Third Parties...what's it going to take?

[Adam D]

I don't really want to hit the Nader issue with the 2004 campaign too much, although it's going to make it's way into this as an example. This is far more encompassing than that.


So a lot of people like the idea of third parties coming into serious play in this country, but for whatever reason, they don't. It's a very big question amongst political scientists. There's actually a lot of work done on it, but most of it relates to the institutional problems that hinder third parties, but completely ignore the behaviors of third parties as the means to overcome these institutional problems.

Political scientists make lots of arguments about why third parties are restrained in this country. Some of it boils down to the way the two major parties have been able to institutionalize themselves within the system, and that's a real problem. But it's easier to overcome than a lot of people think. Some of it also boils down to the socialization of the idea that the two major parties are all that there needs to be. That's a bit more difficult to undo, but I think that's really just a matter of showing people how effective third parties can be. But there are two really big arguments made about why third parties are kept out of focus.

One is Duverger's Law (it's French, so it's pronounced Doo-ver-jay) which simply suggests that the institutional means by which representatives are elected determines whether the political arena will be controlled by a two party or a multiparty system. Duverger's Law says when you have single member districts you have a two party system, and when you have proportional representation districts, you have multiparty systems. Single member districts are what we have in this country. When you vote for representatives, you vote for an actual candidate to represent that georgraphical district. Proportional representation districts are common in Europe, where you vote for the parties rather than individual candidates to represent the whole and seats are distributed according to how the party does overall in the election. It's much more complicated, but it facilitates smaller parties obtaining some seats. A lot of people advocate changing the district system to proportional representation to allow for third parties.

The other is Down's median voter theory. This suggests that the two parties in the US try to capture the centrist position as much as possible, and leave the more extreme ends to pick the party that is on their side of the median. For example, the Democrats try to pick up the center, or just to the left of the center, and more liberal and leftist voters have to vote for the Democrats to represent them a little or not vote at all. Same with the other side of the spectrum. Downs suggests that the parties do this because most voters are moderate, so it's easiest to pander to the largest group possible than try to attract the "extremes" of the spectrum with their platform and then battle over gathering the middle. Because the parties are attracting the largest sect of voters directly, it makes third party votes "wasted" because there's no way a smaller group of people on the extremes can overcome the larger group in the middle. But when a third party becomes significant, the major party on that side of the spectrum shifts towards the extreme a little to capture some of those voters back. Downs doesn't really say how to escape this as long as the two parties keep fighting over the middle. Perhaps changing the districting would prevent that sort of middle shifting.

What political scientists ignore all too often, is the effect of media exclusion of third parties and monetary emphasis on the major parties, which seriously hinders any attempt by third parties to outright gain a competitive position.

I think there's some validity to all of the positions above, but there's no way in the near future districting is going to change, or the major parties are going to put themselves in a position to loose ground to third parties. So the third parties need to work around this. That's not as hard as it seems, but it will be a protracted battle. Focus for third party success needs to look at their own behavior, which is ignored by both political science and third parties themselves.

Third parties have tried to compete on the same level as the major parties, which isn't working. Certainly, they have gained added support and exposure through their presidential campaigns and from other campaigns. They've even taken a few local seats around the country. But by and large, they are spinning their wheels in the mud. They don't have the means or power to compete the same way as the two parties that have two centuries of party building behind them.

Third parties need to look at what the two major parties did to attract voters from the start. They didn't just show up and have huge support, they started by connecting to people and giving them a reason to vote for them. Sure, this resulted in very corrupt political machines. And I'm not suggesting a return to that kind of politicking. But what the machines did do, was constantly connect personally with the voters. There's even political science research which suggests that when you connect with people directly, and bring your campaign to them, they're more likely to support you. That's why Dean was able to connect with so many voters so fast. He took his campaign online where people could get involved from their own home. The two major parties used to send people around door to door to talk to people and encourage them to vote. And even now in smaller areas, this is still the way that wins elections.

But third parties aren't doing this. There's nice talk from the Green Party and other parties about "grassroots democracy" but it's just talk. The third parties are not building the institutions to connect with voters and build that sort of grassroots support that could be there. It's all about going door to door and talking to people about their concerns and needs and putting local faces to politics. The major parties have the money and media to not have to do this, but third parties don't.

Third parties also have to campaign endlessly, even when elections are over. They need to build lasting insitutions to keep people aware of them and show what the party really means. That means holding public forums and community events and keeping people in the loop. They don't do this beyond occasional meetings and flyers with members. It has to be bigger than that.

Part of building grassroots democracy is starting from the bottom, and working up the system. Presidential and gubernatorial elections may garner exposure and support, but it's not really effective at that, or obtaining offices. Rather, the third parties should start locally with local elections, and expose themselves directly to the people and build credibility with the public by showing people what that party will do in office. Then move up the ladder, not the other way around. If you want to make huge institutional changes like third parties advocate, you have to do it across the board from the bottom up. It empirically doesn't work the other way around. But third parties won't do this.

[Hey Bubu]

As you mentioned what kind of PR and Marketing camapaing would have to be made to make the masses aware of the alternatives?

We are a skeptical bunch that's for sure.


Also what type of validity does a third party have to produce to gain the trust of the masses, whom have possible never heard of said third party?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by TypeH
As you mentioned what kind of PR and Marketing camapaing would have to be made to make the masses aware of the alternatives?

We are a skeptical bunch that's for sure.

I think it's more about just connecting to people and getting people in their community to campaign for the party in their own communities. You can't go from nothing to president overnight, it's going to have to start small, such as city council, mayor, etc. and work from there.

Also what type of validity does a third party have to produce to gain the trust of the masses, whom have possible never heard of said third party?

By putting out a platform that appeals to people and takes in their concerns, and getting elected to these local positions where the party can prove its merit.

[Hey Bubu]

For a third party to succeed, would you say that it would need to start on major metropolitan cities first?

Take our two major players right now, is there really much of a difference between their platforms? What kind of reform does a third party have to promise and deliver in order to turn the masses towards them?


I think education of the masses is a must.

[Adam D]

Originally posted by TypeH
For a third party to succeed, would you say that it would need to start on major metropolitan cities first?

Not necessarily, I think it really depends on the party's goals.

Take our two major players right now, is there really much of a difference between their platforms? What kind of reform does a third party have to promise and deliver in order to turn the masses towards them?


I think education of the masses is a must.

There's not much of a platform difference between the major parties. Most of it is superficial, although there is some difference between the two on some domestic issues, such as health care and education.

I think the parties would have to offer a substantially different alternative on issues. I think it's going to work best to take on populist issues like health care, education, labor, etc. that people are really concerned about and offer something better than a reaffirmation of the status quo or the status quo plus or minus a dollar.

[Hey Bubu]

I think the populus touch would be the winning factor; eventually, however how would a third party gain the backing of major industries/the rich? Like it or not, as it stands the affluents are the ones that pretty much decide the outcome of things or at least influence them quite a bit.

Socialism wouldn't work in this country either. Let alone communism. Equality is nice and all but it's just a nice idea. Would never work.

Also while I think we should focus more on national policy and resolving our internal issues, one cannot turn a blind eye towards the international community. This would be a very touchy issue period.

On a side note, If what I remember hearing was true it amazed me to know that Bush had never stepped foot outside of the US. I don't care how many aids in your cabinet you have, how the fuck ca we have a president that has never gone outside his own country? Do you know if this is true?

[Adam D]

Originally posted by TypeH
I think the populus touch would be the winning factor; eventually, however how would a third party gain the backing of major industries/the rich? Like it or not, as it stands the affluents are the ones that pretty much decide the outcome of things or at least influence them quite a bit.

I think if a third party was really successful at garnering public support, it wouldn't really need it.

Socialism wouldn't work in this country either. Let alone communism. Equality is nice and all but it's just a nice idea. Would never work.

I don't think perfect equality could exist, but there are better alternatives out there to the status quo.

Also while I think we should focus more on national policy and resolving our internal issues, one cannot turn a blind eye towards the international community. This would be a very touchy issue period.

Indeed. I don't think a third party would be better off focusing on domestic issues first and getting local support before trying to conquer the federal level and international issues.

On a side note, If what I remember hearing was true it amazed me to know that Bush had never stepped foot outside of the US. I don't care how many aids in your cabinet you have, how the fuck ca we have a president that has never gone outside his own country? Do you know if this is true?

I heard that too, but I can't confirm it with any certainty.

[Krash]

Originally posted by Adam D
I heard that too, but I can't confirm it with any certainty.

That was a big thing when he got elected, apparently the furthest he had ever been was mexico or canada.

re needing the backing of the rich and the affluent - you don't, really - u just need the backing of the majority - and there are far more working / middle class people in the US, as there are everywhere else in the world, than the former group.

Appeal to them, you win the election. Problem is, if you appeal to them too much, as Chavez has done to make a topical analogy, you're gonna alienate the people that make the country go round.

[Hey Bubu]

Originally posted by Adam D



I don't think perfect equality could exist, but there are better alternatives out there to the status quo.

Any countries that you could say practice what you think would be more ideal? or at least any countries coming close to it?

Just wanting to see a clearer picture of what you think would make for a better government. Oh and I agree there's got to be something better than what we have now.

[Element4040]

Great piece Adam, tks.

I think the #1 problem with the 3rd parties has to do with what you mentioned in another thread. They need to campaign year round. Most people have no clue who these guys are and are very unlikely to vote a party into power that they know little about. It would also help to grab smaller offices first. This is even true for the 2 major parties. Candidates rarely come out of nowhere, they are already serving in public office in some form or fashion.

Voters these day's are extremely un-educated. Partly I blame the whole system as it is today. I think that the Dems and the Repubs want us to be mis-informed and un-educated. It's much easier to sway our opinions. All you gotta do is watch TV for a bit to see the hot topics being batted back and forth between the two. I think the most recently debated topics have been Gay Marriage and Military service records. In what way,shape, or form do either of these have to do with the majority of Americans. This is what American's think they want, or maybe it just makes better news. I do blame the media for alot of the failures of the 3rd party. The only air time they seem to get is when someone is making fun of them etc.

This leads me to the 2nd problem that is facing 3rd party candidates. There is little or no media coverage given to 3rd parties. They cannot compete at the same level as the 2 major parties. They cannot get anywhere close to the level of funding the 2 major parties get. They don't have influence, so why would anyone use them to lobby? This is the reason I support Campaign reform. The only way to level the field is to level the money. Not only that but you take away the power of the massive lobbyists. i.e. Tobacco and Oil and all the other major players that the 2 parties pander to. Both the major parties cater to their interest groups .

But in all honestly there isn't much for me to say on the subject, cause I can't talk about it half as knowledgeable as Adam. So n e way, there was my layman's perspective.

[Adam D]

I certainly agree. Third parties and their members spend a lot of time complaining about media exclusion. I don't tend to disagree, it's a big problem, but the media isn't going to suddenly start including third parties with any equality anytime in the near future, certainly without a catalyst to do so.

Nor is the media going to address issues that are significant to most voters because public opinion runs counter to elite opinion on most of these issues. So they get ignored. I don't think the media is going to flip on that anytime soon, either.

So third parties need to work around that, rather than simply complain about it. The best way to do that is to use manpower as a substitute for media/dollars and spawn grassroots campaigns to get the word out and to organize. It costs nothing to send volunteers around their own neighborhoods talking to their own neighbors about the party and the platform. I think if that happened on a widespread level, the major parties would shit bricks because they don't know how to deal with that.

Third parties wouldn't even need to compete with the solid voting blocks of either of the major parties, half the country doesn't vote it would be easy to attract a lot of these voters by just talking to them face to face. Although doing so would also likely attract voters away from the major candidates.

It's not rocket science, it's common sense. If you can't get on the media you want, find other means to expose yourself. Canvasing, dropping leaflets off in public places, posting notices in public places, calling into local radio shows, holding community events, etc.