I had planned on ignoring Nader this year, but HijabMan has compelled me to write.
What I’m puzzled by, is what I see as ‘short term’ thought. Sticking with the current two party system, shuffling between two parties that obviously aren’t in it for the human-interest. So why “anyone but Bush?” and why not “Let’s try to get a third party in there, and vote Green,” for instance.
On second thought, I am still going to try to ignore Nader by keeping this discussion focussed on third party politics.
A lot of Americans I have talked to are obsessed with the two-party system. I am not sure why a two-party system as practised in the US is such a great idea. Sure, too many parties, a la Israel or Italy, can be a problem. But two major parties with a few minor parties can still lead to stable government.
On the other hand, I do not understand the logic of some third party supporters. What exactly did Nader accomplish in the 2000 Presidential elections? More than 3 years later, where is the Green party and what has it done? Where is the party machinery and grassroots support he built? What about the policies the Greens favored? Do they have any chance of being implemented by the current administration?
I look at elections very pragmatically. The purpose of my vote1 is not to waste it for a candidate I like best. Rather I weigh different options and vote for the optimum where my vote could make a difference and elect someone more likely to do stuff I would like to see done.
This is the short-term approach. For the long term, we can focus on a party or group which matches our political beliefs. We can try to build support for this party/group and run candidates at all levels. That is why I say to Green supporters: Sure vote Green. For mayor, city council, state representative, and may be even for Congress. But in what kind of a dream world would a Green party candidate run straight for President with no Green member of Congress and change the world? Want to vote 3rd party? Build one. If all goes well, in 10 years or 20, it might be strong enough to have a good shot at the President’s job.
In the 2000 elections, I also flirted with supporting Nader for a while because if he got 5% there would be federal funding for the Greens. Also, I wanted to bring a 3rd party alternative since I am not too fond of a strictly 2 party system. But then I realized that Nader was not really building the Green party at all. So I changed my support to Gore.
One argument I have heard for running a Presidential candidate is the 5% vote threshold which results in federal funding support in the next election cycle. I don’t think that really will change anything without a mass party base and activists. Plus does anyone think that there is any realistic chance of a 5% for the Green party or Nader this time around? Wouldn’t your vote be better utilized in supporting a more feasible candidate who is closer to your policy ideas?
Some Nader supporters remind me of the jihadist mindset. Change the man at the top and everything will change. Politics is much more grassroots than that.
While we are discussing third parties and Presidential elections, let’s take a look at the US Presidential elections when a 3rd candidate has gotten more than 5% of the popular vote. It has happened 13 times since 1824 from a total of 45 elections.
| Year | Candidate | Party | Vote Share |
| 1996 | H. Ross Perot | Reform | 8.40% |
| 1992 | H. Ross Perot | Independent | 18.91% |
| 1980 | John Anderson | Independent | 6.61% |
| 1968 | George Wallace | American Ind. | 13.53% |
| 1924 | Robert LaFollette | Progressive | 16.60% |
| 1892 | James Weaver | Populist | 8.51% |
| 1856 | Millard Fillmore | American | 21.53% |
| 1848 | Martin Van Buren | Free Soil | 10.12% |
| 1836 | Hugh White | Whig | 9.72% |
| 1832 | William Wirt | Anti-Masonic | 7.78% |
Now, how many of these candidates had any effect at all on the political process or later elections?
In addtion to those listed above, there were the more interesting elections of 1824, 1860 and 1912 in which the popular vote was much more divided.
| 1912 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Woodrow Wilson | Democratic | 41.84% |
| Theodore Roosevelt | Progressive | 27.40% |
| William Taft | Republican | 23.17% |
| Eugene Debs | Socialist | 5.99% |
| 1860 | ||
|---|---|---|
| Abraham Lincoln | Republican | 39.82% |
| John Breckenridge | S. Democrat | 18.10% |
| John Bell | Const. Union | 12.62% |
| Stephen Douglas | Democrat | 29.46% |
| 1824 | ||
|---|---|---|
| John Q. Adams | Democrat-Republican | 30.92% |
| Andrew Jackson | Democrat-Republican | 41.35% |
| William Crawford | Democrat-Republican | 11.17% |
| Henry Clay | Democrat-Republican | 12.99% |
1 Actually, I don’t have any vote at all nowadays. I can’t vote where I live and I am not allowed to send in an absentee ballot where I am registered to vote.
A minor question: According to the chart from 1912 that you listed, Debs got 5.99% of the vote. Shouldn’t he be on the overall list of third-party candidates who got more than 5%?
In order to know how much influence these candidates might have had, I would have to look at their platforms, at the platforms of the major party candidates at that time, and at whether the major parties subsequently adopted elements of the third party platforms. Sometimes the third party itself doesn’t succeed, but its ideas do move into the mainstream as a result of the third party candidate speaking up about them. From my observations, this is a reason that many people support Nader.
Actually many third parties influenced the two major parties by forcing them to address their issues. The Free Soil, Liberty, Populist, and Progressive are the bext examples of this. On the other hand, sometimes their stances just aren’t that popular. In the present situation, I think the best chance is to win within the Democratic party, since what the Greens really want is for the Democrats to go back to standing for traditional liberal things.
Al-Muhajabah: I left Debbs out of the first table because the 1824, 1860 and 1912 elections had 4 candidates each who got more than 5% of the popular vote. So I put them in separate tables.
Both of you have identified an important factor that I neglected in my post. There are two ways a 3rd party candidate can influence politics.
One is by building a party which is something that hasn’t at all succeeded in the US.
The other is by incorporating some of the 3rd party ideas into the national political discourse. There we see some influence from the Populists and the Progressives for example. Ross Perot probably influenced the balanced budget idea in 1992 as well.
However, I do think that this second approach works better from within the party than as an independent candidacy for President.
I am suspicious of parties, and I think that the founding fathers were correct in cautioning against the formation of them. Over time, party planks become molds into which the machinery of politics pours individuals. Local and regional aspirations are sacrificed in the great norming process called platform creation. As a result, individual politicians and loose confederations of politicians lose their independence; regions loose a measure of representation.
On the specific topic of voting Green, Democratic or Republican in the next election, I support Zack’s statement about the Greens. In the here and now, the Green’s can make a difference on the local and state level. In a few states, they might even make it to Congress. Green supporters should vote Green in local and state elections; they should back the Democrats in the presidential race.
Captain Arrrgh: We have had this discussion offline. Just repeating my viewpoint in case someone wants to chime in here.
I am suspicious of parties as well as politicians. However, I think the founding fathers were naive in thinking that political parties will not form. Political parties are here to stay because they make democratic politics much more efficient.