In Defense of Voting Third Party
Thomas LyonsHomer: America, take a good look at your beloved candidates. They’re nothing but hideous space reptiles. [unmasks them] [audience gasps in terror]
Kodos: It’s true, we are aliens. But what are you going to do about it? It’s a two-party system; you have to vote for one of us. [murmurs]
Man1: He’s right, this is a two-party system.
Man2: Well, I believe I’ll vote for a third-party candidate.
Kang: Go ahead, throw your vote away.
[Kang and Kodos laugh out loud]
[Ross Perot smashes his “Perot 96″ hat]
The next day, Kodos announces the result: “All hail, President Kang.” The field in front of the Capitol has now become a working ground where humans are whipped by aliens and used to carry materials.
– “Treehouse of Horror VII”, The Simpsons
Flash forward a few months to your polling place on November 4th. You’re all set to vote for U.S. President, and here are your options:
1.) Joseph Stalin, Communist
2.) Mao Zedong, Communist
3.) John Smith, 3rd Party No One Has Heard of
What would you do? What should a reasonable person do?
To hear it told by those who defend the two-party system, you might be more inclined to vote for Chairman Mao. After all, Mao didn’t direct the deaths of nearly as many people as did Stalin, and Mao’s directed killings were targeted toward political enemies; a vote for him might save your life! Whatever you do, though, don’t vote for John Smith. All you’re doing then, says the two-party defender, is making it much more likely that your third choice will win.
And what if Stalin were to win? Could not a reasonable argument be made that Stalinism might be the logical conclusion of Maoism (or visa versa), particularly if the candidates in question are only nominally different? That is, if the candidates differ on only a few select issues, agree on everything else, and differ in style and demographic appeal, could not a case then be made that the pending election isn’t so much 49% Stalin supporters, 49% Mao supporters and 2% 3rd party supporters as much as it is 98% status quo supporters and 2% advocates of change?
I would argue that the latter scenario is closer to reality than the former. Irregardless of who our next president is, America’s executive policies will not be wholly different by 2012 no matter the victor. You might point out a few select issues that McCain and Obama disagree on; I will point out dozens on which they concur.
That, of course, is the key. We can expect over time that a two party system will hand us candidates that are largely more similar to one another than different. As this happens, the need will only heighten for a wider field, and so the candidates respond by “seeking common ground,” and the cycle worsens. If we don’t already, we’re soon to have two candidates identical in policy and differing only in style.
Frankly, that an establishment feels that two candidates suffice for a debate on policy and a campaign to get out the vote seems naïve at best and egocentric at worst. Are two choices adequate for other walks of life? Are the two choices in question substantially different? Are the two nominees adequately discussing the only issues of importance?
There are more practical reasons to support a third-party setting as well. Clearly the founders didn’t anticipate that two and only two candidates to most offices would be the norm, nor, do I suspect, would such a structure have had their blessing. Where two and only two candidates have a legitimate chance to win an office, the campaign quickly devolves from a proactive, spirited embrace of issues and ideas delivered to targeted pockets of voters into a reactive, “hey, I’m not that guy.” This isn’t democracy, it’s divide and conquer.
I’ve written before about the importance of letting issues, and issues alone, determine who gets the privilege of our vote. I stand by that contention now. This site does not exist to endorse a candidate, only that you the reader apply reason and reason alone when you endorse your own. If you are shackled under the assumption that we live in a two party system and that we’re stuck, well, don’t be surprised when Chairman Mao is your president. Or even worse, Kang.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:13 pm
The rules of the game determine the outcome. In our case, we have a winner-takes all plurality vote system. Those rules make a “two party” system almost inevitable.
Still, your point stands. The two parties–again almost inevitably–are more similar than different. The American people long for something different. What would it take to get it? A vote for someone outside those two parties. Why don’t people vote outside the two parties? For fear that, by ‘wasting’ their vote, they won’t effect change.
It’s an interesting cultural catch-22. We’re like mimes trapped in invisible boxes, except nosier, self-pitying, and far less entertaining.
September 12th, 2008 at 7:00 am
Another problem that you touch on, Tom, is the degradation of political parties that often accompanies a two-party system like ours.
The influential members of party establishments have a vested interest in keeping the status quo, or something reasonably resembling it. They ply disgruntled party members with rhetoric about how the election is too important to allow divisiveness on their side to put the other side in power. They encourage (and almost always succeed in getting) people to put aside their differences (however major and seemingly irreconcilable they are) and come together for the good of the party, usually promising that the concerns keeping the disgruntled members away will be addressed after the election.
But this only ensures that the establishment can always take disgruntled members’ votes for granted. If the establishment can nominate a candidate whose whole career represents the antithesis of what many party members want — as arguably has happened with the Republican Party nominating John McCain — why should they listen to those party members after you win the election? They know they can scare them into voting for their candidate when it comes down to it.
The only way you can avoid this situation and still stay in the two-party system is to blow up the party. Again, the Republican Party represents a case in point. The GOP’s decision to nominate Barry Goldwater in 1964 represented a major change for the party. In the near-term, it meant certain electoral defeat. One (perhaps apocryphal) story I’ve heard from that time has a long-time establishment Republican lamenting the party’s nomination of Goldwater by saying, “This will wreck the Republican Party.” To which a Goldwater supporter replied, “Yes it will, but we’ll own the wreckage.” The result of that wreckage was eventually the Reagan Revolution, the Gingrich Revolution, and at long last the George W. Bush administration. The party had to suffer for its decision, however. In 1964, voting Goldwater was like voting third party. Twenty years later, however, voting Democrat (for President, anyway) was like voting third party. The process had finally come full circle.
The question for people concerned about the two parties is, “Is it possible to blow up the parties and start again?” If the answer is “No”, then voting third party might prove to be the only legitimate outlet for their heterodox political views.
September 12th, 2008 at 10:35 am
Jeremy,
“The rules of the game determine the outcome. In our case, we have a winner-takes all plurality vote system. Those rules make a “two party” system almost inevitable. ”
And yet, that we have a winner take all plurality is not rule, mere custom. The Constitution says that the electoral college members are to be determined by state legislatures. Until 1820, the popular vote wasn’t even routine, and thereafter states VERY often split their electoral votes.
We don’t need new rules. We need states with the sack to exercise their rights under the rules.