Time for Another?

One of the biggest outbursts that people have about the two major parties in the United States is that Democrats sound like Republicans; Republicans sound like Democrats.  It can make your head spin.  As mentioned in class and on this blog, the nation was founded on a two-party system, where each party differentiated itself from the other on the issues.  When the country began, Federalists who believed in a strong, centralized government battled with Democratic-Republicans (Anti-Federalists) who believed that more power should reside in the hands of the states.  There was a clear delineation as to where each of these parties stood on the issues.  Today, many argue that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.  Some from that group will argue even further that the parties are not ideological enough.  Those who aruge this position believe that the Democrats should be more liberal and Republicans should be more conservative.  Do we have two moderate parties in the United States or are they more ideological then we make them out to be?  Is this the time for a third party to emerge in the United States?  If so, then what should that party look and sound like?

The Problems That Third Parties Face

The United States is two-party system, meaning that in an election, one of two parties will have the best chance of winning almost every time.  This has been true since the birth of this country’s political parties when the first two parties, the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, vied for public support.  This does not mean that there aren’t other parties competing in the electoral arena.  Third parties have sprouted up from time to time and have influenced electoral outcomes at the federal, state, and local levels.

However, victories have been few and far between for many third parties in the United States.  This is due to in part to formal rules and informal practices that hinder the chances of a third party succeeding.  A formal rule deals with ballot access.  In order to gain access to a ballot, third parties must gather an inordinate amount of signatures on petitions in comparison to their major party counterparts.  These rules differ between states and have been created by members of the state legislature who, alas, belong to one of the two major parties.  An excellent website that describes how ballot access laws work in the United States can be found at Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News site.  Another example of a formal rule is one that is set up by the federal government during the Presidential elections.  In order for third party Presidential candidates to receive federal funding for their Presidential bid, the third party candidate from the previous Presidential election must have received 5% of the popular vote.  Five percent also ensures equal ballot access protections for third party candidates (i.e. automatic ballot access).  However, no third party candidate has received more than 5% since Ross Perot in 1996.  No third party candidate received 5% in 2012.  Libertarian Gary Johnson received 1% of the popular vote.  Therefore, third party candidates in 2016 already start their Presidential bids at a ballot and monetary disadvantage.

An informal practice that stunts the growth of third parties is that our nation’s history has always been a two-party system.  It is what the public is used to.  From the Democratic-Republicans vs. Federalists to Democrats vs. Whigs and Democrats vs. Republicans, the country’s pedigree eliminates the need for third party involvement in the political process.

What can third parties do to compete on a somewhat level playing field?

Again and Again…

Did you know that there is something called, “The Commission on Presidential Debates”?  Did you also know that this Commission determines which Presidential candidates get to debate each other before the general election.  More over, the Commission on Presidential Debates has a criterion that has excluded third party candidates from the debates since Ross Perot was invited in 1992.  In order to be invited to a Presidential debate, a candidate must have a composite average of 15% of popular support from nationally administered polls.   One problem with the requirement is that most national polling companies do not include any third party candidates as a choice in their polls.  Another problem is how subjective the 15% requirement is.  Why not 5% as a requirement?  How about 1%?  What about ballot access requirements as a criterion?  If you are not included in a poll as a choice, then how can a candidate receive any show of public support, let alone 15%?

What are your thoughts?

Third Party Problems

The United States is a two-party country.  This means that one of two parties typically wins an election.  Those two parties are the Democrats and Republicans.  However, before there were Democrats and Republicans, the country had a two-party system involving Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.  The Federalists disappeared by the 1820s and the Democratic-Republicans would later become the Democratic Party.  They soon faced an adversary for a short in the 1830s-1850s in the Whig Party.  The Whigs slowly faded away and factions from their party formed what we know as the Republican Party.  Third parties consistently find little success in elections at the national, state, and local levels.

Why did you choose the answer that you did in the poll?

Third Parties Lack Votes Not Creativity

The United States is two-party system, meaning that in an election, one of two parties will have the best chance of winning almost every time.  This has been true since the birth of this country’s political parties when the first two parties, the Democratic-Republicans and the Federalists, vied for public support.  This does not mean that there aren’t other parties competing in the electoral arena.  Third parties have sprouted up from time to time and have influenced electoral outcomes at the federal, state, and local levels.

However, victories have been few and far between for many third parties in the United States.  This is due to in part to formal rules and informal practices that hinder the chances of a third party succeeding.  A formal rule deals with ballot access.  In order to gain access to a ballot, third parties must gather an inordinate amount of signatures on petitions in comparison to their major party counterparts.  These rules differ between states and have been created by members of the state legislature who, alas, belong to one of the two major parties.  An excellent website that describes how ballot access laws work in the United States can be found at Richard Winger’s Ballot Access News site.  Another example of a formal rule is one that is set up by the federal government during the Presidential elections.  In order for third party Presidential candidates to receive federal funding for their Presidential bid, the third party candidate from the previous Presidential election must have received 5% of the popular vote.  Five percent also ensures equal ballot access protections for third party candidates (i.e. automatic ballot access).  However, no third party candidate has received more than 5% since Ross Perot in 1996.  No third party candidate received 5% in 2012.  Libertarian Gary Johnson received 1% of the popular vote.  Therefore, third party candidates in 2016 already start their Presidential bids at a ballot and monetary disadvantage.

An informal practice that stunts the growth of third parties is that our nation’s history has always been a two-party system.  It is what the public is used to.  From the Democratic-Republicans vs. Federalists to Democrats vs. Whigs and Democrats vs. Republicans, the country’s pedigree eliminates the need for third party involvement in the political process.

What can third parties do to compete on a somewhat level playing field?  At the state level, third party candidates have turned to humor and unconventional ads to promote their political messages.  Here are two examples:

In this 2009 ad, two actors portraying then-New Jersey Governor Jon Corzine (D) and Chris Christie (R) find themselves trapped on an escalator.  Only Chris Daggett, Independent for Governor, can save the day.  The ad won award in 2010 for its creativity.  Daggett, who won the endorsement of the largest newspaper, the Newark Star-Ledger, finished with 5.8% of the vote.  Christie won the election.

Musician/Actor/Entertainer/Businessman Kinky Friedman ran a spirited campaign for Governor of Texas in 2006.  Friedman’s Independent campaign, modeled after Jesse Ventura’s successful 1998 bid for Governor of Minnesota, was as colorful as his professional and personal background.  Friedman finished fourth with 12.43% of the vote, behind Rick Perry (R), Chris Bell (D), and another Independent, Carole Keeton Strayhorn.  A candidate from the Libertarian Party finished fifth.  

What from these commercials would appeal to an undecided voter who may be considering a vote for a third party candidate?  These commercials may be unconventional, but are they too unconventional, in that they may turn voters off because of their style?  Should more commercials like these be produced by third party candidates to help gain interest in their campaigns?

After all, the two-party system is tough to crack.  Third party candidates need any advantage that they can create for themselves.

For more information about the creators of the ads, please visit the site for North Woods Advertising.

Do We Need Another Party?

With all the talk surrounding the “fiscal cliff” negotiations and our nation’s economy, it is hard to make sense as to where each political party stands on solving this country’s economic woes.  Democrats sound like Republicans; Republicans sound like Democrats.  It can make your head spin.  This nation was founded on a two-party system, where each party differentiated itself from the other on the issues.  When the country began, Federalists who believed in a strong, centralized government battled with Democratic-Republicans (Anti-Federalists) who believed that more power should reside in the hands of the states.  There was a clear delineation as to where each of these parties stood on the issues.  Today, many argue that there isn’t a dime’s worth of difference between the Democratic and Republican parties.  Some from that group will argue even further that the parties are not ideological enough.  Those who aruge this position believe that the Democrats should be more liberal and Republicans should be more conservative.  Do we have two moderate parties in the United States or are they more ideological then we make them out to be?  Is this the time for a third party to emerge in the United States?  If so, then what should that party look and sound like?

Will Anyone Receive 5%?

Third Party Presidential Debate

Five Percent

Third party Presidential candidates face many obstacles when running for the highest office in the land.  Among those obstacles are ballot access restrictions, the public perception that they can’t win, and the lack of organizational and fundraising capabilities that could help them compete with the two major parties.  Ballot access restrictions are probably the greatest obstacle.  Each state has its own rules regarding who can and cannot get on a ballot for office.  Some states require petitions to be filed with a certain minimum of signatures.  Other states simply require a filing fee to ensure access.  For the most part, the two major parties are required to get a smaller number of signatures than their third party counterparts when gaining access to a ballot.  Ballot Access News provides a wealth of information on the difficulties that third party candidates face when running for office.

There is an upside though to third party Presidential candidacies.  Ballot access restrictions can be waived for a third party in the next Presidential election if their candidate for President this year receives 5% of the vote.  Five percent, according to the Federal Election Commission, is needed for major party recognition.  Five percent not only waives the signature requirement, but it also guarantees federal financial assistance to that third party in the next Presidential election.  This percentage may seem quite low, but recent history tells us that this threshold is quite difficult for third parties to meet.

2008

Ralph Nader (Independent) 0.56%

Bob Barr (Libertarian) 0.40%

Chuck Baldwin (Constitution) 0.15%

Cynthia McKinney (Green) 0.12%

2004

Nader (Independent) 0.38%

Michael Badnarik (Libertarian) 0.32%

Michael Peroutka (Constitution) 0.12%

David Cobb (Green) 0.10%

2000

Nader (Green) 2.73%

Pat Buchanan (Reform) 0.43%

Harry Browne (Libertarian) 0.36%

Howard Phillips (Constitution) 0.09%

John Hagelin (Natural Law) 0.08%

Source:  Dave Leip’s Atlas of U.S. Presidential Elections

What are your thoughts on the five percent rule?  What information did you find on Ballot Access News that piqued your interest?

Give Me A Way Out

I can remember visiting my grandparents in Parlin, New Jersey for several holidays and occasions each year.  My grandpa and I would sit and watch a television show called, “The Uncle Floyd Show” which was a New Jersey institution in the form of a low-budget comedy-variety program.  The show bounced around, year after year, from low frequency channel to low budget cable channel so many times that my grandpa would tease me and say that “Uncle Floyd” was on “Channel 52 and a Half”.  Inevitably, we would talk up some baseball stories, mainly focusing on who should and shouldn’t be in the Baseball Hall of Fame.  We wouldn’t get into stats too often, but I would question him about the merits of certain ballplayers, like Steve Garvey, for instance, who I thought should be in Hall and who my grandpa thought should not.  Our selections to the Hall were based on straight up and down votes.  Either he’s allowed induction into the Hall or he’s not.

Voting for someone into the Baseball Hall of Fame is not the same as voting for the next President of the United States yet many polling companies typically give the respondent two candidates to choose from.  Either you vote for the Democrat or you vote for the Republican.  There is little middle ground.  In the United States, voters are more likely to consider themselves, Independent, than Democrat or Republican.  Furthermore, there are extremes to both the left and to the right of our two major parties.  You have your Greens, Socialists and the newly formed Justice Party to the left of the Democrats and the Libertarians and Constitution Party supporter to the right of the Republicans.  However, when asked to choose a Presidential preference, many voters are left with one or the other.  Is it going to be Barack Obama or Mitt Romney?  I know we get a chance to say, “I Don’t Know” or “Unsure” or “Other”, but I want my “other” choice to be a specific name.  When I buy a drink from the store, I have a choice of Coke, Pepsi, and other cola brands, such as RC.  The labels never read, “Other Cola”.

Why not list, Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, Virgil Goode, or Rocky Anderson as polling choices?  In Colorado, you could add the name of Roseanne Barr, who is also a third-party candidate for President in some states.  How about adding the Prohibition Party candidate to a poll in Louisiana, the only state where the party qualified this year?

Polls should list all candidates running for President, and for other offices, where applicable.  If it’s a nationwide poll, then all candidates who are running if enough states to qualify for the Electoral College should be listed.   State by state Presidential polls should include all qualified candidates from that state in the survey.  Polls for Gubernatorial, Senate, and House races should also not leave third party or Independent candidates off of their questionnaires.  It is the honest way to go to promote electoral choice in the United States.  Polling companies that offer multiple survey choices only inform the voter more about who is running for a particular office.  There is no harm in doing so.

My grandpa passed away a few years ago.  I miss those baseball discussions with him.  Looking back, it seems that our final decisions on who should be in the Baseball Hall of Fame were pretty rigid.  Making a choice for President in a poll, however, should not have to be as rigid.

What are your thoughts?  Leave a comment below.