1 Amanda Read Dr.

Thomas Kolasa POL 3330

Odd Ones Out: Why Third Parties Dont Fit in the American Political System

In September 2008, the upcoming presidential election was obviously a declared contest between Republican candidate John McCain and Democratic candidate Barack Obama, who were both U.S. Senators. As is probably the case in every political election, some voters were not satisfied (or at least not thrilled) with these options for the White House. Dissatisfied and disaffected voters have different approaches to such a scenario. Some decide to simply work with what is available, lending their support to the next best candidate. Others decide to sit out in protest or apathy. Still others insist that there is a third option, if only they create it. Such was the solution offered by Congressman Ron Paul, the U.S. Representative from Texas who had sought the Republican presidential nomination in the primary race. On September 10th of that year, Representative Paul held a press conference at Washington, D.C.s National Press Club to explain what he would be doing instead of endorsing his partys nominee. The truth is that our two-party system offers no real choice, the then ten-term libertarian congressman stated.1 Those candidates who represent actual change or disagreement with the status quo are held in check by the two major parties in power, making it very difficult to compete in the pretend democratic process, Paul explained. In the rest of his speech, Paul argued that despite their convictions on a lot of political issues, American voters have been conditioned to

Press Conference 09/2008, RonPaul.com (Fan Site), http://www.ronpaul.com/ronpaul2008/events/ron-paulpress-conference/ [Last accessed December 10, 2011].

2 believe that a vote for a candidate from any party other than the Republican or Democratic parties is a wasted vote. Thus, Paul reasons, the voice of the people is not being adequately represented, and it will take bold third-party voters and principled non-voters to get the message across in the midst of the Great Distraction that is American presidential campaigning. These sincere claims beg at least the following questions: Is the American political system really all that bad, or is this third-party rhetoric embellished wishful thinking? Is the American two-party system an invented monopoly of elite party machinery, or does it serve some fundamental purpose? This paper will briefly examine why history favors the two-party system for the United States, why third-party challenges against the two-party system usually fail, and how those displeased with the two major parties of today can effectively influence the government without working against the system. While some think that a third party would be a welcome answer to the current political problems in America, there is evidence that the American political system is fundamentally designed for two parties alone. This might seem counter intuitive to Americans who think parties should never have existed in the first place, and consider as evidence President George Washingtons farewell address. The first presidential farewell does indeed give an important glimpse into original partisanship in the United States. Along with James Madison and other American founders, Washington had a realist perspective of human nature, and admonished against the spirit of party which unfortunately, is inseparable from our nature, having its root in the strongest passions of the human mind. Washington was particularly concerned about the danger of factions based on geographic discriminations, probably because he could already detect the sectional tensions that would lead to bloody conflict between states in the next century.2 Furthermore, an increase in the number of political parties would make Americas federal government less functional, by nature of its presidential system. So in a way, it is actually
2

George Washington, farewell address, September 19, 1796.

3 somewhat incongruous that many third-party proponents are inclined to hearken to Washingtons distaste for political parties, because they condemn leading party establishments only to offer yet another party that they feel better represents their interests. Speaking of interests, how is it that different political interests in the U.S. have traditionally divided into two parties, and when did this begin? Two years before Washington made his farewell address, Senator John Taylor of Virginia observed that in time for the upcoming Fourth Congress (1795-1797), ideological polarization was already taking place:

The existence of two parties in Congress is apparent. The fact is disclosed almost upon every important question. Whether the subject be foreign or domestic relative to war or peace navigation or commerce the magnetism of opposite views draws them wide as the poles asunder.3

In his 2010 study on the subject, political scientist Jon X. Eguia theorizes that political parties form as a result of legislators coordinating votes to influence policy for ideological gain. While the first few congresses divided generically into Pro-Administration and AntiAdministration factions (as political geographer Kenneth C. Martis defines them), ideological partisanship became more distinct as the country matured.4 The primary reason why only two parties manage to hold power in Americas political system can be summed up in Duvergers Law, which French sociologist Maurice Duverger hypothesized in 1951: The single-ballot majority vote favors the dualism of parties.5 That is, in elections of single-member districts in which the
3

Qtd. in Roger H. Davidson, Walter J. Olesek, Frances E. Lee, Congress and its Members, 12th ed. (Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2010), 29. 4 Jon X. Eguia, The Origin of Parties: Theory, and Evidence from the United States Congress 1789-1797 (July 28, 2010), Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1650683 [Last accessed December 11, 2011], 8. 5 Qtd. in Joseph A. Schlesinger and Mildred S. Schlesinger, Maurice Duverger and the Study of Political Parties, French Politics, 2006, 4, (5868), 59.

4 winner takes all (which is the norm across the United States), competition will be tighter and likely come down to only two top contenders. This particularly complements the U.S. Constitutions design for Congress, as well as the countrys expansiveness. If more than two parties held equal electoral clout in a country of now 50 states, potentially hundreds of parties could result. That might make for lots of entertaining debates, but not much could be accomplished. The first two developed parties were the Federalist Party and the Democratic-Republican Party (also known as the Jeffersonian Republican Party).6 Generally speaking, the Federalists (i.e. Alexander Hamilton and John Adams) represented urban, northeast, centralized-government interests, whereas the Jeffersonian Republicans (i.e. Thomas Jefferson and James Madison) represented rural, Midwest and south, small-government interests. Throughout history, those two sides have expanded, overlapped, and changed form, with each successful subsequent party basically fitting into the footprints of a previous one. If there does not seem to be as much of a worldview contrast between 18th century Federalists and Republicans as there is between 21st century Democrats and Republicans, that is probably due to the relative lack of controversial social issues they had to deal with (with the glaring exception of race-based slavery, which usually was awkwardly shoved to the back burner). Americas first contested presidential election between the Federalists and DemocraticRepublicans took place in 1800, with candidates Thomas Jefferson and John Adams. Beginning with Jefferson, the Democratic-Republicans won the presidency in four consecutive elections, and the Federalists became the minority party in Washington. After the War of 1812, the Federalist Part dissolved, greatly because of their anti-war position, their demand that presidents be limited to one term, and other such unpopular ideas presented at their Hartford Convention (President James

Ronald P. Formisano, Deferential-Participant Politics: The Early Republics Political Culture, 1789-1840, The American Political Science Review, Vol. 68, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), 473.

5 Madison thought they were laughable).7 Without a consolidated opposition party, America gradually entered into her one and only brief period of one-party rule. James Monroe had a nearly unanimous electoral victory in 1820, and during his national tour afterward a Federalist newspaper in Boston welcomed the change by declaring it to be an Era of Good Feelings.8 To explain this burst of optimism, historian Daniel Walker Howe notes that political philosophers of classical times, including the Greek Aristotle and the Roman Polybius, taught that institutions of balanced government could prevent the rise of political parties and the decline of republicanism that partisanship heralded.9 The dream of a party-less system was being realized in both the White House and Congress. But it didnt stay that way for long. The spirit of party was irresistible, and also seemed to be the most effective way to mobilize agendas in Washington. The DemocraticRepublican Party split in two. The southern wing became the Democratic Party of Andrew Jackson, and the northern wing (more akin to the old Federalists) developed into the Whig Party, which was more or less a critical response to Jacksons policies.10 This splitting and merging process would continue within the following 19th century elections, eventually forming the two-party system we have today. But regardless of how many party attempts were made, only two parties could ever successfully dominate American government at once. The Republican and Democratic parties that we have today had their origin in the election of 1860, an event third-partiers like to cite as evidence of third-party success. But a closer examination of the political environment involved in the forging of the Republican Party of Lincoln reveals that this third party simply followed the usual two-party system trajectory: Out of the two parties that were present, it supplanted the one that was disintegrating. The Kansas7

Daniel Walker Howe, What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848, (Oxford: University Press, 2007), 69. 8 Ibid. 9 Ibid., 93. 10 Lakeside Publishing Group, LLC. 2005. "Whig Party, 1834-56." In Flash Focus: Political Parties, 27-31. US: Lakeside Publishing Group, LLC, 2005. History Reference Center, EBSCOhost (accessed December 12, 2011).

6 Nebraska Act of 1854 devastated the Whig Party, which then split into a pro-slavery faction and an anti-slavery faction. The pro-slavery faction was absorbed by the Democratic Party, while the antislavery faction chose to either blend with the Free Soil movement or join the Know-Nothing Party, a quintessential third-party in U.S. history. This is where the story behind the Republican Party illustrates two different strategies of gaining power in a second-party system one that works, and another that does not. The Free Soilers (including Abraham Lincoln) were able to utilize the left over party machinery of the Whig Party, and by taking the old name Republican (and Gallant Old Party or Grand Old Party) they put a refreshed label on a used vehicle. The secretive, conspiratorialist, anti-immigrant, antiCatholic Know-Nothing Party (also self-styled The American Party) had its heyday for awhile, to be sure. But the Know-Nothing Partys strength was in paranoia rather than policy. As an independent third-party, it failed to attract serious national politicians to its cause, and remained unable to consolidate at the national level (former Whig president Millard Fillmore was their chosen presidential candidate in 1856, but even he kept his Know-Nothing connections undercover).11 By the presidential election of 1860, the Republican Party had a formidable presidential candidate, and the Know-Nothing Party was an old joke. The chaotic political schism in Congress and on the ballot it was in fact a four-way race, with each candidate appealing to sectional interests split up the vote enough to award Lincoln the presidency. The Republican Party was now set to be the Democratic Partys opposition in the two-party system. Ultimately, the Republican Partys success owes to its willingness to work with the American two-party system instead of against it. This observation led me to conclude in an article last year that,

11

Ackerman, S. J. 2001. "A Riot in Washington." American History 36, no. 2: 56. History Reference Center, EBSCOhost (Last accessed December 12, 2011).

7 In order for a third-party movement to rise to power in a nation whose political core is a second-party system, the third-party must supplant one established party that is dissolving while the other established party is sharply divided, and both established parties are looking increasingly similar.12 That is not a tested hypothesis by any means, but it is an easily deduced rule of thumb. A glance at presidential elections in the 20th and 21st centuries shows what happens when voters and candidates try to buck the two-party system. Theodore Roosevelt attempted it with his Progressive (Bull Moose) Party in 1912, Ross Perot attempted it with his Reform Party in 1992, and Ralph Nader attempted it with his Green Party in 2000. They all lost, but their participation in the races proved to be detrimental to the candidate they would have otherwise supported. As Pat Buchanan candidly told Politico in reference to his Reform Party candidacy in the extremely close 2000 presidential election, The major effect, unfortunately, of third party candidates is to damage the party to which they are closest. Now I cost my votes were very, very small but they were the margin of Bushs defeats in four states.13 In his aforementioned speech, Ron Paul argued that under the two-party system we have now, only a minority of voters some 32% actually elects the American president, and that it is a reluctant minority at that.14 But ironically, trying to increase voters say in the matter with a third party actually weakens majority opinion instead of strengthening it. More than being a wasted vote, a vote for a third party candidate is actually an indirect vote for one of the candidates from the two major parties, however fallacious it might sound to a
12

Amanda Read, The Tea Party: an independent third party in the works? Not Your Average Read, The Washington Times Communities, June 4, 2010, http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-youraverage-read/2010/jun/4/tea-party-independent-third-party-works/ [Last accessed December 12, 2011]. 13 Pat Buchanan on POLITICO Primary candidates, third parties, October 2011, http://bcove.me/3oy1qbp3 [Last accessed December 12, 2011]. 14 Press Conference 09/2008, RonPaul.com.

8 principled third-partier. Political scientist Leon P. Baradat explains in one of his college textbooks that in the two-party system, a hypothetical election might result in 41% of the vote for candidate A, 39% of the vote for candidate B, and 20% for candidate C. Because plurality is needed to win in a single-member district that is a fundamental aspect of the two-party system, candidate A will win a seat of government authority with just 41% of the vote, despite the fact that 59% of voters did not vote for that candidate.15 This happened in the election of 1912, in which 50% of the vote was split between Bull Moose candidate Theodore Roosevelt and Republican incumbent William Howard Taft, allowing Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson to swoop by to the White House with just 41.8% plus a chance to score a whopping 435 electoral votes.16 This happened again in 1992, when Democratic candidate Bill Clinton won the presidency with just 43% of the vote, thanks to 56.3% of the vote getting split between Reform Party candidate Ross Perot and Republican incumbent George H.W. Bush.17 Thus, attempting to improve a two-party system by adding a third party is rather like trying to improve a bicycle by adding a third wheel. Such an addition will not be effective because it is contrary to the entire design of the structure. But there is nothing wrong with refilling or changing the tires periodically. As I have observed in previous articles, a potential example of this sort of improvement can be found in the Tea Party movement, which played an influential role in the 2010 midterm elections, and has even gained official recognition in Congress through the Tea Party Caucus founded by Representative Michele Bachmann (R-MN). Rather than attempt to work against the two-party system, members of the Tea Party work with it serving as an organization that holds the two leading parties accountable. Perhaps like the Free-Soil movement of the 1850s,
15

Leon P. Baradat, Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact, 10th ed., Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009, 126. 16 James M. McPherson, To the Best of My Ability: The American Presidents, New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2001, 401. 17 McPherson, 451.

9 the Tea Party will be prepared to infiltrate and inherit the structure of one of Americas contemporary parties. Contrary to the beliefs of third party proponents, the American two-party system is inherently the most effective way for the United States to be governed and should be worked with instead of rebelled against.

Works Cited Ackerman, S. J. "A Riot in Washington." American History 36, no. 2 (June 2001): 56. History Reference Center, EBSCOhost (accessed December 12, 2011). Baradat, Leon P. Political Ideologies: Their Origins and Impact, 10th ed. Upper Saddle River, New Jersey: Pearson/Prentice Hall, 2009. Davidson, Roger H., Walter J. Olesek, and Frances E. Lee. Congress and its Members, 12th ed. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press, 2010. Eguia, Jon X., The Origin of Parties: Theory, and Evidence from the United States Congress 1789-1797. (July 28, 2010). Available at SSRN: http://ssrn.com/abstract=1650683 [Last accessed December 11, 2011]

10 Formisano, Ronald P. Deferential-Participant Politics: The Early Republics Political Culture, 1789-1840. The American Political Science Review. Vol. 68, No. 2 (Jun., 1974), 473-487. Howe, Daniel Walker. What Hath God Wrought: The Transformation of America, 1815-1848. New York: Oxford University Press, 2007. Lakeside Publishing Group, LLC. "Whig Party, 1834-56." In Flash Focus: Political Parties, 2731. US: Lakeside Publishing Group, LLC, 2005. History Reference Center, EBSCOhost (Last accessed December 12, 2011). Pat Buchanan on POLITICO Primary candidates, third parties, October 2011, http://bcove.me/3oy1qbp3 [Last accessed December 12, 2011]. McPherson, James M. To the Best of My Ability: The American Presidents. New York: Dorling Kindersley, 2001. Read, Amanda. The Tea Party: an independent third party in the works? Not Your Average Read, The Washington Times Communities. June 4, 2010. http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/not-your-averageread/2010/jun/4/tea-party-independent-third-party-works/ [Last accessed December 12, 2011]. Schlesinger, Joseph A. and Mildred S. Maurice Duverger and the Study of Political Parties. French Politics, 2006, 4, (5868).