The System IS Rigged (Against Third Parties)

More political science geek ranting:


Why does America have a two party system? Why has there never been a third party president? Because it’s an unintended consequence baked into the Constitution.
Look at countries with stable, multiple-party systems: Canada, Germany, the United Kingdom, Israel. What do they all have in common?  They’re Westminster-style parliaments, meaning the head of government (the prime minister or chancellor) is elected by majority vote of the legislature. That means minor parties that can never win a majority on their own can wield power by winning enough seats that a major party will have to form a coalition with them in order to form a government.  The minor party then gets rewarded with cabinet seats and power over the major parties’ agenda. If the major party goes too far, the minor party can threaten to leave the coalition and cause the government to fall.

The United States by contrast has a unitary executive (the president is both head of government and head of state) who is elected separately from the legislative branch. That’s why we can and frequently do have divided government, one party controlling Congress and one the White House, something unheard of in other countries. Coming in second in a presidential election gets you exactly the same as coming in third or twentieth: nothing. How much influence did George Romney or John McCain have in the Obama Administration? George W. Bush lost the popular vote in 2000 but you didn’t see him appointing Al Gore to the cabinet. Since there’s no reward for almost winning a presidential election, third parties can’t really do much of anything except (rarely) serve as spoilers.

So should third parties just give up? Not necessarily but they should stop wasting scarce resources on vanity presidential campaigns that are never going to win. Instead, in my opinion, they should concentrate on House elections. Coalitions matter in the House, since the Speaker is elected by majority vote. The last really successful third party, the Populists, wielded at least some power in the late 19th and early 20th Centuries by winning seats in Congress, while never really getting that close to the White House. Thanks to modern, hyper-partisan gerrymandering, the majority of House districts aren’t the least bit competitive. This suggests that a party like the Libertarians might win in some Republican districts with a coalition of Democrats and Republicans who are put off by social conservatism and the Religious Right. There might be some Democratic districts where Greens could be competitive, though that seems less likely.

Sadly for them, the Libertarians have blown a golden opportunity to at least make a decent showing this year. With two historically unpopular major party nominees and most Americans desiring change, the Libertarians are getting more media attention, and thus more free publicity, than at any time in their history, maybe more than any third party candidate since Ralph Nader or H. Ross Perot. Rather than capitalize on this, they nominated a doofus like Gary Johnson who consistently embarrasses himself every time he’s interviewed by stumbling over softball questions and then poutily declaring that his ignorance is somehow a virtue. They’d have been better off with former Massachusetts Governor William Weld at the top of the ticket, but instead he’s pretty much written the whole thing off to concentrate on defeating Donald Trump. Yet another example of how third parties can’t seem to win for losing.

Published in: on October 12, 2016 at 9:19 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , , ,

Abraham Lincoln was NOT A Third Party Candidate, Dammit!

This has always been a pet poli -sci nerd peeve of mine, even more so now that Gary Johnson supporters are using it. Let’s review some historical facts, shall we?

  1. The two major parties in America from 1833-1854 were the Democrats and the Whigs. The last Whig majority in the House was the 30th Congress (1847-1849) and their last Senate majority was the 28th Congress (1843-1845). The Whigs were annihilated in the presidential election of 1852, carrying only 4 states with a total of 42 electoral votes for Winfield Scott versus 27 states and 254 electoral votes for Franklin Pierce. Clearly, the party was already on its last legs.
  2. There were four candidates for the presidency in 1860: Lincoln for the Republicans, his longtime rival Stephen A. Douglas for the Democrats, sitting Vice President John C. Breckenridge for a breakaway faction of rabidly pro-slavery Southern Democrats, and John Bell for the hastily-assembled “Compromise party,” the Constitutional Unionists. The Whigs couldn’t even drum up a candidate. In fact, they had already been reduced to lamely endorsing the Know Nothings in 1856;
  3. The Republicans were already a major force in Congress, despite having only been formed in 1854. The 34th Congress (1855-1857) started with 9 Republican Senators and only 8 Whigs; it ended with 13 Republicans and 7 Whigs. In the House, all of the non-Democratic members united in an Opposition Party. The 35th Congress (1857-1859) ended with 20 Republican senators and no Whigs; 92 Republican House members and no Whigs. At the time of the 1860 election, Congress had a majority of 26 Republican senators and 116 Republican House members. Again, there were no Whigs left.
  4. By any reasonable measure, then, the two major political parties in America by at least 1860 were the Democrats and the Republicans. Lincoln was not by any stretch of the imagination, a third party candidate.

Rant completed.

Published in: on October 11, 2016 at 8:57 pm  Leave a Comment  
Tags: , ,