The Hill just became the most recent news outlet to find, through polling, that most voters want a viable third party as an alternative to the Republicans and Democrats. Their poll found that 54 percent of likely voters in 10 swing districts think there should be a third party. Their results mirror national polling from CNN (PDF) and Gallup, both of which also show majority support for a third party.
If you are thinking, “Why don’t we already have a viable third party if there really is so much demand for one?” the answer is that we have systematically structured our democracy to discourage one from gaining power. The number of viable political parties in a democracy is determined significantly by the design of its electoral system. Our election laws inherently push us toward a two-party equilibrium, but looking at other democracies, it does not need to be this way.
Most people think of a viable third party as one that can fit right down the middle, taking votes equally from each side, either because it is some theoretical perfect moderate party, or because it combines some more traditional conservative stances (like less regulation) with left-leaning policies (like support for reproductive choice and gay marriage). The problem is, it is impossible to perfectly split the difference. Any third party, be it far right, far left or an attempt a pure center, will almost always draw slightly more votes from one of the major parties than from the other, thus ending up the spoiler. Given that it is impossible to truly split the center, any third party that gets a significant share of the vote in our system will almost always end up putting the major party most opposed to their policies in power. That is what makes supporting a third party so unattractive under our system.
The Florida Senate race is a great example of this. Gov. Charlie Crist a former moderate Republican who left the party because it moved too far to the right to support him, is about as close as you can get to a candidate that could try to run straight down the middle. Yet, while Crist is polling very well (as far as independent candidates go), he is drawing more of the left-of-center vote than the right of center vote. He has split the left side with Democrat Kendrick Meek, allowing Republican Marco Rubio to gain a plurality with just the right-leaning votes. According to a Public Policy Polling [PPP] poll, the race stands at Rubio 44 percent, Crist 33 percent, and Meek 21 percent.
But if we used a different system instead of single-plurality-winner elections, this wouldn’t happen. The spoiler problem could be mitigated if we used “instant runoff” voting, which allows voters to indicate their second choice if their first choice ends up with the fewest votes. PPP actually shows us what would happen if Florida had instant runoff voting. Meek’s supporters second choice would overwhelmingly be Crist. In a head-to-head match up, Rubio and Crist each garner 46 percent. Instant runoff voting would allow voters to feel safe in voting for either of two left-leaning candidates without the consequence of helping put a Republican in power.
We know that other democracies use other electoral systems –like instant runoff voting, as well as traditional runoff elections and proportional representation– that make it easy to have several viable political parties. Systems where you can normally vote for your preferred smaller party without it greatly empowering your least favorite party. The reason we don’t have a third choice isn’t due to a lack of popular desire or need, but due to a system rigged to make it almost impossible to create a viable third party.



32 Comments
In a two way race between Rubio and Crist, it would be tied at 46%. In a two way race between Rubio and Meek, Rubio would be leading 48% to 41%. There are three other Senate or statewide races in which the third party candidate is second in the polls:
1. In the Colorado election for Governor, Tom Tancredo of the Constitution Party is only 4 points behind John Hickenlooper, with Republican Dan Maes running a distant third.
2. In the Rhode Island election for Governor, Independent candidate Lincoln Chafee is only 3 points behind the Democratic candidate.
3. In the South Carolina Senate election, Jim DeMint is at 58%; Tom Clements of the Green Party, at 12%; and Alvin Greene, at 11%.
Instant runoff would be a great improvement over plurality.
Whats the left, right breakdown of the poll?
Instant runoff is a good idea but outside of us political junkies who has heard of it? For what reason would the Dems or GOP support it unless one of them already faced third party status from a rising third party and wanted to protect what they still had?
Instant Runoff seems like a good and fair and reasonable system. Which, of course, is why we’ll never see it.
traditional the rise of a new party that threatens an exist party is a precursor to reform. Like at the Liberal Democrats in UK who will probably get instant runoff voting passed in a national referendum
That is what I hope for:)
Ranked Choice Voting with Instant Runoff (RCV/IR) is making progress here in Minnesota. Quite a few municipalities have it for local races, including both Minneapolis and St. Paul, and if either Dayton (D) or Horner (I) wins the governor’s office and the DFL retains control of both houses of the leg, there’s a good chance a comprehensive, state-wide law will pass. If one state adopts it and gets the process up and running OK others will follow.
Introducing it at a local level, such as for city, county and school board races, is a good way to introduce the concept because by eliminating the frequent need for run-off elections it both saves cost and eliminates the opportunities that run-offs with their typically very low voter turnouts present to small, extreme and motivated minorities to advance their agendas because of typically very low voter turnouts.
Some SF Bay area counties use RCV. If it spreads to the rest of the state, it may be a game-changer in terms of national visibility
Ralph Nader wrote a book “Crashing The Party” about his difficulties running as a third party candidate in 2000. The R’s and D’s control the state ballot requirements, so you might have to get a couple thousand signatures on pink paper. And that’s not the end of it — the D candidate (in Nader’s case) will challenge your ballot access in all fifty states. Kerry did it to Nader in 2004. Nader was barred from the R & D run national presidential debate. “You don’t poll high enough” — but how can you poll high when the media won’t cover you and the debates are restricted.
Speaking of debates — Laura Wells, California Green Party Nominee, Describes Her Arrest at California Gubernatorial Debate October 16th, 2010
http://www.gp.org/press/pr-national.php?ID=359
A couple years ago I was in the Republic of Ireland during the national election. A dozen candidates, including socialists, greens, labor etc., all giving their pitches — it was great viewing on the telly in the pub I just happened to be in. Proportional representation — democracy in action.
Forget all this Instant Run Off and other too-clever-by-half stuff:
we need proportional representation: what ever % of the vote a party gets, it gets that % of the power.
Well there are several forms of proportional representation. I think I prefer single transferable over party line proportional
I disagree, ranked choice voting is available where I live and I never have a 2nd or 3rd choice. It’s always the same one. If I have 3 choices and hate all of them, what’s the point? I’m still stuck voting for the lesser of 3 evils. What, I’m supposed to vote for the one I hate the most? No, I don’t want to give a Republican backed sob any support.
We need a Progressive Labor Party to represent those of us who are not billionaires. That would leave a rump Democratic Party comprised exclusively of Blue Dogs, which would make them the de facto “third party”.
A lot of people have been saying for a long time that a third party will need to be built from ground up.
Top down candidate based efforts are doomed. Ocassionally a Jesse Ventura might win on sheer charisma, but the vast majority fail.
A third party needs to have MORE obvious local ground efforts, not less.
Sorry… but Ralph Nader was about Ralph Nader.
He was only interested in party building as far as it involved his campaign.
Just another guy who figured out he liked cameras pointed at him.
Get some paper ballots first.
Get them counting votes again. Worry about the rest later.
Then you must love being in the minority and enjoy the present system. You think running for president is easy? You maybe preferred Kerry’s positions on war, patriot act, corporate welfare, health care, drug war, and trade?
Sorry, you’re wrong.
Jon — I’d be interested in your take on Nancy Bordier’s idea of creating a web-based interactive network that, among other things, could “work within existing parties, take over existing parties, or start new parties.” Wouldn’t something along those lines be able to organize citizen activism in a way that might make a third party a rational alternative for a change? Or strengthen the public’s influence within the existing two parties, thereby making a third party unnecessary?
The one and only thing the two parties agree on is that there will be no viable third parties. This is a waste of time and effort. And I speak as a life-long third-party supporter and registered Green.
We need to seriously examine the Tea Party as a model for a viable third party. Not their crazy-town Christian Dominionist fascism, but for ideas on how to make a third party work.
Every Republican candidate this cycle was afraid of a viable primary challenge from their right. They governed to the right, ran to the right, and will keep governing to the right after they are elected for fear of a challenge next cycle. Those that didn’t shift right were pushed out. How many Democrats were afraid of a viable primary challenge from their left?
The Establishment threw their full weight against Bill Halter (who is hardly a lefty) to preserve the utterly doomed candidacy of Blanche
DuBoisLincoln. It would still have been an uphill struggle, but Halter at least had a shot. With enough support from an Espresso Party, he might have won the primary and been a viable candidate in the general.Recruit and support Democratic primary challengers in a manageable number of races, never run your own (except in a special case like North Dakota where the Democrats aren’t even running a candidate). Recruit the most progressive candidate that is electable, then support the hell out of him/her. Don’t try to elect Bernie Sanders in South Carolina. Run no spoiler candidates in the general. Pivot after the primary season to support ANY reasonably progressive Democrat (not limited to your own candidates). Target your limited resources to races where you can make a difference.
Why a party if you aren’t going to run candidates on your own line? Maybe that’s not the right organizational vehicle, but I’ve seen reports of six-figure contributions from the Tea Party Express to various candidates. Perhaps there are advantages to organizing as a political party.
The Espresso Party would never have billionaire sugar-daddies, nor are they going to have a 24/7 propaganda network. But real grassroots should deliver more votes than astroturf.
The Democratic Party is only interested in more Democrats, not better Democrats. That isn’t going to change. But the Democratic Party is the only viable vehicle for electing better people.
What you are talking about is the Non-partisan league model. I wrote a whole series on it.
The U.S. Constitution was written around the time that Condorcet was looking at voting systems in France. While the Framers did think about the problems of voting, they didn’t think about them in any sort of systematic fashion. The one idea they had (the Electoral College) has generally been a lot more trouble that it was worth.
The usual American voting system is first-past-the-post: the candidate with the largest share of cast votes wins. As noted, this can result in winning candidates who are lower-ranked in preference by the majority of the electorate.
Both major parties are well-aware of this flaw in our system. The Republicans have occasionally encouraged Green candidates to stand for election in heavily Democratic districts. The Democrats are hoping the Tea Party movement has a similar effect this year.
The strategy occasionally works. Bill Redmond was elected from the NM Third district when Bill Richardson was appointed Ambassador to the United Nations. NM-3 is a very heavily Democratic district, Redmond is a conservative Republican who won when a Green Party candidates pulled enough votes away from a not-terribly-popular Democratic candidate (Eric Serna).
Basically, we need to bring our vote counting methods into the 20th Century. One of the knocks on alternative vote counting methods is that they are difficult to manage in a hand count. That’s true. But we have our votes counted by computers now, so why not let the computer count the votes in a way that reflects our real preferences?
Note that I’m not advocating black-box systems. Vote-counting code must be open-sourced if it is to be credible. But open-source code isn’t that big a deal. If we can have open source operating systems (Linux), open source languages (Python), and open source statistic systems (R-Project) we can build open source voting systems.
except in a special case like North Dakota where the Democrats aren’t even running a candidate
State Senator Tracy Potter (who’s a dude) is the Democratic-NPL nominee. It seems like there isn’t a Dem candidate simply because the GOP candidate, Governor John Hoeven is so popular (approval rating over 80%) that he probably could have won the Democratic primary if he had filed in both primaries.
As I’ve mentioned before, Cynthia McKinney sponsored a bill, The Voter Choice Act of 2005, that’d require instant runoffs for all federal races while allowing states with more than one Representative to opt-in to a proportional voting system for congressional races.
http://archive.fairvote.org/?page=1055
The next time the President is trying to scrape together 60 Senate votes, it’d be straightforward enough for a progressive senator (as an Independent, Bernie Sanders is the obvious choice) to insist the Voter Choice Act be added to whatever bill the President wants passed as a condition of his or her vote.
the spoiler effect is junk now, there is no difference if an (R) prevails over a (D), so spoil away! your conscience will thank you for it, if you are one of those people who put humanistic values over team loyalty to the blue Donkey.
for example, I don’t have the countless innocent civilian deaths in Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan and elsewhere on my conscience – those who voted in support of the new CIC’s imperialistic “War on Terra” policies do.
You’re right. We need proportional representation and instant run-off and/or “1-2-3″ voting (same thing.) To quote Paul Street:
PR is better than IRV for legislatures. IRV is necessary for inherently single-seat elections, like Governor or Secretary of State.
We can walk and chew gum. We can work on getting paper ballots as we reform the electoral system. With the problems facing our country now, I don’t believe that third parties can afford to wait for paper ballots.
Yeah, WELL even in Floriduh we’d prefer a third choice; NOT a recycled, unrepentant rethug (shades of DEM LIEberman); and indeed we have a libertarian and SEVEN Others!
I think they meant South Dakota Senate where there really is not one candidate facing the Republican Thune
A real missed opportunity for the Greens. If they had an organized party in South Dakota, they probably couldn’t have beaten Thune, but it would have given them a good opportunity to get their message out.
Dan Carlin has been ranting about third parties for years. Now, Thom Friedman also brings it up. Never going to happen.
The Working Families Party in New York is showing that things can be different. As far as I’m concerned; “instant runoff” voting, “fusion voting” and the like should be the top legislative priority for progressives. Start locally and transform our national politics from the bottom up.
http://www.workingfamiliesparty.org/
http://www.thenation.com/article/155383/whos-afraid-progressive-power
Thanks, didn’t realize Thune was running unopposed. Why would either party leave a US Senate nomination vacant? Running a sacrificial lamb candidacy is one of the best ways that a politician on the rise can make a name for themselves for a future race.
1. The party regulars appreciate you taking one for the team.
2. With no risk of actually winning, you can focus on charming reporters and (perhaps more importantly) newspaper editorial boards with being comfortable in your own skin, well-informed and honest instead of saying anything to win.
3. You can build name recognition among voters that can pay off in future races. Since the prohibitive favorite has no reason to go negative, a sacrificial lamb candidate’s public image will be usually established on his own terms.