The 12th Amendment was ratified in 1804 and can be blamed for the enshrinement of the "two-party system".
How did the 12th Amendment help create the "two-party system"? Before the 12th Amendment each Elector (chosen by the States) cast two votes; the person with the most Electoral Votes, assuming it was a majority, was elected President, the runner-up became Vice President. However, that changed after the 12th Amendment was ratified. Similarly, each Elector casts two votes, but one is specified "President" and the other "Vice President".Thus assuring that a joint "ticket" would be elected. And since most States use "first-past-the-post" in determining the winner of a States Electoral Votes; large numbers of people cast a ballot for who they think will win their State; thus limiting their choices to one of two "major party" candidates. While the 12th Amendment helped create the "two party system"; restrictive ballot access laws have sealed it in.
If the 12th Amendment were repealed (and ballots were more accessible to "third parties"); and we returned to Electors casting two votes with the runner-up becoming VP, we would see more viable parties. It is difficult to say what would have happened had the 12th Amendment never been ratified; however, I would suppose that the Whig Party would have remained until the early 1900's, the Bull-Moose Party would have been around for several decades; and we would probably have had President's and VP's from at least 3 different parties in the past 50 years.
Using the actual data from the last election with a "viable" Independent, 1992, assuming no 12th Amendment and assuming that each Elector gave their second vote to the candidate that finished second in their State, the Electoral Vote tally would have been: Bill Clinton 538; George H.W. Bush 534 & H. Ross Perot 4.
However, if we use the data from the last election in which a "third party" WON an Electoral Vote (1968), we see a much better picture of what may happen. Nixon 511, Humphrey 488, Wallace 77; this makes the race much closer than the 301-191 outcome that we actually had.
Again, this is assuming that voters would have cast the same votes knowing that the second place finisher would be VP; which we should know would not have happened. Many people cast a ballot for "the lesser of two evils" because they bought the "wasted vote theory" associated with voting for a "third party".
©2008 Darryl W. Perry, all rights reserved. You must have written permission from the author in order to republish this work.
Published: Wednesday, August 27, 2008
Last modified: Monday, September 22, 2008
The views expressed in this article are those of Darryl W. Perry only and do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates. Darryl W. Perry is solely responsible for the contents of this article and is not an employee or otherwise affiliated with Nolan Chart, LLC in his/her role as a columnist.
Report violation by Darryl W. Perry of Nolan Chart LLC's terms of use policy.
| More Articles By Darryl W. Perry |
Reader Comments:
Posted By: Walt Thiessen
Date: 2008-08-28 10:29:31
Interesting theory, but it doesn't work. The Electoral College itself is what causes third parties so much grief (besides ballot access and other restrictive legislation passed by Congress), not merely the 12th amendment. The Electoral College is defined in the main body of the Constitution itself. The most that repeal of the 12th Amendment would give us is a major party president and a vice-president from the other major party. That's really not going to do much of anything to help third parties.
Posted By: David S
Date: 2008-08-28 13:54:31
In a 3 way race the 3rd party candidate must win more than half of the electoral votes. If he gets more votes than the other candidates but less than a majority then the decision falls to the House of representatives. Fat chance they would elect a Libertarian.
Posted By: Steven A. Rosile
Date: 2008-08-29 11:04:48
Correction - The last election that a third party won an electoral vote in was 1972, when a Rebublican Elector from Vermont, Roger McBride, cast his vote for the Libertarian Party candidates, Dr.John Hospers and Ms. Tonie Nathan.
Posted By: Darryl W. Perry
Date: 2008-08-29 12:03:54
John Hospers RECIEVED an Electoral vote in 1972, he didn't WIN the vote, in the sense that he did not carry a State or Congressional District.
Since then, Ronald Reagan (1976), Lloyd Bentsen (1988) and John Edwards (2004) have all received Electoral Votes for President when they were not the Presidential Candidate.I also support Electors being chosen; 1 from each Congressional District and 2 Statewide, with each Elector being voted on separately, as opposed to voters casting a ballot for a "slate of Electors".
Posted By: Gölök
Date: 2008-09-08 13:33:51
Well, it's and expansion of federal powers agains #10 and it is redundant to some points in the main body of the constitution and violates some of that. To say the President and Vice President can't be in the same state is silly and a refusal of state's rights, if a state doesn't want two from their state on the same ticket fine. Same with the term limits on the president, each state would have to put a win limit on their own ballot.
To Liberty!
Gölök Zoltán Leenderdt Franco-Assisi Buday
Candidate for Vancouver Mayor (I) and l/Libertarian
http://www.bcindividualist.org/