In replying to a comment over at my blog, I began to solidify my opposition to third party candidates at the national level. I'd be interested to your thoughts on this subject. I know most of us are probably partisan Democrats, but does anyone have solid thoughts on the validity of third party candidates in a presidential election? Is there an appropriate time to vote for them, and to what end?
Here's the text of the original comment, which came in response to my declaration that voting third party was "self-defeating," and which caused me to consider my thoughts on the issue:
Big Blue
You have bought into the two-party system. YOU are self-defeating by playing their game and not voting for the best candidate, even if they media and polls say they will not win. Are you going to allow the media dictate to us who is and is not electable? The game is to keep us divided at 50/50 so people with little integrity like yourself vote out of fear instead of conscious. This keeps the debate framed in a tiny box with no room for bold ideas.
Read my response below the fold...
You don't advance the third party agenda by voting at the national level, you do it by voting at the local level. If your party can't even secure a House seat, or put together a reasonable caucus, then they lack the credibility to pursue the highest office in the country. That's why the only third party candidates to do well in the last thirty years did so by trying to buy the office (see Ross Perot), and before that, did it by playing on racial fears (see George Wallace, Strom Thurmond) both of which I think you'll agree lack the integrity which you seek.
Third parties lack the ability to pursue genuinely effective national campaigns because they haven't built the proper infrastructure. You gotta win mayoral elections, city council election, county council, and state legislative elections. Then you gotta win House seats, and governorships. The two-party system isn't what's holding candidates back at the lowest levels of government. Heck, party identification doesn't even figure into city council and mayoral elections outside of the larger cities. And from these lower offices, candidates can build bases of support. Seriously, if a party can't manage to build support at the levels of government where a candidate can almost literally meet with every single voter, then they're not going to gain support at the national level. I don't care if they had debate privelages, and free national air time; it's not going to happen.
The reason most people don't vote third party isn't because they're engaged in a self-fulfilling prophecy (though there is something to that). It's because they don't want to vote for that candidate. And while, many of them may not be aware of the myriad reasons against voting for a third party candidate in a presidential race, they are correct in suspecting that doing so would be throwing away their vote. And here's why: let's say you elect a third party candidate to the White House. What's his/her coalition? How are they actually going to accomplish what they promised in their campaign? And again we return to the reason that third parties should focus on lower level elections before trying to convince us that they deserve the White House.
You think Ralph Nader would've accomplished even a quarter of his 2000 agenda? If so, please put forth a reasonable explanation as to how he would have done that. Even if he wins the election, he does so with a plurality of the vote, not a majority, and therefore, he can't claim any popular mandate to implement the more radical of his policies. He won't have Congressional support in his foreign policy positions, which may not be necessary if he doesn't pursue major shifts in foreign policy, but if he does, you can bet that Congress will do everything they can to tie his hands.
Third parties need Congressional coalitions before they seriously think about taking over the Executive. And citizens that support them need to push for fundamental election reform. If we're going to have a viable third party, then we're going to need run-offs at the national election. In America, the idea of majority vote is too ingrained in the citizenry to believe that a candidate winning with 34% of the vote would have any real power (even if he swept every state in the union with that 34%). So, we'd need a system where the two top winners in the first race go on to face off with one another in a final election to lend credibility to that candidate's platform.
The only benefit derived by third parties fielding presidential candidates is that one might hope it will increase the visibility of their lower level candidates, and slowly sway public opinion (though this change in public opinion will then be reflected in the two major parties).
And to address your concerns of selecting the best candidate: being the best candidate doesn't come from having the best positions, it comes from the sum of having the best positions AND being able to actually implement them once in office.
As for bold ideas: Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid, and public education all came out of the two party system. And now that same two party system looks like it might very well finally give us universal health care. So let's not pretend that the two parties are limited by some "very narrow box." What you're talking about is known as the "Overton Window" and history shows it's moving all the time.
Don't forget to check out our vice presidential profile series, which takes an in-depth look at thirteen of Obama's most likely choices for the number two spot. We've also got a poll up regading this issue, which will expire June 4th. Starting Monday we'll take an in-depth look at the possibilities for an Obama cabinet. We hope you'll join us.