party displaced the Whigs. Now, by voting for an alternative political party candidate, people could displace one of the major parties (I think this is very likely to be the Republican Party). This would probably take longer than 1 or 2 elections cycles, but such a result is worth the wait.
Short of creating a “new” major party, a third party movement could re-direct the movement of the major parties (which is decidedly rightward and elitist). The People’s Party of the late 19th century influenced the political parties in ways we probably still see, and can appreciate, today. According to historian Charles Postel, “[m]uch of the Populist program was incorporated into the reform wings of both the Democratic and Republican Parties… [t]he ensuing wave of Progressive legislation had a decidedly Populist stamp.”
2. Third parties help the least desirable candidate win, or the “Spoiler Effect”
Since we have spent so much time on the “spoiler effect” already, here we will just give two quick responses.
a. The spoiler effect is largely a myth. People repeatedly claim that Perot cost Bush the election in 1992, and that Nader cost Gore the election in 2000. The former is almost certainly false, while the latter is only probably false. Moreover, in the only elections that provide clear evidence of how a third candidate affect people’s votes–Senate elections from Florida, Connecticut, and Alaska–people reacted in exactly the opposite fashion of what the “spoiler” myth predicts.
There are a number of reasons why the effect fails to correspond to reality. For one, many voters who voted for Nader, for example, would not have voted for Gore had Nader not ran. These votes, then, would not have helped Gore beat Bush – they were never going to him. Some Nader voters actually preferred Bush to Gore. And finally, because of “attraction” and “phantom” effects, many voters would chosen Gore instead of Bush who otherwise would have preferred the latter.
b. Even if you assume that voting for a third party helped the worst candidate win, you should do it, anyway. A third party does not have to win a presidential election to be successful, clear from the history discussed in #1. One way it can succeed by losing is by costing, or creating the perception that it cost, one party the election. If a candidate promising to increase the highest marginal tax rate to 75% won 15% of the votes nationwide, s/he would not win. But if the Democrat lost, people would attribute the loss to him or her. If it happens again, the Democratic Party might have to take voters seriously. Now, the only voters they have to take seriously are conservative voters they might be able to woo from the Republicans.
3. If you are not happy with a political party, you should organize within it to reform it.
This takes the prize for the most naive argument. It does not understand the intentions of most third parties (one consequence of not taking something seriously is not taking time to learn about it, which allows one to remain “certain” that it is unserious and offers no advantages). People do not form and adhere to third parties because they think they have better chance of winning elections; most believe that our society needs more choice.
It also ignores the entrenched corruption within the parties. The Democratic and Republican Parties are top-down institutions that pursue elitist policies because elites control them. The government bailed out the banks without extracting any serious concessions not because the Average American wanted to give the people who caused the crisis through malfeasance trillions of dollars and to take on their toxic assets, but because the leaders of our country do not especially care about the Average American – and certainly not in relation to elites. That is just one of countless examples. This arguments, that is, asking a populist to walk in and reform it the Democratic Party, pits the little guy with no power and no money against the big guy in an institution (the Party) organized around winning elections and composed of partisan group-thinkers most of whom undoubtedly believe the Party cannot win without the support of the super-rich… and who probably would rather be super-rich than a reformers, by the way. Maybe it is possible in theory, but practically it seems impossible.
Finally, the Democratic Party time and again rejects liberal candidates. Bill Bradley lost, Howard Dean lost, and John Edwards lost. In 2010, the establishment chose “radical corporatist” Blanche Lincoln over Bill Halter – and so did Democratic voters in the primary. The Democratic Party is not a progressive party, and unless it faces pressure from voters to become one, it never will be.
4. Pursue a local/Congressional strategy, or The President is powerless with an obstinate Congress.
This argument suggests that it would be easier for candidates of a third party to win enough House and Senate elections to control it then it would be to attract a significant number of voters nationwide during a Presidential election. Moreover, this is necessary because a third party president would have no power because the major parties would still control Congress. First, allow us to quote from an earlier post:
Simply put, the notion that Congress’s reluctance to work with a third party President of the United States would strip him of all power and influence is completely absurd. Assuming Congress did everything in its power short of impeachment and removal of the President, the President would still have executive orders; recess appointments; authority over executive agencies, the army, and diplomatic measures; and attention from the media. Plus, if voters did elect a third-party President, do people seriously believe there would be no impact on Congress, as well? That Democrat and Republican legislators—they depend on voters, too, by the way—would completely stonewall the President having witnessed a monumental rejection of two-party dominance? That the composition of the legislature itself would not be affected by the voters who chose to elect the third-party President? Or that voters are so stupid that they would not respond to the legislature by voting out obstructionist two-party members in the elections two and four years later?
The people who assert this seem to think that the presidential election is totally unrelated to elections for Senate and Congress, and that the legislature has the power to “veto” everything a President might want to do. Both of those underlying assumptions are patently false. On one level, people know this; but because their minds are “anaesthetized” by the myth of the two-party system, they do not think clearly. They do not ask, “What powers does the President have?” Or more basically, “How does the American government work?”
Second, watch this interview with Matt Stoller on The Young Turks. If you do not have time to watch the whole thing, skip to 20 minutes in:
5. You have to vote for Obama because Romney (or vice versa) is soooo scarrry, or The Lesser Evil Strategy.
Having lived in the United States under Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, I honestly cannot sympathize with this argument. Whether this issue is Iraq, Iran, Afghanistan, bailouts, civil liberties, or whatever, the Republican leader and Democrat are roughly the same. Obviously, they may differ on specifics, but the tenor of the regimes are the same. You may expect Romney to be significantly better than Obama, but there are good reasons to think not. And I bet you thought Obama would be better than he is, so do not trust your political judgment too deeply.
Another problem with the “lesser evil” strategy is that permits no escape from the parties and their candidates no matter how bad they are. Its premise is that the lesser evil between the two major parties must win. Thus, lesser evil voters have to hope that one of them is not totally awful because they have resigned themselves to voting for one of the two. It is pathetic in its willful impotence in taking whatever is given. It is also completely ineffective. Ask yourself: How well has it worked? In this election, both candidates are undesirable to most people. The Democratic and Republicans will continue to produce such candidates if people keep do nothing to upset the status quo.
———————–
*Here are some examples: Spivak in The Atlantic, Robert Scheer in Truthdig, Ezra Klein in the Washington Post, and Rick Hasen in Politico.
**Examples follow in comments to these articles: Truth-Out interviews with Presidential candidates Jill Stein and Rocky Anderson, Al Jazeera article and support–or lack of–for third parties, and a Washington Post article on the demise of Americans Elect.
I figured out more a new challenge on this losing weight issue. Just one issue is a good nutrition is tremendously vital when dieting. A huge reduction in bad foods, sugary foodstuff, fried foods, sugary foods, red meat, and bright flour products can be necessary. Having wastes organisms, and contaminants may prevent aims for losing weight. While particular drugs temporarily solve the problem, the awful side effects usually are not worth it, plus they never provide more than a non permanent solution. It is just a known incontrovertible fact that 95% of fad diet plans fail. Many thanks sharing your notions on this weblog.
I figured out more something totally new on this losing weight issue. A single issue is that good nutrition is vital any time dieting. A huge reduction in bad foods, sugary food items, fried foods, sugary foods, pork, and white-colored flour products may be necessary. Possessing wastes parasitic organisms, and toxins may prevent desired goals for fat loss. While certain drugs quickly solve the situation, the nasty side effects are certainly not worth it, plus they never give more than a non permanent solution. It’s a known incontrovertible fact that 95% of diet plans fail. Thank you for sharing your notions on this blog site.
whoah this blog is magnificent i love studying your articles. Stay up the good work! You recognize, lots of people are hunting round for this info, you could help them greatly.
Supreme Post…Tanks 4 sharing! very nice article and idea|Thank you for sharing your article I would always follow|Thank you all for your information and comments Regards ….|a very successful site. Also very revealing article. Thanks to the contributors.|I greatly appreciate all the info I’ve read here. I will spread the word about your blog to other people. Cheers.|nice, thank you so much
|really this is a nice web thank you thanks admin good post super messege|Ooohh, great information you write it very clean. I’m very lucky to get this details from you. 
}
Super good! very nice article and idea|Thank you for sharing your article I would always follow|Thank you all for your information and comments Regards ….|a very successful site. Also very revealing article. Thanks to the contributors.|I greatly appreciate all the info I’ve read here. I will spread the word about your blog to other people. Cheers.|nice, thank you so much
|really this is a nice web thank you thanks admin good post super messege|Ooohh, great information you write it very clean. I’m very lucky to get this details from you. 
}
Nice post. very nice article and idea|Thank you for sharing your article I would always follow|Thank you all for your information and comments Regards ….|a very successful site. Also very revealing article. Thanks to the contributors.|I greatly appreciate all the info I’ve read here. I will spread the word about your blog to other people. Cheers.|nice, thank you so much
|really this is a nice web thank you thanks admin good post super messege|Ooohh, great information you write it very clean. I’m very lucky to get this details from you. 
}
A person essentially help to make seriously posts I might state. This is the very first time I frequented your web page and up to now? I amazed with the research you made to make this actual post extraordinary. Great activity!
this is nice information need to know more
Thanks for the points shared on your blog. Another thing I would like to state is that fat loss is not about going on a dietary fads and trying to reduce as much weight that you can in a set period of time. The most effective way to lose weight is by consuming it bit by bit and following some basic points which can help you to make the most out of your attempt to shed weight. You may realize and be following most of these tips, nevertheless reinforcing know-how never does any damage.
Fantastic Info! But I???¨o?¨¨m having some trouble trying to load your blog. I have read it numerous times before and in no way gotten a thing like this, but now when I try to load a thing it just takes a bit while (5-10 minutes ) after which just stops. I hope i don???¨o?¨¨t have spyware or a thing. Does anyone know what the difficulty might be?
How-do-you-do? an amazing blog post dude. Thnkx But I’m having problem with ur rss feed. Unable to subscribe. Is there anybody else facing similar rss feed issue? Anybody who knows please respond. Thanks in advance
Hello, i think that i saw you visited my website so i came to “return the favor”.Im trying to find things to enhance my website!I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!
Just desire to say your article is as astonishing. The clearness to your put up is simply nice and i can assume you’re an expert on this subject. Fine along with your permission allow me to take hold of your RSS feed to stay updated with impending post. Thank you a million and please keep up the gratifying work.
I was suggested this blog by my cousin. I am not sure whether this post is written by him as no one else know such detailed about my problem. You’re incredible! Thanks!
One good reason why Christian Louboutin Uk footwear is so well liked is their assortment
that is very good article,if you like,i will come back,i will link to you
Brilliant, thank you, I will subscribe to you RSS now!
Hello, i think that i saw you visited my website so i came to “return the favor”.Im trying to find things to enhance my website!I suppose its ok to use a few of your ideas!!
How is it that just anyone can write a weblog and get as popular as this? Its not like youve said anything incredibly impressive more like youve painted a quite picture above an issue that you know nothing about! I dont want to sound mean, here. But do you actually think that you can get away with adding some quite pictures and not seriously say something?
Awesome blog thanks for your time.
Cool post . Cheers for, posting on my blog man. Ill email you some time. I did not know that!