Vo 1
Vicky Vo
Univ 200
Mary Lou Hall
1 May 2016
Why Third Parties Cannot Get Elected
Imagine this scenario: you’re finally 18 and you can finally vote. You registered months in
advance, and you have studied candidates well. You realize that the two major parties have ideas
that conflict with your own, so you decide to be an independent. On Election Day, you approach
the polls and look at the names on the ballot. You write down the name of a third party candidate
because you don’t support the two major parties. After you have voted, you feel accomplished.
You feel proud of yourself, and you ask your friends and families who they voted for. A majority
of them answered, “Republican” or “Democrat." When they asked you who you voted for, you
proudly say that you supported a third party. Your friends and family are appalled. “Why waste a
vote? What does that party even support? If more people voted like you, the vote would be split
and the opposing party would win.” Questions and accusations flood your ears. You’re pressured
to limit yourself to two parties because the third party you support will never be elected. In
America, the two party system dominates the political system. It is almost impossible for third
parties to get elected due to the lack of attention by the media and the winner take all system.
However, third parties serve an important purpose in the political process by bringing up essential
issues and relieving polarization between the two major parties.
In order to fully analyze why third parties cannot get elected, it is important to look at the
types of third parties and their contribution to the United States Democracy. One of the biggest
and fastest growing third parties in the United States is the Libertarian Party. They run the platform
Vo 2
of having conservative economic beliefs and liberal social beliefs. Even
though this seems like a compromise between the disagreements of the
Democrats and Republicans, the Libertarian Party has a very hard time
getting on the ballot. One of the reasons for this is because they’re not very
well known. According to Figure 1 created by Pew Research, in a sample
of 3,243 adults, only 14% of the people who they surveyed identified
themselves as a Libertarian, and only 77% of those 14% correctly identified
what a Libertarian was (Kiley). The author of the article is the associate
director of research, so she is a very reliable source. This shows that very
few people can even identify what a Libertarian is and what they politically
believe in. This is not uncommon for third parties due to the huge amount
that exists and their lack of exposure to the public.
The lack of knowledge of third parties and what they stand for
stems from the media. According to John Kirch, journalist of the Sage
Journal, “The press can set the nation’s political agenda, organize
Figure 1. Who Calls Themselves Libertarians, from
Jocelyn Kiley; In Search of Libertarians; Pew
Research: 25 Aug 2014; Web 23 Mar 2016
elections by determining which candidates are the most viable, shape
candidate images through the use of news frames, and act as “guardians of political norms” by
legitimizing important political institutions” (400). This is an important statement because it means
that the press can either make or break a candidate. They decide who the voting population should
like and who they should dislike. The media is very influential in a politician’s campaign and their
likelihood of winning. Adam Chamberlain, a political science professor, from Coastal Carolina
University conducted a study on the popularity of third parties in the 1800’s vs the popularity of
third parties now. He found that third parties were much more popular in the 1800’s and this is
Vo 3
because third parties stemmed from
local areas. As seen on Figure 2, towns
that were in clusters had a median of
78% that voted for their local third
party while towns that were not in
clusters had a median of 60% who
voted for third parties (354). Because
Figure 2. Comparison of Towns, from Adam Chamberlain; 1855
Republican percentage vote; The Sage Journals; Web 25 Mar. 2016
the town was in clusters, they were
more likely to discuss politics and it
was easier for their local third party to get elected. The lack of media also prevented the public
from acknowledging other parties, so people felt a closer connection to their third parties. In the
present, people are known to be more mobile instead of living in clusters. News does not travel by
mouth but through the media. Since the media chooses to only focus on the two major parties,
people are not likely to be aware of the third parties growing in their neighborhood.
Presidential debates only include Democrats and Republicans, with no mention of the third
party. According to the Washington Post, a famous, widely circulated newspaper, the Commission
on Presidential Debates (CPD), a group that organizes presidential debates is ran by both the
Democrats and the Republicans (Harper). This shows that Democrats and Republicans are working
together to exclude other parties from receiving attention from the public. Even when third parties
fought back, they could not compete with the powerful major parties. Dima Ansari, a political
activist, stated that the CPD was sued by the Green and Libertarian party for violating the “Equal
Time” clause in under the Communications Act of 1934, a law that states that all candidates must
have equal air time. However, Congress exempted the CPD from that law. When third parties try
Vo 4
to hold debates of their own, these debates were not aired on any televised news channels. This
shows that the media purposely tries to prevent the public from acknowledging Third Parties. In
addition, a company that runs the presidential debates is ran by Republicans and Democrats and
they are protected from the law by Congress. According to the Office of the Clerk, the 114th
congress is consisted of
300 republicans, 232 democrats, and
only two independents. This shows that congress is also predominately ran by
these two major parties who work together to prevent other parties from entering the political
arena. This not only shows a poor representation of democracy, but shows how the media and the
public is manipulated by these two groups of people.
Other than the presidential debates, the rest of the media is not controlled by Congress, but
privately owned corporations still don’t provide third parties with enough coverage. When John
Kirch conducted a research on third parties, he interviewed journalists from famous newspapers.
He found that journalists refuse to cover third parties because they lack the resources to cover all
the candidates, they only want to focus on winning candidates, and the journalists believe in a two
party system.
Carla Marinucci, journalist of the San Francisco Chronicle stated that her
newspaper lacks the financial resources to cover all the candidates, so unless readers demand more
stories about third parties, they will only report stories on the two major parties (Kirch, 407). Due
to the lack of financial resources, the media cannot cover everyone, but they choose to ignore third
parties, showing a biased towards the two major parties. This is because they only want to focus
on candidates who they believe will win. Mark Barabak of the Los Angeles Times stated that his
newspaper has “almost a perfect track record” when picking a winning candidate to report (Kirch,
406). This is a really big problem because the amount of coverage the press provides for a political
Vo 5
party will help them get recognized by the public. If they don’t believe that a third party candidate
can win, then they’ll never cover a third party candidate, the public won’t be exposed to them, and
third parties will never get on the ballot. The third reason why candidates choose not to cover third
parties is because they believe in a two party system. After Kirch interviewed the journalists, he
stated that “If these interviews are any indication, reporters consider campaigns to be primarily
two-person affairs” (407). If a journalist personally believes that campaigns were meant to be a
two party system, then they will see third parties as irrelevant and personally choose to not include
them in their newspapers or newscasts. This shows that if the journalists keep this mindset, then it
would be virtually impossible for the public to acknowledge them and for them to get on the ballot.
The winner take all system is a huge component as to why third parties cannot get elected.
A winner takes all system is usually prevalent in a two party system, which is what United States
political system centers around. It’s when a voter can only vote for one candidate and one party to
win and all other parties who lost get nothing. This system brings out strategic voting, where a
person votes for their preferred major party, but not a third party, which could have been their first
choice. Shaun Bowler and David Lanoue, two political science professors at UC Riverside, did a
strategic voting
case study on strategic voting in Canada. They found that, “…
necessarily hurts third parties and that the transfer of
votes is typical from the third party to one of the
bigger ones” (02). This shows that voters who would have supported third parties decide
to vote for a major party instead because they’re afraid of wasting their vote or splitting the vote.
Vo 6
Although this is a strategy to prevent their least favorite major party from winning, it also prevents
third parties from winning.
A very famous example of splitting the vote was in 1912 when Teddy Roosevelt formed
the Bull Moose Party as a third party and ran against William Howard Taft. As shown in Figure 3,
Roosevelt ended up splitting the vote amongst the republicans and this enabled Woodrow Wilson
to win, a democrat. The Bull Moose Party
showed that having a successful third party
leads to splitting the vote which aids in
having the unpopular major party win.
This started a trend for strategic voting in
a winner take all system. Having a winner
take all system forces voters to choose
between their favorite third party and a
Figure 3. The Vote Splitting, from James Chace; 1912: Wilson,
Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs—The Election That Changed the Country.
Web. 1 May 2016
major party that they somewhat support.
.
A modern day example of this is the Green Party. The Green Party runs a platform based
on environmental issues, political reform, and social equality which is more similar to the
Democratic Party’s platform. Donella Meadows, an environmental studies professor at Dartmouth
University, told her story about being accused of wasting a vote by Govenor Russell Peterson:
“I have no intention of voting for George W Bush. I will vote and work for Democrats for
Congress. I am sick of Republican committee chairs trying to give away overgrazing rights on
public lands, privatize national parks and drill for oil in wildlife refuges. But for president, I'll
vote for Ralph Nader of the Green Party. Peterson's jaw dropped. He bore in on me. "But Nader
Vo 7
will draw votes away from Gore, not Bush! How can you do that?" Not only do I sympathize with
his argument; I've made it myself. Why waste a vote on Nader; who is not even a serious candidate?
(He spent 55,000 on his last presidential campaign and got 800,000 votes - one of the best votesto-dollars ratios in history). He says he’ll spend E5 million on this one. How will I feel, Peterson
asked, if I ditch Gore and then have to watch Bush for four or eight years take away abortion
rights, build prisons, promote guns and enrich oil companies?
Peterson’s fear of splitting the vote shows that governors can be so concerned with stopping
the opposing party from winning, they prevent their favorable party from winning too. This fear
causes people to think about the candidates as a lesser two evils; they can’t vote for the third party
who they agree with because they’ll waste a vote so they’ll usually vote for the major party they
hate the least. This is a bad representation of democracy because people are voting for their second
choice rather than their first. If this fear continues, the two major parties will continue to dominate
the United States political process.
Strategic voting doesn’t only impact average citizens, it also affects the electorate,
particularly the Tea Party. The Tea Party is a very conservative, religious party. Their movement
began around the 1990’s where the first protest was held to lower taxes, decrease government
regulation, and lower the national debt. Even though the Tea Party is one of the biggest third
parties, their members choose to vote for one of the major parties. In 2010, 86% of the Tea Party
members in the electorate decided to vote for the Republican House candidates (Clement). Why
would they do this? It’s because the Tea Party knows that as a third party, they cannot win, so they
vote for the Republican Party, a major party whose platform matches theirs the most. They do this
Vo 8
in fear of splitting the vote and causing the Democrats to win. When members of the electorate
fear splitting the vote, it sets a precedent for citizens and cause them to have that fear too.
The winner take all system not only prevents third parties from winning, it allows the
Democrats and Republicans to dominate the political system. As mentioned earlier, Congress is
controlled by Democrats and Republicans. Not only do they use the media to stay in power, they
also use gerrymandering to manipulate the outcome of elections. Gerrymandering is when
congress draws the lines of the districts to decide the voting districts. However, gerrymandering
shows a clear and unjust bias. According to The Washington Post journalist Christopher Ingraham,
“But a fundamental problem with district-drawing still remains: as long as humans are
drawing the lines, there's a danger of bias and self-interest to creep into the process. There is
another way, however: we could simply let computers do the drawing for us.”
Figure 4. Comparing Gerrymandering, from Ingraham Christopher; This Is Actually What America Would Look like without
Gerrymandering; The Washington Post; 16 Jan. 2016; Web. 1 May 2016
Vo 9
As seen from above, the lines generated by the computer shows a more proportionate
redistricting of the United States. The lines that congress drew are much more complicated and
confusing. There is no reason for these lines besides a purposeful intention to split up districts and
votes to ensure that they win. Later on in the article, Ingraham explains, “One of the telltale signs
of gerrymandering is dramatically non-compact districts that squiggle and squirm out in all
different directions -- evidence of lawmakers trying to bring far-flung voters into a single district
in order to achieve the partisan mix that best favors their party.” If one district all supports a third
party, congress can easily split them up using gerrymandering to destroy their vote. This computer
generated map was produced in 2014, but there has been no discussion of letting computers redraw
districts instead of humans. It’s clear that Republicans and Democrats in congress use
gerrymandering to protect their own interests and prevent third parties from winning elections.
It is clear that third parties have a nearly impossible time of getting elected, but why should
that matter? How are third parties crucial to the American political system? Third parties are
important because serve a role in relieving polarization between the republicans and democrats.
As mentioned earlier, Libertarians cannot get on the ballot because very few people know about
them. However, most of their beliefs actually do match the general public’s beliefs.
Figure 6. Comparing the General Public and Libertarians, from Jocelyn Kiley; In Search of Libertarians; Pew Research: 25 Aug 2014; Web 23 Mar 2016
Vo 10
In a Pew Research study, a sample of 3,243 people were asked about their beliefs on whether the
government’s aid to the poor does more harm than good. According to the graphs above, 48% of
the general public says it does more harm than good compared to 47% who says it does more good
than harm. 57% of Libertarians states that it does more harm than good compared to 38% who
thinks that it does more good than harm. Although 47% vs 48% is a very thin margin, it can still
be concluded that a majority of the general public agrees with the majority of the Libertarians
when it comes to government aid. Another economic issue is the regulation of private businesses.
The public had a split at 47% vs 47% being both for and against government regulation. However,
41% of Libertarians are for government regulation vs 56% of Libertarians who are against
government regulation. This data shows that while the public does not agree with Libertarians on
this issue, they don’t necessarily disagree with them either. While economic issues may seem like
a debatable topic between the general public and Libertarians, the disagreements are very narrow,
if any. In addition economic issues, another issue was raised concerning homosexuality. 62% of
the general public think that homosexuality should be accepted while 31% think it should be
discouraged. Similarly, 67% of Libertarians accept homosexuality while 26% think it should be
discouraged (Kiley).
This shows that the majority of the general public also agrees with Libertarians with issues
concerning personal rights. Another issue concerning personal rights is marijuana use. 54% of the
general public and 65% of Libertarians think that marijuana should be legalized. This shows that
a majority of both groups believe that people should have the government should not interfere with
personal freedoms. Lastly, another category looked at was the United States involvement with
foreign affairs. 60% of the general public thinks that the United States should only focus on our
issues back home which is similar to 54% of the Libertarians thinking the same. This data shows
Vo 11
that the general public seems to agree with the Libertarian’s stance on economic, social, and world
affair issues. Libertarians do not only provide a more moderate stance between the democrats and
republicans, but they also relieve polarization between the two major parties by providing a middle
ground.
Third parties also relieve polarization by providing citizens with other options. Many
citizens vote for third parties in the form of protest voting. Protest voters are usually
“…disenchanted with the performance of the major parties or the incumbent government, may
vote for a third party not so much to unseat an incumbent as to reduce the majority of that
incumbent and so send a message of dissatisfaction” (Bowler and Lanoue). Protest voting is a way
for citizens to express their dislike for both major parties and a dislike for incumbents. This is an
important way for citizens to express a need for change. If a large amount of people protest vote,
the results in the elections would show an overwhelming discontent for the major parties and would
push the government toward a change. In addition to that, third parties also provide more options
for voters so they wouldn’t feel that they would only have two parties to choose from.
Third parties don’t only provide other options for the voting population and relieving
polarization, they also bring up essential issues. PBS, an informative news station stated that, “In
the late 1800s and early 1900s, the Socialists popularized the women’s suffrage movement. They
advocated for child labor laws in 1904 and, along with the Populist Party, introduced the notion of
a 40-hour work week, which led to the Fair Labor Standards Act of 1938” (Nwazota). Because a
third party brought up the issue of women’s suffrage, the general public became more invested in
it. This caused the Republicans and Democrats to adopt this issue into their platform and when
they won the election, they allowed congress to pass the Fair Labor Standard Act. Third parties
are what introduces real change into our democracy and society. Unfortunately, once the issue has
Vo 12
been called into attention by the major two parties, the issue will dissolve, as do the third parties
who bring up the issues.
It is virtually impossible for third parties to get elected due to the lack of attention from the
media and the winner take all system. Due to
these factors, Congress is able to control the
distribution of votes through controlling the
media and gerrymandering. Since Congress is
ran
by
predominantly
democrats
and
republicans, these two parties are deciding
who gets elected, and what issues will be
addressed. Since they don’t want to share the
Figure 6. We The People, from Backbone Campaign; Rolling Rebellion
Sparks in Seattle to Defend Internet & Stop the TPP; Flickr. Yahoo! Web. 02
May 2016.
power with third parties, presidential debates and redistricting will always be steered towards
keeping third parties from getting on the ballot. However, having two parties dominate the US
political system and dictating votes is a horrible representation of US democracy. If the public
continues to only vote for major parties, democrats and republicans will continue to solely run the
government. This means that the United States will progress in the pace that Congress wants it to,
and the people elected will be who Congress wants, not what the public wants. If the power is
really in the hands of a selected few instead of the entire population, this is not a democracy.
Although third parties continue to be ignored by the majority of the public, they do have
enough power to play a role in the political system. Third parties serve a very important purpose
in the United States by providing the public with more choices, enabling protest voting, and
bringing up essential issues. Because of third parties, new issues and opinions that Congress does
Vo 13
not address can still be addressed. The public should make a larger effort to learn about third parties
and put them in power because then a true democracy will be restored.
Vo 14
Works Cited
Ansari, Dima. "Three’s a Crowd: How the Media Ignored Third Party Candidates | The Chicago
Monitor." The Chicago Monitor Threes a Crowd How the Media Ignored Third Party
Candidates Comments. 13 Nov. 2012. Web. 23 Mar. 2016.
Bowler, Shaun, and David J. Lanoue. "Strategic and Protest Voting for Third Parties: The Case of
the Canadian NDP." Sage Journals. Web. 1 May 2016.
Chace, James (2004). 1912: Wilson, Roosevelt, Taft, and Debs—The Election That Changed the
Country. New York: Simon and Schuster. Web. 1 May 2016
Chamberlain, Adam. “The Growth of Third-Party Voting: An Empirical Case Study of Vermont,
1840–55.” State Politics and Policy Quarterly. Web 25 Mar. 2016
Harper, Jennifer. "Third Party Anger: Libertarian and Green Candidates Sue the Commission on
Presidential Debates." Washington Times. The Washington Times, 29 Sept. 2015. Web.
01 May 2016.
Ingraham, Christopher. "This Is Actually What America Would Look like without
Gerrymandering." Washington Post. The Washington Post, 13 Jan. 2016. Web. 01 May
2016.
Kiley, Jocelyn. "In Search of Libertarians." Pew Research Center RSS. 25 Aug. 2014. Web. 23
Mar. 2016.
Kirch, John F. "Why News Reporters Ignore Third-party Candidates." Sage Journals. 2015. Web.
1 May 2016.
Liu, Joseph. "The Tea Party and Religion." Pew Research Centers Religion Public Life Project
RSS. 23 Feb. 2011. Web. 01 May 2016.
Meadows, Donella. "A Vote Wasted?" Proquest. 2000. Web. 1 May 2016.
Vo 15
Nwazota, Kristina. "Third Parties in the U.S. Political Process." PBS. PBS, 26 July 2004. Web. 23
Mar. 2016.
"Office of the Clerk, United States House of Representatives." Office of the Clerk of the U.S.
House of Representatives. Web. 01 May 2016.
"Rolling Rebellion Sparks in Seattle to Defend Internet & Stop the TPP." Flickr. Yahoo! Web. 02
May 2016.
"Teddy Roosevelt Nominated as Bull Moose Candidate." History.com. A&E Television
Networks. Web. 01 May 2016.
"Www.gp.org." Www.gp.org. Web. 01 May 2016.
Vo 16
Multimodal Reasoning:
1. Figure 1: "Who Calls Themselves Libertarians" shows the 11% split up into ideologies.
This is important because in the last category it shows the 11% split up into political parties:
democrats, republicans, and independents. The majority is independent, showing that
Libertarians are not mostly controlled by the two major parties. They have their own beliefs
and agendas. Also, most Libertarians are college graduates, meaning that as more people
graduate college, the number of Libertarians may rise. This could contribute to the rise in
Libertarianism.
2. Figure 2. Comparison of Towns” shows a visual representation of the medians in towns
that were in clusters vs towns that were not in clusters. This gives the reader a better
understanding of the difference between 60% and 78%. Not only that, the box shows that
the range for towns that were not in clusters is much more spread out than towns in clusters.
This shows that there is more disagreement in voting for third parties in towns that were
not in clusters.
3. “300 republicans, 232 democrats, and only two independents” in a larger font emphasizes
the amount of republicans and democrats vs the amount of independents in congress. This
shows a huge gap in the difference in ideologies that congress has. We either have a very
liberal perspective or a very conservative perspective. There is very few people who can
relieve the polarization and help congress find a middle ground. This number supports the
argument that when congress declares something, it is in the interest of either a democrat
or republican since they overpower the independents.
4. “Strategic voting necessarily hurts third parties and that the transfer of votes is typical from
the third party to one of the bigger ones” is in a larger font because it emphasizes that
Vo 17
strategic voting ends up hurting third parties. I think this may be the most important quote
in the paper. While people think that strategic voting eliminates their least favorite
candidate, it also eliminates their first choice. In my opinion, strategic voting is the biggest
reason why third parties cannot win.
5. Figure 3: “The Vote Splitting” gives a visual representation of the vote being split. It’s
clear to see that the major states: California and Pennsylvania which was worth a lot of
votes were split between Roosevelt and Taft. This allowed Wilson to win by a landslide.
This emphasizes that a successful third party will more likely split the vote and allow the
alternative party to win rather than winning itself.
6. Figure 4: "Comparing Gerrymandering" is a really important visual representation. It
shows the difference between the US map with gerrymandering and a computer generated
map. This emphasizes the fact that gerrymandering shows a bias by showing the uneven,
squiggly lines that congress drew. The computer generated lines are a lot more even, but
congress still decides to hand draw the districts to control the distribution of votes.
7. Figure 5. "Comparing the General Public and Libertarians" shows the comparison of
ideologies between the general public and libertarians. The three graphs shows economic
issues, personal rights, and world affairs. This is important because it gives a visual
comparison instead of just a list of statistics.
8. "We The People" gives a pathos appeal. The dark night allows the sign “We the people” to
illuminate the picture. The phrase “We the people” emphasizes the fact that democracy is
for the people to decide who gets elected, not for the government to decide.