In my previous posts I’ve detailed how a candidate from a third party could effectively lead as president. However, I also mentioned that, despite the fact that they continue to run, most independent parties are not currently concerned with attaining the position of the president. Instead, they are far more focused on breaking the “fifteen percent barrier” between them and presidential debates. But in the current political system even this seems like a far off goal. So what, then, are the more realistic goals for current third parties?

As it turns out, independent political parties have shifted their focus to more small-scale objectives, specifically filling positions in congress and state governments. The rationale is that not only are these positions far more attainable, but they also are more important in making true change in the political climate. Yes, the presidency is ideally the highest position for a political party to hold, but true political influence, they argue, is achieved through smaller operations.

Currently, there are only two members of congress that identify with a party that is neither republican nor democrat, and both are working in the Senate (Manning). Angus King, representing Maine, took office in January of 2013 and identifies solely as an independent. The other senator, Bernie Sanders, was elected in 2007 representing the state of Vermont. Though he ran as an independent, Sanders identifies as a democratic socialist. There are currently no independent politicians occupying positions within the House of Representatives (Manning). However, there are currently three open seats in the house, which third parties are desperately trying to obtain as the next election cycle comes around.

But the federal government is not the only area of politics that independents are currently infiltrating. Many independents have pursued positions within state governments to promote change outside Washington. The current governor of Rhode Island, for example, was elected as an independent, and although he later began identifying with democrats, he still provided evidence that third parties have a chance for election (Seelye). Many third parties have also sought election for mayor, with a notable example coming from Washington D.C. David Catania, an independent council member in D.C., has made waves recently when pre-election polls found that he is currently tied with incumbent mayor, Vincent Gray (Davis). Catania’s bid for mayor is also notable, because if elected, he would be the first openly gay mayor in the capitol.

Catania, D.C. Mayoral Candidate

Now filling these political positions is obviously a general goal for all independent parties, but individual groups have different goals for the next few years. The Libertarian and Green parties, for instance, have very different objectives for their futures.

Recently, the Libertarian party has been focused not only on filling these seats in government, but also simultaneously invading, for lack of a better term, the Republican Party. It is no secret that republicans have been quickly losing support, especially among the younger generations. But many of these same young people strongly identify with the ideals of the Libertarian party, forcing republicans to re-evaluate their platform. And according to current Senator Rand Paul from Kentucky, embracing libertarian ideas can help the Republican Party become more attractive to a younger crowd (Shapiro).

Senator Rand Paul, R-KY

The Green Party, on the other hand, is far less concerned with actually making changes from within the government itself. Instead, they have taken to more grassroots-like campaigns promoting sustainability and environmentalism, pillars of their party’s platform. In truth, the party seemed to realize that actually attaining positions within government is somewhat unrealistic, and that they can be far more effective from the outside. Considering the social shift in attention toward climate change and sustainability, these efforts have been largely successful, and their projects have gained a lot of support.

Overall, the political system in America does not make it easy for third parties to succeed. The Democrats and Republicans have long ruled in Washington, but it’s clear just how drastically the political landscape is changing. With tangible goals like filling seats in Congress and making change from outside the government, third parties have seemed to hit a bit of a stride, truly finding their place. And as they slowly gain support, perhaps one day we will see the abolition of the two-party dominance.

Sources Used:

Davis, Aaron C. “D.C. Council Member David Catania Launches Independent Run for Mayor.” Washington Post. The Washington Post, 12 Mar. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

Manning, Jennifer E. “Membership of the 113th Congress.” Federation of American Scientists. Congressional Research Service, 14 Mar. 2014. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

Seelye, Katharine Q. “Governor Chafee of Rhode Island Won’t Run Again.”The New York Times. The New York Times, 04 Sept. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

Shapiro, Ari. “Will The Future GOP Be More Libertarian?” NPR. National Public Radio, 9 Apr. 2013. Web. 16 Apr. 2014.

In my last post I detailed how, in spite of common beliefs, a candidate from a third party could effectively lead as president. However, attaining the presidency may not be a very realistic goal for independent parties. Take the most recent presidential election in 2012, for example. During this election cycle Gary Johnson, Jill Stein, and Virgil Goode were nominated to run for president on behalf of the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties respectively. And despite ample support from their parties, these candidates performed miserably in the election. In the national, popular vote Gary Johnson received only .99 percent, Stein commanded only .36 percent, and Goode gained a measly .09 percent (Eaves). With results like these, independent parties realize they have no chance at winning a presidential election anytime soon, but truthfully, they do not care.

This is because these parties never had the intention of winning the presidency. Instead, these candidates run solely for the purpose of attracting attention to their political party, and hopefully, improve their standings in pre-election, national opinion polls. Improving their status in these polls is pretty much the only goal of the major third parties, because these polls are the only obstacle in their path toward access to presidential debates.

You see since 1987, a non-profit group called the Commission on Presidential Debates has been in complete control of these televised debates (Our Mission). Aside from organizing and running these events, a significant part of their job was to determine who is allowed to participate in the presidential debates. Up until the year 2000, the commission automatically invited the candidates from the republican and democrat parties, and determined third party participants through an advisory committee composed of three people. If an independent candidate wished to participate in the debates, they had to gain the approval of this committee (Fifteen Percent). While this process did make it difficult for independents to receive an invitation to the debates, participation was still ultimately possible under this system.

However, the commission received considerable criticism after they excluded independent candidate Ross Perot from the 1996 debates against Bill Clinton and Bob Dole. To deal with these complaints, the commission decided to completely eliminate the advisory committee, and instead, establish a new system. Beginning with the election in 2000, the commission instituted a policy that has recently been dubbed “the fifteen percent barrier.” Under this policy, parties are required to receive at least fifteen percent of the popular opinion in pre-debate polls, in order to be allowed to participate in the actual debates (Fifteen Percent).

Now since the start of this fifteen percent requirement, four presidential election cycles have been completed. And over this time, republican and democrats have obviously, consistently been invited to the debates, but no independent candidate has been able to garner fifteen percent of the popular opinion. Many have criticized the system as being biased against third parties, intentionally shutting them out. They mostly claim that this policy contributes to a vicious cycle. Basically, their argument is as follows — The system requires fifteen percent in national polls to partake in debates. But without televised coverage, particularly in the debates, achieving this fifteen percent is impossible, guaranteeing exclusion from these debates. Basically, they are saying that this exclusion from the events now is the only reason they won’t be able to participate in future debates.Though this criticism is widespread across the independent political community, a vast majority of voting Americans are unaware of the issue, resulting in little support for change.

Though they pretty much have no chance at winning, third party groups will continue to put forth nominations for the presidency, if only to eventually participate in presidential debates. Only then will an independent candidate have any real hope at winning a presidential election.

Sources Cited:

Eaves, Lucas. “How Did Third Party Candidates Perform in the Election?” Independent Voter Network. Five Organization, 10 Nov. 2012. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. <http://ivn.us/2012/11/10/how-did-third-party-candidates-perform-in-the-election/>.

“Our Mission.” CPD. Commission on Presidential Debates, 2012. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. <http://www.debates.org/index.php?page=about-cpd>.

“The Fifteen Percent Barrier.” Open Debates. Open Debates, n.d. Web. 02 Apr. 2014. <http://www.opendebates.org/theissue/2000.html>.

In October of 2013 Gallup conducted a poll on the perceived need for a third party in the American political system. According to the results an astonishing 60 percent of respondents believe that a third party in the system is necessary, while only 26 percent believe the Republican party and the Democratic party are adequate enough (Jones). This is especially compelling when compared to the same poll that was conducted in 2003, which found that only 40 percent favored a third party and 56 percent were satisfied with only republicans and democrats (Jones). Given some of the gridlock and recent failings of the two party system, it really is not surprising that Americans are turning towards other options.

The natural train of, then, is that if support for third parties is up, America may be ready for a third party president. However, the American political system is complicated and relies heavily on party alliances. It seems that to get anything done in government, politicians must stand on their respective party’s platform to gain support. So before even considering whether a third party presidential candidate could win an election, we must first consider how they could be effective as a leader.

Many people have called the ability of a third party president to lead into question. The main criticism is that without a party to back and support them in congress, a potential president will be unable to make any progress. However, this may be a flawed argument based in history. As Conor Friedersdorf explains in an article for the Atlantic, the founders of the current American political system never anticipated or assumed a two party system would unfold (Friedersdorf). This meant that the government was structured in such a way that political parties would not be entirely necessary; the executive branch of the government can effectively fulfill its own duties without needing support from a party.

Another critique of electing a third party candidate for presidency is that the president is chiefly responsible for settling arguments and setting agendas in congress, and that without party lines a president would be unable to do so. But while several past presidencies may have set this precedent, Friedersdorf points out that the president’s real responsibility regarding congress is to pass through or veto legislation. He states, “Congress is perfectly capable of passing bills on matters of controversy, and a third party president would be perfectly capable of signing them while attending to other functions of the executive branch” (Friedersdorf). In this regard, a third party president could effectively re-divide the responsibilities of the federal government, which have essentially been distorted over the years.

Perhaps the most compelling reasoning in favor of a third party candidate is the return of focus on the issues. Again, with a two party political structure many politicians, for the most part, put their faith blindly in their party and other politicians in it. This is particularly evident in looking at the relationship between congress and the president. When a republican is in the executive office, republicans in both the house and the senate tend to give the president their unwavering support; the same can be said of democrats. Likewise, a president who ran on the democratic platform tends to support democrats in congress and the legislation they propose, regardless of the issues at hand. While this is clearly a logical idea, it often hinders progress in the capitol. However, a third party candidate would effectively eliminate this unwavering support and instead, he could align himself with a side based on his stance on certain issues.

In regards to the initial question, “Can a third party president effectively lead?” the answer is quite simply yes. Initial criticisms from both the right and the left may claim the opposite, but there is no reason that a president from a party outside of the republicans or democrats would be an ineffective leader. And in light of recent shortcomings of and frustrations with the federal government, perhaps a third party candidate is just what the American political system needs.

Sources Cited:

Friedersdorf, Conor. “How a Third Party President Could Successfully Govern.” The Atlantic. Atlantic Media Company, 27 Sept. 2011. Web. 19 Mar. 2014. <http://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2011/09/how-a-third-party-president-could-successfully-govern/245704/>.

Jones, Jeffery M. “Perceived Need for Third Party.” Gallup Politics. Gallup, Inc., 11 Oct. 2013. Web. 18 Mar. 2014. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/165392/perceived-need-third-party-reaches-new-high.aspx>.

As the previous post mentioned, the current political system provides many options for third parties. It was also noted that “The Big Three,” the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, and the Constitution Party, are the biggest and most largely supported third parties currently. But while these three seemed to have garnered the most support, most people know surprisingly little about the histories and current platforms of these three parties. All three have quite unique positions within the political spectrum and are certainly worth taking a deeper look at.

The Libertarian Party

The Libertarian Party was officially formed in 1972, which, despite being relatively young, makes it the oldest political party of “The Big Three” (Our History, Libertarian Party). Refusing to be defined as “left” or “right” oriented, the party initially only attracted a small following and struggled to gain any real support. However, in recent years there has been a large trend, primarily online, in support of the party. As it stands today, the Libertarian Party is the third largest political party in the United States, though it is still far behind the Democrat and Republican parties.

Initially, the Libertarian Party was formed around frustrations of the Vietnam War and the economic move from the U.S. gold standard. However, the party’s roots can be traced historically to classical liberalism, a train of thought that became popularized in the late 19^th century. Classical liberalism, and as a result Libertarianism, downplays the role of the government and emphasizes individual liberties and freedoms, strongly based on those listed in the Constitution. Simply put, the party believes individuals should be allowed to do whatever they want, so long as they are not intruding or endangering other citizens’ liberties. Libertarians also stress the importance of a free, self-regulating market, which should not be interfered with by the government.

As mentioned before, the Libertarian Party has recently attracted a substantial, almost cult-like, following. This largely reflects the inclusivity of the party, which is fueled from main elements of both the Republican and Democratic parties. Primarily, libertarians are economically conservative, like most republicans, and socially liberal, like most democrats. Like some other third parties, libertarians also adopt an anti-foreign intervention policy, which promotes peace and trade (Our History,Libertarian Party). This culmination of other parties makes the Libertarian party attractive for those who seek fiscal responsibility, but social open-mindedness.

The Green Party

The United States Green Party formally began in 1984 and was based upon four “pillars” of the party: 1) Ecological Wisdom and Conservation, 2) Social and Economic Justice, 3) Grassroots Democracy, 4) Peace and Non-violence (What We Believe,Green Party). Unlike most other political parties, the Green Party is a confederation of various state-run parties, rather than one national party. Initially, the confederation began as a non-electoral activist group, but in the 1990s they members began to run for public office under the “Green Party” affiliation. Then, in 2000, the Green Party nominated a presidential candidate, Ralph Nader, perhaps the most well known affiliate of the Green Party.

Though the party is based around the four aforementioned “pillars,” the primary concern of the Green Party is with the environment. As was the goal of the original activism-only Green Party, the modern day group emphasizes ecological sustainability through better industrial and agricultural practices (What We Believe,Green Party).  As society has grown more concerned with climate change, the Green Party has become more popular, especially among the younger crowd. But environmentalism is not the only focus of the Green Party. Like the libertarians, this party is also focused on peace through non-intervention, as well as fighting for social rights of oppressed groups. On most other economical and social rights, the Green Party tends to align with the Democrat Party, if not falling more to the left.

The Constitution Party

The smallest of the big three, the constitution party was formed in the 1900s, though it was originally called the U.S. Taxpayer’s Party. The party was formed under the belief that politicians have strayed from their duties and have begun to ignore limits on their power placed by the constitution (Seven Principles,Constitution Party). Akin to the Libertarian Party, the constitutionalists believe that the federal government has been given too much power, and that it has begun to impede on the everyday lives of the individual citizen.

The Constitution Party bases the entirety of their platform around seven core principles: 1) Sanctity of Life, 2) Individual Liberty, 3) Traditional Family, 4) Right to Property, 5) Authoritative Power of the constitution, 6) Emphasis of State’s Rights, 7) Non-intervention on Foreign Affairs (Seven Principles, Constitution Party). These seven core beliefs, many of which are shared with the Libertarian Party, guide the party and their platform, and typically tend to align with conservatives and the Republican Party.

Works Cited

 “Our History.” Libertarian Party. The Libertarian Party, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.                                     <http://www.lp.org/our-history>.

“Seven Principles.” The Constitution Party. The Constitution Party, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.                     <http://www.constitutionparty.com/our-principles/seven-principles/>.

“What We Believe.” Green Party. The Green Party of the United States, n.d. Web. 26 Feb. 2014.           <http://www.gp.org/index.php/what-we-believe.html>.

For the past 150 years, republicans and democrats have dominated the American political system. In fact, every United States president after 1854 has identified with either of these two parties – thirty men in total. Over the years these two parties have evolved drastically, reflecting changes in their supporters’ ideals, principles, and standards. However, in spite of the seeming support for a two party system, there have been recent debates over whether or not this structure is best for America. Failings of both the left and the right have led to the questioning of many Americans on their allegiances to only two parties.

Instead, many American citizens have begun to shift their focus onto more diverse political parties, which have a more narrowed focus better suited to individual’s ideals and morals. A poll released in October of 2013 truly exemplified this shift. It was found that approximately sixty percent of Americans polled believe the two major parties do a poor job representing the American people, and that a major third party is necessary in United States politics (USA Today). What many fail to realize though, is that there are many options for major third parties in the modern United States political system.

Currently, there are thirty-two federally recognized political third parties; however, only three seem to have any real support. The Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Constitution Party are all considered “major” political parties by the Directory of U.S. Political Parties. “The Big Three,” as they are sometimes referred to, are recognized as major based on statistics pulled from the past two election cycles (Politics 1). These three parties have a much more narrowed focus of goals compared to either the Republican and Democratic parties, and have all gained significant support from citizens over the past few decades. So if polls show Americans feel the need for more political options, and a multitude of alternative parties exist, why have third parties neglected to receive a substantial amount of votes?

The problem seems to be that while many American citizens vocally back third party options, they refuse to physically show support by voting for them in elections. There is a maintained general consensus among voters that a vote for a third party is a wasted vote. They believe, instead, the only real option is to vote for the “lesser of two evils.” The media tends to further perpetuate this idea, only covering candidates within the democratic or republican parties. In fact, the main surge in the third party movement appears to primaily be online.

Many mainstream, outspoken politicians have publically opposed voting for third parties as well. They claim that since no third party candidate has a shot at winning, all third parties are really successful at is drawing votes away from the “real” candidates, typically hurting their chances at getting elected. The most obvious example of this is when Ross Perot ran against the incumbent George H. W. Bush in the 1992 election. Running as an independent, Perot garnered 19 million votes in the popular vote, and it has been contested that this is the reason behind Clinton’s win.

So why vote third party? It seems pretty clear in this political climate, any candidate outside of the two major parties has almost no chance at election, so why “throw that vote away?”

The main argument on voting for third parties is to take a step in the right direction. While currently it would be nearly impossible to get elected, an increase in votes means an increase in awareness for the organization. Furthermore, if a political party can garner 5% of the popular vote in a presidential election, the following election cycle, they will receive federal funding and will become eligible for participation in televised debates. Getting elected is a process, but increasing awareness of other options may lead to more support.

But on top of this, perhaps more importantly, voting for a third party can be done to prove a point to both current and potential politicians. The two party system in American democracy has often led to a gridlock in Washington, with both sides refusing to budge. An increase votes toward a third party shows that Americans are aware that other options are available if the two parties continue to fail.

While it is unlikely that a third party candidate will be elected soon, voting for a third party can be an important step in the right direction.

Sources:

Gunzburger, Ron. “Politics1 – Director of U.S. Political Parties.” Politics1 – Director of U.S. Political Parties. Ron Gunzburger, n.d. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

Hammond, Allison. “Many Students Would Welcome Third Major Political Party.” USA Today. Gannett, 19 Oct. 2013. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.

Times, The Washington. “EDITORIAL: Third-party Votes Are Wasted.”Washington Times. The Washington Times, 31 Oct. 2012. Web. 05 Feb. 2014.