Political Parties in American History
227
Election Connection
A Third Party Comes in Second: 1912
n 1912 the incumbent president, Republican William
Howard Taft, finished a distant third in the popular
vote and won only eight votes in the electoral college.
Democrat Woodrow Wilson was the winner, and former
President Theodore Roosevelt came in second, running as
the Progressive party or “Bull Moose” candidate.
The young “Teddy” Roosevelt had become president
in 1901, rising from the vice-presidency when President
William McKinley was assassinated shortly after his term
began. An energetic, colorful, and popular president,
Roosevelt managed to straddle the split in the Republican
party between the old-guard pro-business conservatives
and the emerging Progressives. After serving out McKinley’s
term, he was easily elected in his own right in 1904. Although
he had not served two full terms, Roosevelt chose not
to run in 1908, turning the nomination over to his vicepresident and friend, Taft, who won a comfortable victory.
Taft was neither as energetic nor as colorful as
Roosevelt, nor was he a very astute politician. Although his
policies originally were little different from Roosevelt’s, he
antagonized important elements of the party. Moreover, as
the party split widened, Taft increasingly allied himself with
the old guard, whereas Roosevelt had increasingly favored
the Progressives.
Roosevelt returned home from safari in 1910 (despite
his reputation as a conservationist, he shot over 3000 animals in Africa, including 13 rhinos and 5 elephants).a Former
supporters begged him to reenter the political fray and
take the nomination from Taft. In 1912 Roosevelt hammered Taft in the primaries, but they meant little in that
era. At the convention, he was hammered in turn by professional party operatives and southern delegations loyal to
Taft. Outraged, his supporters formed a new Progressive
party, held a convention later in the summer, and nominated Roosevelt, who told them that he felt as strong as a
bull moose.
The split was fatal to the Republican party. Although
Woodrow Wilson received less than 42 percent of the popular vote, he was elected president as Republicans divided
their votes between Taft and Roosevelt. Wilson was
reelected in 1916. Wilson’s two victories were the only ones
I
Teddy on Safari
Teddy Roosevelt, noted conservationist, on Safari in 1910.
by Democratic presidential candidates in the entire fourth
party system—1896 to 1928.
•
In the 2000 primaries John McCain compared himself to
Theodore Roosevelt. How does his failure to gain the nomination
contrast with Roosevelt’s?
•
On the whole, do you think the two-party system has served
the United States well, or would it be better to have more major
parties running candidates in U.S. elections?
a
John Garrity, The American Nation: A History of the United States (New
York: Harper & Row, 1966), p. 664.
forces in the “Cold War” that followed. Foreign policy was formulated in a relatively
nonpartisan fashion during this period, leaving politics to the domestic economic
issues that favored Democrats. But once again, the Democratic party could not deal
with racial divisions. In 1936 Roosevelt won repeal of the 104-year-old two-thirds
rule. By requiring that the Democratic nominee receive a two-thirds majority of the
delegates at the national convention, the rule had given the South a veto over the
nominee. With its elimination, the South was increasingly unable to resist the growing national pressure for racial justice. Just as the inability to reconcile its northern
and southern wings splintered the Jacksonian Democracy in the 1850s, the inability
to reconcile its northern and southern wings splintered the New Deal Democrats a
century later. By 1968 the Democratic party was at war with itself, and Republican
Richard Nixon was elected president.
two-thirds rule
Rule governing Democratic national conventions from 1832 to 1936. It required that the
presidential and vice-presidential nominees
receive at least two-thirds of the delegates’
votes.
232
Chapter 8
Political Parties
Election Connection
Third Parties and the 2000 Election
n the 2000 election, George W. Bush won Florida by a
mere 537 votes (according to the certified totals). Ralph
Nader, the Green party candidate, received 97,488 votes in
Florida. Had just over one-half of 1 percent of Nader’s voters supported Al Gore instead of
Nader, Gore would now be president. Nader voters also may have
been pivotal in New Hampshire,
Ohio, and West Virginia, where Bush
won narrow victories. Nader’s 2000
showing is not impressive in
absolute numbers. In 1992 H. Ross
Perot, the colorful Texas billionaire,
got 19 percent of the vote. He followed that up with 9 percent in
1996. Ralph Nader received less than
3 percent in 2000.
Although third-party candidates
are frequent participants in U.S.
presidential elections, they rarely
persist for very long. After the 1992
election, for example, Perot transformed his campaign organization
into a citizen “watchdog” group and
continued to speak out on national
politics. In 1994 he urged his supRalph Nader
porters to “send a message,” helping
the Republicans capture control of
Congress, and in late 1995 he began backing the formation of
an official third party—the Reform party. Perot’s vote total
declined in 1996, but the party ran more than 180 candidates
for a variety of offices in 1998, even managing to elect a governor (former professional wrestler Jesse Ventura) in
Minnesota.
The Reform party was eligible for $13 million in public
funds in 2000, and early in the campaign there was speculation that it would again mount a serious challenge to the
established parties. But the party split over the 2000 nomination. Many members left the party, including Governor
Ventura. Pat Buchanan eventually won the party nomination.
I
He ran an ineffective campaign and had little impact on the
final outcome.
The Green party had not previously been a player at the
presidential level, but Ralph Nader mobilized a disaffected
group of voters with his charge that
“the only difference between Gore
and Bush is the velocity with which
their knees hit the floor when corporations bang on their door.” Nader
tried to paint the two parties as
uncaring on environmental, public
health, and economic issues. Enthusiastic crowds for his events in
such pivotal states as Oregon and
Washington caused so much concern
in Democratic circles that some
Gore supporters established Web
sites (such as www.nadertrader.org)
where Nader voters in close states
could pair up with Gore voters in
uncompetitive states to trade their
votes.The intention was to keep
Nader’s national vote total high (so
that the Green party could qualify for
matching funds by getting 5 percent
of the national vote), while not
endangering Gore in any crucial
electoral college state.
Nader finished low in the polls, but perhaps high
enough. He did not get to 5 percent, but he has not ruled
out trying again. If American politics remain competitive,
movements like the Greens can make a difference not only
in election outcomes but also in what issues are discussed in
a campaign.
•
•
•
Was Ralph Nader a spoiler in 2000?
What is the potential for a third party in 2004?
Are there movements out there, besides the Green party, that
could form a third party and play a prominent role?
preceding distribution of the vote had occurred in a constituency assigned 10 members of parliament, the Conservatives would have been given 4 seats, Labour 5, and
the Liberal Democrats 1, an allocation of seats roughly proportional to the number of
votes received. Under PR, seat majorities and vote majorities correspond very closely.
In the SMSP electoral system, winning is everything—finishing in any position
but first achieves nothing. Thus, if small parties have more in common with each other
than with the largest party, they have an incentive to join together in a single opposing
party to challenge the plurality winner, because dividing the opposition among more
than one candidate plays into the hands of the largest party. Citizens, in turn, realize
that voting for a small party is tantamount to “wasting” their vote, because such a
party has no chance of coming in first.31 Thus they tend to support one of the two
larger parties. These calculations by parties and voters work against third parties.
In PR systems, of course, so long as a party finishes above some legally defined
threshold, it wins seats in proportion to its vote. Because it is not necessary to finish