• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
 
The Irony of American Third Parties:
How Success Breeds Failure
Ian McMurtrieNovember 29, 2006
 
 
1
Introduction
 Third parties in the United States electoral system could be described at best asperennial underdogs and at worst as irrelevant or disruptive. This would be hasty andirresponsible once the facts and histories of these movements, parties, and candidates areexamined in detail. Despite the monumental barriers third parties face in the US politicalarena, and their frequently abysmal performance at the polls, they contribute significantlyto the landscape of American republican democracy. Some have gone so far as to describethird party participation since 1840 as “necessary voices for the preservation of democracy.They represent the needs and demands of Americans whom the major parties haveignored.”
1
Third parties, far from being historical curiosities, are essential features of theUnited States electoral system. However, they have consistently fallen short of beingsignificant players due to many psychological and institutional challenges. Barring stridentelectoral reform, which does not seem palatable to the American public or political elite, theformula of major party dominance and minor party agitation will remain in forceindefinitely.This paper will examine why third parties occupy such a unique position inAmerican politics, by providing a brief historical outline of the political context in whichthird parties have operated. From there, we turn to covering in detail why third parties areimportant: including how they provide policy alternatives for voters when the majorparties fail; the irony of bringing these issues to light and thereby undermining theirpolitical longevity; how and why the major parties co-opt third party issues; and why some
1
Steven J.Rosenstone, Roy L. Behr, Edward H. Lazarus, Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to MajorParty Failure. (Princeton: Princeton University Press, 1984), 222.
 
 
2citizens do choose to support third parties. This will be followed by the details of why thirdparties routinely fail and fade into history: including their consistent failure to garnersignificant portions of the national electorate; their inability to displace major parties inlegitimacy, media attention and funds; as well the institutional barriers in place to preventthird parties from consolidating any successes. And, finally, it serves to connect the thirdparty movements of the past with the most prominent third party movement of the present,that of the Green Party and its wavering figurehead Ralph Nader.
2
Thus, using the researchaccumulated and the conclusions drawn from a historical and theoretical framework, thispaper will hold the Green Party in mind for lessons to be learned from history and thirdparty chances in the future.For the purposes of this paper, independent candidates and third parties will beregarded as synonymous. They do retain important differences, such that parties tend tohave more organizational longevity, while candidates may adopt, or be adopted into, athird party. It is generally, however, the independent candidate’s personality that compelsvoters to support them for a short period and then to dissipate in the wake of an election.Despite these differences, both seek to gain electoral prominence at the expense of eitherthe Republicans or Democrats.
2
Nader led the party in the 1996 presidential race, and most famously in 2000. He parted with the party in 2004 but continued to advocate for parallel issues as an independent candidate. David Cobb and the Green Partyfaithful ran separately in 2004, but differed in strategic methodology. See “Green Party (United States)” at
Wikipedia
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Green_Party_%28United_States%29#2004_presidential_election
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...