Third parties

                Somewhat surprisingly, there are quite a high number of third or minor parties within the states. Third parties cover all corners of the political spectrum from the extreme left to the libertarian right. The number of third parties however belie their actual significance. In truth, the impact of third parties is almost entirely centered upon the spoiler effect and what Richard Hofstadter called the ‘sting and die’ phenomenon. This observation applies to almost all levels of governance. Third parties are usually the repository of protest votes, and whilst they can shape the agenda to some extent; they rarely gain above 1% of the vote. Moreover, this figure almost entirely derives from the Libertarian Party from the right of the political spectrum.

                The spoiler effect refers to the phenomenon of third party candidates effectively determining the winner of an election by taking votes away from a more prominent candidate. For instance, a third party candidate from the right may take votes away from the Republican candidate. In doing so, they act as a spoiler and thereby help the Democrat candidate gain victory. Similarly, a third party candidate from the left may take votes away from a Democrat and therefore help a candidate from the GOP. The irony of the spoiler effect is therefore obvious. A third party candidate from the right (such as Ross Perot in 1992) ultimately undermines the right-wing agenda. Indeed, by splitting the right-wing vote Perot effectively enabled Clinton gain entry to the White House. Ross Perot was part of a broader conservative challenge against George Bush senior, which only served to portray the Democrats in a better light than their Republican opponents. Similarly, the Green Party candidate Ralph Nader split the left-wing vote in 2000 and thereby helped George W. Bush in that election.

                The ‘sting and die’ phenomenon relates to the tendency of third party candidates to wither away after raising an issue they are most closely associated with. Once the two main parties have clarified their position on that particular issue, the momentum behind the third party candidate is effectively lost. There is no better illustration of this point than Ross Perot in 1992 and the budget deficit. Perot raised an issue that many people felt had been side-lined by politicians in DC. However, Perot’s campaign stalled once George Bush senior and Bill Clinton began to take the budget deficit more seriously. The issue also lost momentum during that year when the state legislatures failed to meet the barrier needed for a constitutional amendment in favor of a balanced budget.

                Unlike other comparable democracies, the US lacks a significant third party. The last third party presidential candidate to gain any EC votes was back in 1968. There are several reasons for this, but perhaps the most important is that of a wasted vote. A voter from the libertarian-right of the political spectrum is more likely to support a Republican candidate rather than vote for say the Libertarian Party. The latter course of action risks letting the Democrats in. Similarly, a voter on the progressive side of the political spectrum is likely to support the Democrat candidate (even a moderate new Democrat) rather than wasting their vote on say the Green Party. Until there is a sufficient incentive to support a third party candidate, voters will invariably choose from either the Republicans or the Democrats.

                Another obvious factor to consider is that of money. It is difficult for a third party to emerge as a significant force within American politics because of the difficulty in gaining adequate finance. Donors have little reason to give money to third party candidates when the chances of electoral success remain slim. It makes much more sense to donate money to candidates from either the GOP or the Democrats, preferably an incumbent likely to win that particular election. In doing so, they are likely to get some return from their ‘investment.’

                There is quite frankly insufficient oxygen within the American system to offer any lasting hope to third parties. For instance, there is no chance of a third party acting as a Kingmaker in a coalition. The dominance of the two main parties is such that no third party can effectively broker power between them. Given the weakness of party labels, it is also possible for politicians of an independent mind to adopt either of the party labels. On balance, third parties could well be described as glorified pressure groups whose appeal is limited to the disaffected or mavericks (such as Jesse Ventura, Ralph Nader and Lincoln Chaffee). In addition, America is unlike many other liberal democracies in that no major third party advocates separatism.