The current third party movement is dead. We need a new MAJOR political party. by Joel S. Hirschhorn
(liberal)
Wednesday, November 12, 2008
Set aside any Obama euphoria you feel. The other important news is that third-party presidential candidates had a miserable showing this year, totaling just over one percent of the grand total with 1.5 million votes nationwide, compared to some 123 million votes for Barack Obama and John McCain.
It couldn't be clearer that Americans are not willing to voice their political discontent by voting for third-party presidential candidates. The two-party duopoly and plutocracy is completely dominant. The US lacks the political competition that exists in other western democracies. Without real political competition there is insufficient political choice.
A key problem is that for many years, third parties have not offered presidential candidates that capture the attention and commitment of even a modest fraction of Americans, unlike Ross Perot (8.4 percent in 1996 and 18.9 percent in 1992), and John Anderson (6.6 percent in 1980).
This year, among the four most significant third-party presidential candidates, Ralph Nader without a national party did the best with 685,426 votes or 0.54 percent of the grand total (a little better than in 2004 with 0.4 percent but much worse than in 2000 running as a Green Party candidate with 2.7 percent). He was followed by Bob Barr the Libertarian Party candidate with 503,981 votes or 0.4 percent of the total (typical of all Libertarian candidates in recent elections, including Ron Paul in 1988), followed by Chuck Baldwin of the Constitution Party with just 181,266 votes or 0.1 percent, and then Cynthia McKinney of the Green Party with only 148,546 votes or 0.1 percent.
Showing the problem of ballot access, engineered by the two major parties, is that there were only 15 states where all four were on the ballot. In all but one, Nader received more votes than the other three third-party candidates. In four states only one of the four candidates was on the ballot; in one state none of them were (Oklahoma).
Nader's best state was California with 81,434 votes, as it was for McKinney's with 28,624 votes. Baldwin was not on the ballot there. Alan Keyes received 30,787 votes in California. Barr's best state was Texas with 56,398 votes. None of the other three were on the ballot there. In his home state of Georgia where he had been a Representative Barr received 28,420 votes (and none of the other three were on the ballot). Baldwin's best state was Michigan with 14, 973 votes. Nader was not on the ballot there.
In round numbers, Barack Obama raised $639 million or about $10 per vote, and John McCain raised $360 million or $6 per vote, compared to Ralph Nader with $4 million and $6 per vote, Bob Barr with about $1 million or $2 per vote, and Cynthia McKinney with only about $118,000 or less than $1 per vote. Money matters, but the ability of the two-party duopoly to keep third-party presidential candidates out of nationally televised debates matters more for media attention, money and votes.
It must also be noted that there were countless congressional races with third-party and independent candidates, but none were able to win office, with only a very few reaching the 20 percent level. That third-party candidates can win local government offices means little because political party affiliation at that level is overshadowed by personal qualifications.
I say that current third-party activists should admit defeat, shut down their unsuccessful parties, and move on. Unlike so much of American history, current third-parties no longer play a significant role in American politics or even in affecting public policies. They have shown their inability to matter.
We need a new, vibrant political party that could bring many millions of American dissidents, progressives and conservatives, and especially chronic non-voters, together behind a relatively simple party platform focused on structural, government system reforms (not merely political change). Examples include: replacing the Electoral College with the popular vote for president, restoring the balance between Congress and the presidency, eliminating the corrupting influence of special interest money from politics, preventing the president to use signing statements to nullify laws passed by Congress.
What would unite people is a shared priority for revitalizing American democracy. It should position itself as a populist alternative and opponent to the two-party plutocracy. It should define itself as against the corporate and other special interests on the left and right that use money to corrupt our political system. Possible names: Patriotic Party, United Party or National Party. With Thomas Jefferson as its spiritual founder it should seek the political revolution he said was needed periodically.
Here is what helps. Despite considerable enthusiasm for Barack Obama, there is widespread unhappiness with both the Democratic and Republican Parties. One indication is that so voters register as independents. Plus there has always been a chorus of negative views about the two-party system. In one pragmatic sense this is the ideal time to create a new party. Why? Because of the incredible loss of stature of the Republican Party. Why not envision a new party that could replace the Republican Party on the national stage and provide a sharp alternative to the Democratic Party? In other words, we don't need a new third party as much as we need a new major party.
[Joel S. Hirschhorn can be reached through www.delusionaldemocracy.com.]
Did you like this article? If you did, Thumb It! 6
thumbs so far
The views expressed
in this article are those of Joel S. Hirschhorn only and
do not represent the views of Nolan Chart, LLC or its affiliates.
Joel S. Hirschhorn 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.
The write in votes for CA won't be certified until December 2 (I asked the registrar's office.) So if that is Ron Paul and Chuck Baldwin's biggest tally, they aren't in yet.
Nothing will change as long as we have the Electoral College. It must be remembered that when the Constitution was framed in 1787, there WERE no political parties, and the first two, the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans, only arose during the Presidency of George Washington (Washington himself belonged to no party, but he was labled a "Federalist" because he favored policies that were identified as those of the Federalists, but he later warned against excessive partisanship).
I also favor the use of approval voting, the abolition of party primaries, and requiring that if a Presidental candidate is accepted to the ballot on ANY state of the union, he or she should also appear on all the other states' ballots. It would have been great for me to have been able to vote for both Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton on November 4, and then to actually vote for Obama, Ron Paul, and Cynthia McKinney. Why should ANY American be denied freedom of choice?! In my home state of Texas, there were NO Green Party members on the ballot. Some democracy, eh?
Hi. I read your title and immediately was hoping to scroll to the end of the page and stamp an "I agree" in your comments, but you are so far off base on your concept of what a new third party should advocate.
You make a dangerous case for new wave progressivism - as if the last two bouts (1890's-1930's) wasn't enough. And we're still forcefed bite by bite this "democracy" drivel.
The electoral college issue is one of the biggest scams ever. We are too large a country, with too many regions, to let any majority dictate the direction of the minority. Also, keep in mind that people used to actually vote for electors first then they would meet in the Electoral College. It's cheated out of that more honest system today.
Don't fuck with the electoral college. Runoff voting for everything else, maybe. That would help increase the prominence of third parties and magnify their influence.
Second, the winner-take-all electoral votes via the popular vote has got to go. That's another huge problem, and another reason why these dog and pony show politicians love to truck around Iowa, desensitizing the local populace with ads about how much they love corn.
BOTH of the things I mentioned above should be done state to state- as it's the constitutional way. That is why I have always advocated building state parties to a level of viability as seen in Alaska and Minnesota and even Vermont.
Where we need to begin is with a third party in California or Texas.. and I mean a REAL third party, either an outward socialist party or a libertarian party, I don't care. One of them has to break the mold. In California, it'd most likely be the socialist party (under a less obvious name) sadly. THAT'S what we need to be doing. That's why all these other parties have failed.
Hello Joel. I'm here to inform you that I referenced your otherwise spot-on article in my ongoing column. I hope that you will not mind. I make a few critiques, but only the same ones made here. But then, your articles are actually a lot more suggestive than a lot of this tripe that gets regurgitated every day... (X amount of the Fed is Evil posts, Y amount of "Ron Paul" man crush posts there.)
Conceptually, I agree with you that a new 3rd party effort is needed.
As for your "planks" .. that party would not solve the problem or bridge any divides. A new party needs to rise from the rising number of fiscally conservative, socially moderate independents. Choosing party ideologies that are on either extreme (as most of the current small parties have) will fail, as it will need to split the base of one of the entrenched parties.
A strong base for a center-right political party exists, and could be grabbed without needing to turn hard right or hard left wingers out.
And regarding the Electoral College .. messing with that will widen the divide more so than it already has. Why not just tell us that you think that California and NY should elect the President and the rest of us should just like it? I respectfully disagree.
Below is my list of what I believe many ordinary people think are the most important issues facing our government and nation. Meanwhile, members of the Democratic and Republican parties have shown themselves paralyzed to deal with them, mainly because they are so interested in following party lines and getting re-elected that they no longer act for the people that elected them but instead only act for themselves.
1, What to do about climate change and the disproportionate conditions (compared to the rest of the world) in the US that are contributing to it. 2. What to do about the coming crisis of funding for Medicare and Social Security. 3. What to do about the fact that heads of large companies are paid amounts bearing no relationship to their contributions to society and are perpetuating an unacceptable gap between wages and salaries for the majority of the workforce and their senior managers. 4. Birth rate is declining. We are approaching crises in shortage of oil and water and the destruction of land productivity from over use of chemicals and pollutants. It appears that prosperity and the pursuit of happiness may no longer be through growth in the economy. But where is the debate about economic prosperity that can be achieved without growth. 5. The size of the national debt is unacceptable all agree. But the two political parties have been unable to agree on actions to deal with it. 6. The nation's health care system is a disgrace compared with many less rich nations (e.g. France, Cuba). The two feuding parties have paralyzed the debate. 7. Our educational system has been steadily falling behind the industrialized nations with which we compete. Where is the leadership to change the situation. 8. We have allowed an enormous under-class to exist for decades in this the richest country in the world, people who are poor, homeless, mentally ill, unemployed for years. And for these people there is no compassion or will to change their plight and shrinking resources to help them. A national disgrace. 9. If 90% of the house seats are no longer competitive because of decades of gerrymandering, does our whole system of democracy (or lack thereof) need radical change. 10. One of the effects of worrying about re-election instead of the key issues of the future is to focus entirely on the short term. Our elected officials no longer have the courage or party support to invest in long term solutions.
WE NEED A NEW PARTY OF REPRESENTATIVES WHO THINK ONLY WHAT IS BEST FOR THE COUNTRY. WE NEED TO FIND A LEADER FOR SUCH A PARTY AND VOTE OUT ALL DEMOCRATS AND REPUBLICANS AS SOON AS POSSIBLE.
Want to comment on
this article? Leave your comment
here. Your email address is required to track your
comment. However, we will neither publish your email
address nor distribute it to other organizations or
persons. The only reason we might use it would be if
we needed to contact you regarding your comment. All
comments are subject to our
terms of use policy.
