In every swing state in this year’s election there is at least one third-party candidate present on the ballot. But who are these third-party candidates and what impact are they having on the presidential race? In the 2024 election the most prominent candidates are Green Party candidate Jill Stein, Libertarian Party candidate Chase Oliver, and Independent Cornel West, a progressive theologian. Another notable mention is Independent Robert F. Kennedy, who ended up dropping out of the race, supporting former president Trump instead. However, his name is still present on ballots in over 20 states, including Wisconsin and Michigan, two swing states that are crucial to the election.
In the previous week’s lesson we focused on political parties, and how in America the two-party system has remained dominant for many years. However, this doesn’t mean third parties can just be disregarded. Especially in election years, third parties can have a surprisingly large impact. In tight presidential elections like this one, third-party and independent candidates act as “spoilers”, meaning they take votes away from the main two candidates that have the best chance at winning, in this case Vice President Kamala Harris and former President Donald Trump. Let’s take a look at the most prominent third party candidates and what a vote for them really means.
Chase Oliver, the Libertarian Party candidate, has the same polling stats as Jill Stein. Oliver is a 39 year old male (nice to see someone young for a change) from Nashville, Tennessee, who has criticized Trump and Vance in the past when they tried to garner Libertarian votes earlier in the year. Oliver believes in “simplifying the pathway to citizenship for immigrants and expanding work visas,” as well as withdrawing the US from international conflicts and federally decriminalizing marijuana use. Sounds like a cool dude! Except, in reality, any votes for Oliver don’t really count as they don’t end up going to one of the main candidates (and depending on how you look at it just end up being votes for Trump). How unfortunate.
Finally, the two Independents: Cornel West and Robert F. Kennedy. West is a political activist and scholar, and formerly a professor at Union Theological Seminary. West has said he aims to pressure Israel into a permanent ceasefire from Gaza and to cut off all US aid to Ukraine. Those angered with moderate left politics could be inclined to vote for West, but this would only draw votes away from Harris, and as a result advantage Trump’s campaign. I’m starting to notice a pattern… Now lastly, when it comes to Kennedy, even though he has dropped from the race, his name is still present on ballots in many different states, including two important swing states. However, since Kennedy has formally endorsed Trump, any votes for him would actually take votes away from Trump, benefiting Harris’s campaign.
In the end, votes for almost all third-party candidates, in reality, are pointless (because in this case, they usually just end up being votes for Trump). Maybe there’s a reason that America has had a two-party system for decades!
https://www.nytimes.com/2024/10/14/us/politics/presidential-election-third-party-candidates.html
https://www.cnn.com/interactive/2024/politics/presidential-candidates-dg/
10 comments:
Despite being like many Americans in thinking that the two-party system is less than ideal for the function of our government, I honestly don't understand why third-party candidates are so persistent in the current system. Take Jill stein for example. She has been running for years, but only attracts about 1% of voters. I may be wrong here but based on her platform (and this goes for the other third-party candidates apart from RFK), I would think she would rather have Kamala win than Trump. So why does she and those who vote for her continue to do so knowing they are just benefitting the candidate they probably like the least. They don't benefit from just being on the ballot and getting a few votes, so whether they are trying to make a statement or they think they could actually win, it just seems like a waste of time and money.
This article really highlights the issue with a plurality system and a winner takes all system. If we were to introduce a rank-based system it would allow third parties to have a stronger change and introduce less radical and polarized party groups. The introduction of the system would give third parties an actual chance and force groups to make coalitions and compromises due to mixed party houses, senates, and other committees. Another issue with the take all system is as you said, voters that would normally lean left can only vote for democrats regardless of their differing opinions on certain topics, this leads to any third party votes directly benefitting trump. Overall, the system of American elections is a broken system and as the the Let a Thousand Parties Bloom article outlined, the benefit of having more like 6-7 parties would be revolutionary.
There are obvious concerns expressed here in regards to the plurality system and third party votes actually going to their opposing candidates, but it does make me wonder if there will ever be a way to break the pattern of two party dominance. The obvious answer would be of course not, we’re too far gone into this model of politics to look back, and I do think that this is the most probable answer. However, if by some chance we could break the system and transition into a more inclusive system of government, the benefits would solve so many issues since one of the biggest reasons decision making is so difficult is because there are no moderates being represented that could see both sides and compromise opinions (just look at the Let a Thousand Parties Bloom article). Trying to break down the two-party system is not something I’m willing to bet will come easily, or ever necessarily, but I fear that if this problem persists and polarization grows, it may lead to more violence as we’ve all seen on January 6th or worse.
Similar to what everyone is saying, although two-party system has some benefits (including the wide platform the covers "the general" public) and has been sustaining the country for a while, there are flaws. I believe the most popular form of democracy, proportional representation, will fix the congress. Third parties like the 1% of the Green Party will be proportionally represented in our country. However, like what Fiora said, breaking down the two-party system that has been embedded to our society is not easy. Currently, the law that was passed in 1967 that bans House district from electing more than one representative is preventing the proportional representation.
Although I understand the prospect of 'spoiling' the election with votes that are essentially going 'nowhere' when third party candidates are involved- however, the aspect of voting for WHOMEVER you want for president is important- and perhaps there is validity in there being these candidates still on these ballots. Even if only 1% of voters are electing more obscure choices for president, if that is representation, it is representation. I don't agree with changing the system in place---if it mean redirecting votes to other candidates--however with the plurality system in place, a negative is as you said, the lack of competition unless attached to a party block. One would question about if multiple candidates under the same party competing for the vote would lessen this?
I think the complexity of this problem lies within America's foundations on which citizens are able to freely express their opinions in government. Because of this, it is often the case where the two major parties typically associated with American politics (Republican and Democrat) do not express the ideas that certain citizens of the U.S. uphold. The introduction of a third party seemingly solves this issue, however it comes at a cost. Because the third party has never once won in a presidential election, and because republican and democratic parties have so much more to basis their efforts on, and continue to fuel their campaign, third parties don't stand a chance. The supposed problem with this is that people who vote for the third parties are essentially wasting their vote, or drawing votes away from either the democratic or republican party which upholds views that the majority of Americans believe in. Ultimately this is a problem with our two aprty system, a problem that I don't see being solved without completely reconstructing how our government works. In my opinion I belive that the two party system has served America well in the past and will continue to provide an effective means of representation for all citizens.
I think it is very interesting how most of these Third Party Candidates/Parties take votes away from the Democratic candidate instead of the Republican candidate. Disregarding RFK for now, its pretty obvious that most of the values held by the third party candidates align relatively closely with the Democratic values. I wonder then, if its obvious that it's impossible for a candidate to win (such as Chase Oliver and Jill Stein not even being present on all 50 ballots), why they continue to run when they know that they are taking votes away from the Democratic party, a party that they might not agree wholeheartedly with, but is definitely closer than the Republican party. Especially since the rise of the MAGA movement, the conservative party has only moved further away from the middle, it is strange that these candidates continue to run when they are basically helping a party that doesn't agree with them.
Another interesting aspect of the third parties effect on the general election is how RFK is treating his dropping out of the race. He decided to do it too late for many of the states deadlines, yet some still spent the money and time to reprint every single ballot. Its things like this that reveal how biased some governments are to one party or another. I'm not saying that its just the Republican party, but its obvious that local and state governments actions like these are going to have an appreciable effect on the result of the election.
Third Parties do have a really important role in tight elections like this one even though they never stand a real chance of winning. These parties may each attract different groups of voters based on their unique platforms, but the impact of voting for them often favors one of the two main candidates indirectly. This post does a good job on how voting for Stein or West could reduce support for Kamala which could lead to a Trump victory. It's also interesting to see how Robert F. Kennedy's name is still on ballots in swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan and how it might affect the vote counts too even though he did drop out to join Trump. This all raises important questions about the two-party system's limits and why third parties rarely gain more ground.
The U.S. electoral system doesn’t make it easy for third-party candidates to gain traction. Because of our current system, the two-party system almost feels hardwired into our politics. In this year’s election, voting for Stein or West could end up pulling support from Harris, which ultimately gives Trump an advantage. The frustrating thing is that in a plurality system, we’re often left deciding between “realistic” options rather than voting with our ideals. So, even if third-party candidates spark important conversations, they usually don’t get the numbers to win, which keeps the two-party system in power. It’s a tough choice for voters who want change but don’t want to “waste” their vote. RFK’s situation adds an interesting aspect to the the election. Even though he dropped out of the race and endorsed Trump, his name still appears on ballots in over 20 states, including key swing states like Wisconsin and Michigan. For voters who choose him, it could create unintended consequences. While any votes for RFK in these states could take away from Trump’s numbers, it also shows just how tricky navigating a third-party vote can be in the U.S.—sometimes, you’re casting a vote that may not have the impact you intended.
The two party system has become dominant, largely due to the political polarization that has grown in the U.S. It's interesting to see that third-party candidates bring up issues that main parties might avoid. For example, Jill Stein pushes for stronger climate action and Chase Oliver's immigration reform and foreign policies. It seems like even though they don't win, they hope that it might help push the major parties to take a stronger stance on these issues. At the same time, the "spoiler effect" is hard to ignore and often times makes it difficult to feel confident about voting third-party if their chance of winning is slim. I wonder if there are any future reforms like ranked-choice voting could help address the issue and make third party votes feel more impactful.
Post a Comment