In a recent CNN poll it was suggested that 64% of Americans would like the idea of a third political party to run against the Republicans and the Democrats. Of course there are already several other parties that do run candidates, but it is assumed that the poll results refer to what would be a viable third party, i.e. a party that has a reasonable chance of winning major elections.
64% would seem to be enough of a plurality to say that America is ready for another party, but pragmatically what would that party look like? Historically third parties have arisen from the fringes of the existing parties with passionate voters who feel unrepresented by the existing parties. Such political movements are doomed to fail because they arise from an endpoint of the political continuum, and as such are appealing only to the few voters at that fringe, and very unappealing to at least half the voters from the other side of the spectrum. Ironically, the more successful the third party is, the more votes they siphon from the main-line party closest to them, the more likely they are to insure a victory for the main-line party most anathema to their positions.
I know much has been made of the Nolan Chart, which portrays the political landscape as non-linear, including axes for left/right, and for libertarian/statist. While this is an interesting exercise in determining political philosophy, it has little to do with political reality, as all but a few libertarians or statists continue to align themselves with either the Democrats or the Republicans as “the lesser of two evils”. The most recent Gallup poll on the subject of political affiliation shows that 45% of Americans identify themselves as Republican/ Lean Republican, while 46% identify as Democrat/ Lean Democrat. That leaves just 9% claiming to be unaffiliated to be split between radical libertarians, anarchists, nazis, communists, those lying to the pollsters, the oblivious, and the disenchanted. This is hardly a cohesive unit, and politically it’s probable that no one candidate could garner support from a major portion of this diverse 9%. A successful third party will need to attract voters already leaning toward one of the major parties.
If the fringes of the left or the right are not fertile ground for a successful third party run, might the center of political ideology provide a more promising avenue for success? Significant segments of both parties are repulsed by the extremes of their own party, just not as repulsed as they are by the extremes of the opposing party! If a third party could position itself in the center, might it be able to steal enough disenchanted voters from both parties to find victory? Such an attempt runs the risk of becoming neither fish nor fowl, and one way or another alienating everyone. “Moving to the center” is a successful strategy for candidates from major parties because they have the opportunity to pick up more independent voters without significantly risking losing their base at the extremes. A third party candidate would have no secure base, and would depend on the size of the center, the level of disgust with the existing parties, and its ability to remain ambiguous and nebulous on the issues to avoid offending potential voters. Such a candidate would probably need to be unaffiliated themselves, and yet experienced enough to merit election (think Jesse Ventura, or Michael Bloomburg). Charismatic enough to excite voters, yet undefined enough with references to terms open to interpretation that voters can project their own perspectives onto the candidate.
Generally, it’s hard to generate a third party run for a candidate whose strength is in his blandness or moderation! So almost all of third party runs come from the fringes. I’m not saying that the fringes are always wrong, some of our greatest heroes have come from the fringes; they’re just not popular. It’s usually assumed that these third party type movements are co-opted by the major parties. The Tea Party is seen as an arm of the Republicans, while at least most of the proponents of Occupy Wall Street lean Democratic if they are political at all, and the party is clearly seeking to capitalize on the movement. However, in the “winner take all” system that exists, alliances are a pragmatic necessity, particularly with groups at the fringes. Localized elections are always more up for grabs, but the Tea Party will not soon run a successful candidate for President! Such a movement’s greatest hope for “success” is to align with a party and move that party more toward the fringe. Some will say that this serves to alienate “the middle” where elections are won. Another way to look at it though is that a shift in ideology by one party, over time, particularly if it is a gradual shift, can actually shift the middle, the window of what is considered mainstream, also referred to as the Overton Window, in the direction of the fringe movement. The opposing party can enjoy short-term success by following this shifting window of the middle and leaning further from their base, or they can be true to their colors and try to drag the window back toward their side. This dynamic can be termed “polarization”, which seems to be the dynamic currently most at work, except during elections when candidates must at least appear moderate to the ever larger segment of the population who don’t see themselves at either extreme.
IMHO: Polarization increases the size of the bases, and the size of the middle, by dividing the electorate into more distinct groups. By so doing it creates a potential “base” in the center for a candidate charismatic enough to excite voters alienated by the extremes, yet remaining bland and indistinct enough to be inoffensive. Access to a lot of money goes without saying; a national crisis unresolved or perhaps exacerbated by the existing parties would help. Weak opponents and a platform that both intrigues voters and cannot be claimed by either mainstream party would be essential. In short, a successful third party run would require a perfect storm of national crisis, major party ineptitude, polarization, and a candidate who could excite the electorate with style over substance… I’m not sure that’s a good thing, but it might be where we’re headed!
Chances for the rise of a third-party option within the constraints of the current voting system are slim. It would be naive to hope for a viable alternative at the voting booth without challenging the single winner electoral system which keeps the status quo in power. Sadly, many voters have resigned themselves to the fact that there are only two (very similar) political parties in the U.S. and that any alternative is bound to fail. It is against this background that we must interpret the numbers of polls like the one you mentioned. Most voters identify themselves as either Democrat or Republican due to the lack of alternatives. They affiliate themselves with the lesser evil. I don’t share your conclusion that the remaining 9% are an incohesive bunch of radicals. The political fringe depends on the overall political landscape. The positions of German chancellor Angela Merkel, for instance, are farther to the left than president Obama’s. Yet, within Germany’s political landscape, Merkel and her Christian Democratic Union (one of several large parties) is considered conservative. Your group of fringe voters simply refuses to allow the Democratic and Republican parties to occupy the entire political spectrum when, in fact, these parties have long since ceased to represent the majority of Americans. It has always been beyond me how American voters could possibly think that they are partaking in a democratic process when voting in presidential elections. A necessary condition for the rise of political alternatives on the national level is the abolishment of the electoral college and the establishment of a voting system based on proportional representation.
@tsc: You’re completely right when you say that within the constraints of the current system of winner take all, a successful third party rise is dubious. At the same time it is doubtful that those two parties would ever pave the way to change that system! The 9% that don’t lean toward one of the major parties are not all radicals, I may have presented this in a confusing manner, but I suspect they are segmented and diverse enough that they might be at odds with each other as much as with the major parties. Your allusion to Ms. Merkel and her “conservative” positions is a good example of the positioning of the Overton window differently in Germany than the US. It is this positioning of the window by working within a party which would seem to be the strategy of some of the non-establishment political movements, and which leads to a looser coalition where representatives are more likely to vote their conscience than the party line.
You are right, the current voting system doesn’t allow for political alternatives to arise and the two established parties are not interested in changing the system as this would inevitably result in less power for them. In other words, the democratic process has failed and change, at this point, can only come from below, by people hitting the streets and fighting for it. That’s why the Occupy movement is relevant. I ‘m hopeful that Americans are becoming increasingly aware of the fact that they are being duped in many areas of their lives.
In the meantime, voters should feel confident that their votes are not “thrown away” if they choose to support an independent or third-party candidate. While chances of success are slim, third-party candidates play an important role in widening the Overton window by raising awareness for particular issues and presenting non-mainstream ideas to the general public through their campaigns.
It seems a fact of political life that the organization of any political entity rooted in a particular ideology automatically gives rise to its own opposition. The very fact of its existence creates the impetus necessary to organize a counter force that opposes it. It is questionable that any third political party would initially attract enough votes to win the election and is, as you suggest, far more likely to siphon off votes from the party it most resembles, thus guaranteeing the election of its most fervent opponents.