2 of 14

Yes

Write now Article Tools

Throughout modern election history, third party candidates have been treated as "misfits" on the political landscape, mere rabble-rousers who supposedly steal away votes from Democrats or Republicans. In reality, third party candidates are an integral part of politics, since a third party candidate's popularity indicates the public's growing dissatisfaction with our political leaders. The more popular a third party candidate becomes, the more Democrat or Republican candidates must adjust their policies in order to appease their base.

At no time in recent history was this fact more evident than in 2000, when Green Party candidate Ralph Nader recieved 3 million votes. In an election where Bush triumphed over Gore in electoral votes but trailed Gore by roughly 500,000 in the popular vote, the presence of a third party candidate greatly effected the outcome of the election. Had Nader not chalked up three million votes, the electoral map would have been much different. Just one state changing hands from Republican to Democrat would have meant that Al Gore most likely would have become president.

A viable third party would mean that both major parties would have to work harder to appeal to their base, or potentially lose voters who could be swayed into supporting an alternative to the two-party system. As a result, this would mean that G.O.P. candidates would be forced to be more conservative, while Democrat candidates would have to be more liberal. With a viable third party, being a moderate in either major party would be nothing short of political suicide.

However, for a third party to be effective, it must start not on the national level, but by obtaining seats of power in local and state governments. An influential third-party state representative or governor , for example, would go a long way in promoting the party and demonstrating that third-party candidates are neither radical nor dangerous. The sad reality is that most Americans have no idea about the platforms of parties outside of the traditional two-party system. Many people wrongly think of third-party candidates as either socialists, communists, or even anarchists.

America did not always have a two-party system. Most of us are too young to remember the last time a third-party candidate won electoral votes. The last time this was done was 1968, when third-party candidate George C. Wallace tallied 46 electoral votes. In 1948, Strom Thurmond, running not as a third or fourth-party candidate, but as a fifth party candidate, recieved 39 electoral votes! The 1948 election featured candidates from the Socialist, Progressive, and State's-Rights parties, in addition to the Democratic and Republican candidates.

In the 1912 presidential election, Theodore Roosevelt won 88 electoral votes as a Progressive candidate, and ended up losing to Democrat Woodrow Wilson. This marks the last time in American history where a third-party candidate finished ahead of a candidate from the traditional two parties.

As you can see, America has a proud tradition of third-party candidates. Candidates like Eugene V. Debs, who ran as a Socialist in 5 presidential elections. Or Norman Thomas, who ran as a Socialist candidate in 6 presidential elections. More recently, there was Ross Perot, who ran in two presidential elections as a third-party candidate. The two-party system has not always been the standard, but has flourished since the latter part of the 20th century. Many Americans, like myself, believe that by supporting a third party, we can undo that damage that has been done by both Democrats and Republicans.

Learn more about this author, Marlin Bressi.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.

Add your voice

Know something about Is the U.S. ready for a viable third party??
We want to hear your view. Write now!