On November 4th, 2008, for the first time in my life, I voted in a nationwide election for a sovereign state. I voted for the independent candidate, Ralph Nader, who won 0.56% of the popular vote, but more importantly, he won zero Electoral Votes.
I didn’t vote for any other candidate on the ticket because at 18 years old, I was a boy, and a man. Here in the United States of America(USA), one has to be at least 18 years old to vote in elections that determine political offices(I was 18 years, 1 month, and 28 days old when I voted for the first time). I’m not going to spend any more time on age requirements for our elections, because that’s the most sane part of our entire election process, particularly when it comes to presidential elections.
The 2024 U.S. Election will determine many offices, which range from school boards, mayoral races, gubernatorial offices, seats in the U.S. House of Representatives, seats in the U.S. Senate, and of course, the Executive Branch(the President of the USA). In every Presidential Election Year(but funny enough, never in any other year), people come out of the woodworks shouting “I”M VOTING THIRD-PARTY” in bloodthirsty screams. For those who don’t know what is meant by “third-party” candidates, they are candidates who are not affiliated with our two major parties(the Democratic Party, and Republican Party). These candidates may be involved in the Libertarian Party, the Green Party, the Party For Socialism and Liberation(PSL), the Birthday Party(I wish I was making this up), and the list is endless. As much as it hurts me to admit this, I’ve been there. From 2008-2015, I solely voted third-party because I wanted to inflate my ego, despite having the knoweldge that a third-party candidate would never win President of the United States(POTUS). I was also well-aware that third-parties were scarecely represented at any level of government.
I could debate that voting third-party in gubernatorial, senate, house, etc. races is also pointless, but to be fair, we’ve had third-party governors before, and as of right now, fourteen percent of our U.S. Congress is made up of third-party members(and I’ll come back to this point later on). However, given how little representation third-party politicians have within our entire political sphere, they have virtually no influence over anything. Nearly all of these third-party candidates serve as puppets, and nearly all of them run for office to inflate their own egos, and boost their moralistic aura.
Nevermind with my garrulous rambling. For the purpose of this MyTake, I’m solely focusing on the Executive Branch, President of the United States of America(POTUS). Here are the objective reasons why voting for a third-party presidential candidate in the United States of America is completely useless
Reason 1: It’s History, Stupid.
Little did we know when we were in school, that Social Studies was one of our most important subjects. In my adolescent years, I didn’t know that our history often determines our present, and serves as a crystal ball for the future, and this was disregarding some Social Studies classes in high school didn't focus on history.
The fact of the matter is this: The last time the USA had a president who was not affiliated with the Democratic, or Republican Party was when Millard Fillmore was the POTUS, who was part of the Whig Party. Take a guess, kids: When was the last year Fillmore was the POTUS? 2003? 1953? 1900? 1880? Nope, wrong, sorry, no candy, kids.
The last time we had a president who was not a Democrat, or Republican was in 1853.
Eighteen-fifty-three.
To fall back on a footnote: The only reason Fillmore was even a POTUS is because of the death of former POTUS Zachary Taylor, and he was Taylor’s Vice President(VP). The last time the USA voted to elect a third-party candidate(in this case, a non-Democrat, non-Republican) was 1848, when Zachary Taylor defeated the Democratic Candidate Lewis Cass.
It’s hard for a rational person to believe that after 170 consecutive years of Democrats, and Republicans(43 consecutive Presidential Elections, for context) that we’ll have a POTUS who’s not a Republican, or Democrat anytime soon. Crazier things have happened, but crazy things are not necessarily illogical in a crazy world. Raw logic dictates this won’t change anytime soon(and I’ll mention an avenue later to change this).
The biggest counterargument to this point is that we’re always changing, and history can’t tell us everything. We never used to have nationwide same-sex marriage, until it happened. We never used to have nationwide legalized abortion, until it happened(and then it didn't). Cannabis never used to be legal anywhere in the USA, until it was. We had never elected a Reality TV Host as POTUS, until the Electoral College did. We had never had a non-white POTUS, until we did. We had never had a POTUS impeached more than once, until we did. We never had a POTUS summon an insurrection on our nation’s capital, until he did.
These are fair counterarguments, but one has to ponder on the possibility of this two-party system changing by next year. Everything I listed has obviously been more practical(if not horrifying at times) than a set-in-stone system that elects only Democrats, and Republicans.
.
Reason 2: The Electoral College
This is the most boring reason on the list, so let’s get straight to the point: The only way a candidate can become POTUS via voters is by winning at least 270 Electoral College(EC) Votes.
There are 538 EC votes split between our 50 states, and our nation’s capital(Our five territories aren’t legally allowed to vote in a nationwide election, even though they can vote to nominate someone for POTUS. Make it make sense). These votes are rewarded via individual state victories. For instance, our most popular voting contest is California(54 EC Votes), and there are districts in Nebraska, and Maine that are only worth 2 EC Votes. The problem for third-party candidates is that most EC Vote-laden contests are almost guaranteed to vote for the two major parties. The Democratic Candidate(which is almost guaranteed to be Joe Biden) is highly likely to win the following states with a large population: California, New York, Illinois, and Massachusetts-which means he’ll win 112 EC Votes no matter what. On the other hand, the Republican candidate(probably Donald Trump) is very likely to win the folloiwing big states: Texas, Florida, Missouri, and Ohio-which means he’ll win 97 EC Votes no matter what(and this doesn’t even include all of the states with a small population both candidates will highly likely win).
With this information, it’s unlikely for a third-party candidate to win even a plurality of EC Votes, let alone a majority. Even if a third-party candidate were to win a plurality of EC votes, if that same candidate wins less than 270 EC Votes, the election would then be contested, and decided by the House of Representatives, which is run by Republicans, who will give the presidency to the Republican Candidate. Simply put, the Electoral College System in place is set up for only two viable candidates, and those two viable candidates solely come from the Democratic, and Republican Parties.
The counterargument for this one is simple: Let’s abolish the Electoral College(which wouldn't even guarantee we can have viable third-party candidates, and I’ll get to that in a moment). The rebuttal to this is even simpler: We can’t successfully abolish the Electoral College in a year. It will take elections(years) to abolish the Electoral College, and implement a new voting system(i.e. Ranked-Choice Voting), and without a new voting system, none of these recommendations matters anyway.
3. Even without an Electoral College System, third-party candidates aren’t popular enough.
Let’s just assume, since the 2020s decade is the decade of What The Fuck?s, we are able to successfully go against the grain with patterns of U.S. History, and even abolish the Electoral College. It’s highly unlikely to happen, especially in the 2020s, but for all intents, and purposes, let’s just say it happens. Brace yourselves, because you all hate hearing it: Third-Party Candidates aren’t popular enough to win even a plurality of voters-and really, haven’t been for a long, long time.
That’s actually an understatement: they’re really, really, really, really, really not popular enough. There are people saying that Joe Biden won’t win re-election because he’s polling at about 40 percent in key swing-states right now. There are people actually worried that Biden might not even win the popular vote in 2024 because he is virtually tied in polling averages against Republican candidates.
To my point: If Biden is in hot water because he’s polling at between 40-45 percent of voters, then why the hell does anyone think third-party candidates(some who are polling less than one percent), have a chance to win the popular vote? H. Ross Perot, the most successful third-party candidate since 1900, won about 20 percent of the popular vote in the 1992 Presidential Election, and still didn’t win any states, and still didn’t come close to winning even a plurality of the popular vote. So…if the irrefutable best third-party candidate since 1900 lost handily via popular vote in 1992, how can anyone take a candidate seriously that might poll at 10-15 percent on their best days?
The counterargument to this reason is a good one(but it doesn’t change anything): Every vote counts, and every vote is individual. After all, if everyone had the mindset that a third-party candidate could win the popular vote, wouldn’t that candidate win the most votes?
My rebuttal: Sure, this is true, but it’s not going to happen anytime soon. Don’t believe me? Look at reliable polling, and other similar data. Maybe in 2028(still unlikely), but it’s going to take some time to get most voters to throw their vote behind such non-viable candidates, especially since these candidates often can’t raise enough money to compete.
4. There are too many third-party candidates running for President of the United States of America.
Bear with me here. In this hypothetical world that will never exist, let’s say, again, we are going against historical patterns, we have the Electoral College abolished, and now we have third-party candidates who are popular enough to win at least a plurality of voters. Now, here is a problem which I rarely see anyone mention: Which third-party candidate should people support to be able to defeat the two-party system?
For reference, in the 2020 Presidential Election, there were ten different third-party candidates which ran for POTUS, all from different political parties(or just independent candidates). The problem this brings is simple enough: Not only are third-party voters competing against the two-party system, they’re competing among themselves.
For instance: Let’s suppose we had an election where 18% of voters voted Libertarian, 14% voted Green, 10% voted Socialist, 6% voted Constitutionalist, and dare I say 3% of people vote for the Birthday Party, and 1-2% vote for another third-party, and/or for an independent candidate. Aside from the fact we’re already competing against Republicans, and Democrats, in this scenario, all of the third-party votes would be split among themselves, so therefore, no third-party candidate would win on its own. The only way to ensure a third-party candidate could win in this scenario would be for every third-party voter to vote for the same third-party candidate.
The counterargument to this is the whole "we'll come together then"...but come on, in the United States of America is anything, but united.
The math ain’t mathin’.
5. Without Congressional Support, a POTUS is Virtually Useless
So, let's continue our journey. In this fantasy world, let's say we have finally elected a third-party POTUS(and I'm telling you all right now, don't expect that to happen even in the 2030s, let alone the rest of this decade). One big problem persists: 86% of the U.S. Congress is controlled by Republicans, and Democrats.
If there is one things both Democrats, and Republicans will always agree with, it's that they loathe any of the third-parties in the USA. So, my question is as follows: What makes y'all think a POTUS of a third-party can get anything accomplished with a congress primarily controlled by the two major parties?(and this doesn't even guarantee the 14 percent of third-party congress members will agree as well).
The truth is, almost everything they propose will be shot down, and then the same bloodthirsty people wanting a third-party POTUS will intentionally say the POTUS was a "fraud", and "we need a new candidate".
The only counterargument I've ever heard when I mention this is the denialism of it being true. Well, I hate to burst your bubble, but the U.S. Congress is just as important as the POTUS. Facts aren't always comforting to hear, I know.
Conclusion: Even when people tell me they’re solely voting for a third-party POTUS so their candidate can reach 5% of the popular vote in an election, so that candidate can qualify for debates, but without a a complete overhaul, or revampment of our system, it’s utter nonsense to vote for a third-party POTUS. Before 2016, I would have said differently, but ever since this dystopian nightmare has been in the driver's seat since then, I won't be saying that again anytime soon.
Please, don’t make the same mistake I did.
What Girls & Guys Said
Opinion
2Opinion
It should be noted that in 1852, the Whig Party WAS the Second Party. It cracked up over the slavery issue, and the Republican party emerged as the #2 party immediately after the Whig Crackup.
The Constitution's Presidential/Congressional system basically *enforces* a two-party system. Whenever a 3rd party does emerge, it (1) gets co-opted by one of the two main parties (1968, 1948, 1892), or (2) fizzles out when the "Cult of Personality" around its leader ends (1992, 1924, 1912).
In fact, when a strong 3rd party does emerge, it is NOT a good sign. It is actually a sign of discontent and unhappiness among a sizeable portion of the American public. It is no accident that the last strong 3rd Party was 1968, an unhappy year of unrest. And the one election with *four* strong parties - 1860, had a Civil War following it.
It IS possible to have sustained 3rd parties in a Parliamentary System (UK and other nations with electoral systems derived from the UK, like Canada, Australia, New Zealand, India, etc.). But in those systems, the Prime Minister is the leader of a Party or coalition of two or more Parties. And even in those, two parties tend to predominate.
Not necessarily. Let’s say the primary boils down to Gavin Newson versus Mittens Romney. And let’s say, Trump decides to run as an independent.
I can’t imagine anyone with the brain voting for someone other than Trump.
I highly doubt Donald Trump will run as an independent candidate, especially since he's already running as a Repoublican in the 2024 Presidential Election. If he didn't do this in 2016, or 2020, why would he do it now?
Even if Trump DID do this, it would split up the Republican voters, and Democrats would win in a landslide-proving the point of my MyTake.
I already explained the premise to you.
And your premise is wrong.
While Trump still has a cult following, there are still many Republicans that won't vote for a third-party, and/or candidate, even if Trump runs as an independent candidate. Like I said, all this would do is split up the Republicans (some would vote for Trump, some would vote for the Republican nominee), and as a result, Democrats would easily win.
..
This graphic is irrelevant to my MyTake.
It is central to the political issues of the day and relevant to everything political.
No, it's not relevant to the fact we don't have a viable system for third-party presidential candidates.
We don't need a third party system. If you look around the world and throughout history there are essentially two prevalent ideologies inherent in the human race: individualism and collectivism. That's why the two party system seems to be so common across civilizations and why third party bids usually fail. It's inherent in our natural social DNA. And that is precisely the nature of the battle that is taking place in the US right this moment: individualism versus collectivism. Third parties are almost always a tool of one or the other of the two parties to sabotage the other party by siphoning off votes. Since there are really only two effective ideologies, a third party candidate is really nothing more than an extra candidate representing a different choice of individual for one of the existing parties or, like a hermaphrodite, a blend of both of the other parties.
There... on topic? 😃