The just concluded 2016 United States (U.S) Presidential Election was one of the most dramatic and surprising elections in the nation’s history. This is due to the unexpected win by Donald Trump. However, before the election, it was observed that many of the electorates were abandoning their parties. This was followed by their open declarations that they do not know who they would vote for between the two candidates, that is, Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton. Some even confessed to forfeit voting entirely. The 2016 presidential race presented the most disliked presidential candidates in the history of the U.S. Consequently; many prospective voters began to look for a third party candidate as an option to vote for during the election. Third Party candidates, commonly referred to as ‘spoiler candidates,' were viewed as being able to take votes away from Donald Trump or Hillary Clinton. Likewise, they were regarded as being in a position to lure away the voters whose views agreed with theirs; hence serving to give a huge push that would help them get to the White House.
This paper presents a discourse on the extent to which Third Party candidates can detrimentally affect the chances of the Democratic or Republican candidates and therefore alter the outcome of the U.S presidential election. It will expound on what makes Third Party candidates either appealing or distasteful in the eyes of the public and if Third Party system is worthwhile in winning votes. Should people vote for Third Party candidates? The paper’s central theme is to address the dominance of the Republican and Democratic parties, giving a critical review of whether the dominance of the two parties is right for the American Presidential politics. It will, therefore, seek to establish whether more parties should be allowed to be involved in the Presidential race so as to avoid the dilemma that was experienced during the 2016 election campaigns.
Delegate your assignment to our experts and they will do the rest.
The Leading Third Party Candidates in 2016
The 2016 presidential elections had two dominating Third Party candidates. These were Gary Johnson and Jill Stein. Johnson, previously Governor of New Mexico, was a party Nominee of the Libertarian. On the other hand, Stein was the Green Party flag bearer. Subtly, it may have been easy for voters to be lured by Stein's environmentally friendly policies and the student debt waiver policies or on the other hand Johnson's removal of income and federal taxes. However, massive loopholes exist in the implementation of such proposals. Also, it would be difficult to implement the policies without destroying the existing systems of governance. In their manifestos, as is well known, Third Party candidates try not to offend or appease anyone. As a result, most of the policies formulated by these Third Party candidates appear neutral and beneficial to all. However, politically, this is not possible (Bush, 2016).
These scenarios elicit a debate on whether if ample resources are given to Third Party candidates, they will give a real challenge to the two dominant parties in the presidential ballot. On the one hand, the voter groups can be consolidated into two different parties to have a president that is favored by at least over half of Americans. On the other hand, multiple options can be availed so as to split voters multiple ways so that the “best” candidate wins. In reality, however, only a quarter of Americans would end up agreeing with the winner. For instance, if the two leading Third Party candidates were given an opportunity to participate in the public debates, the voters would have been given other options besides Trump or Clinton. Due to this, the reality is that many voters did not know that Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump were not the only presidential candidates. Unable to meet the required popularity threshold to participate in the debates, the two leading Third Party candidates were locked out. This was due to their failure to reach the popularity threshold of at least fifteen percent (Bush, 2016).
The Republican Hunt for a Third Party Candidate
The 2016 presidential election was widely defined by vulgar language and frustration of the electorate due to prominence of the two traditional parties, whose nominees were seen as not being ideal. Therefore, Stein and Johnson presented an opportunity for the nation to break the ever-present dominance of Republican and Democrat parties. If these Third Party candidates were given the opportunity to take part in the debate, they would have potentially played ‘a spoiler role in the outcome' (Bush, 2016). Through such debates, the Third Party candidates would have shown America that there were better options for the presidential post. In the 2016 presidential campaigns, the failure to embrace a well-founded undoing of historical dominance underscored a significant aspect of the U.S politics (Bush, 2016).
The voters were inconsistent in supporting their party candidates. They, therefore, showed a see-sawing need for a Third Party candidate to save them from the confusion, at least to give them an option better than the two popular candidates. Considering that the not-so-popular parties are numerous, the hindrances to winning arise either from lack of experience in politics or their access to limited resources (Bush, 2016). When Donald Trump won the Republican Party candidature, critics, and other party loyalists began to search for a Third Party candidate they would support to thwart Donald's ambitions of entering the White House. Many political operators began ‘calling potential candidates and developing legal contingency plans for overcoming onerous ballot qualification laws’ (Gibson & Allen, 2016).
The quest to undo Donald Trump’s candidacy among the critics was their concern for the future of America’s politics. For instance, a group of Republicans led by Joel Searby, who is the party strategist, led the hunt for a Third Party candidate for the 2016 Presidential Elections. Another hunt for a Third Party candidate came from conservatives led by Erick Erickson to ensure that neither Donald Trump nor Hillary Clinton entered the White House. Despite these efforts, a Third Party candidate has never won a presidential election in the history of U.S politics. However, some have won massively in other nations. The push initiated by the Republican Party supporters highlighted the abnormal chasms in light of Donald Trump’s prospects of winning against Hillary Clinton (Gibson & Allen, 2016).
Trump’s opposition to free trade was disliked by many party members, especially those who were engaged in international businesses. On the other hand, Hillary Clinton’s prominent critics hated her offensive oratory. When Trump acknowledged that he would bar Muslims to travel or live in the U.S and gave comments referring immigrants from the neighboring Mexico as drug dealers and rapists, many voters hated him. However, the Republicans acknowledged their worry that a ‘third-party candidate would only siphon votes away from Trump and help Clinton win the election’ (Gibson & Allen, 2016).
The Challenging Pursuit of a Third Party Candidate
The group leading the search for a Third Party candidate wanted a popular individual who would win against both Donald and Hillary. However, getting a candidate of such competence was not easy. The options available to the group were varied. For instance, they sought to lure James Mattis, the retired General of the U.S Marine Corps and Condoleezza Rice, the former State Secretary among other promising people. Another prospect was Ben Sasse, a Republican. When Trump was named the Republican Party candidate, numerous calls were made to the office of the Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson. Most of these calls came from various government officials allied with the Republican Party, acknowledging that they could not support Trump’s candidature. Since some of the policies that Johnson proposed were at par with the beliefs and ideals of Republicans, he was seen to be a viable option. For instance, Johnson’s stand on the legalization of Marijuana was similar to the position held by the Republicans. However, the hunt for Third Party candidates was marred with many fears. Besides the fact that a Third Party candidate has never won a U.S election, there were fears that a Third Party candidate would only serve to siphon votes and assure the enemy victory. Others saw the impossibility as resulting from the restrictive popularity threshold and structures (Gibson & Allen, 2016).
The Unfavorable Structure of American Politics for Third Party Candidates
Julian Zelizer, a presidential historian at Princeton University, cited that ‘the possibility for a Third party candidate to succeed is slim to none' (Gibson & Allen, 2016). Zelizer’s sentiments arise from the structured hindrances and hurdles placed upon Third Party candidates. In many instances, the U.S political structures are limiting and hinder these candidates from gaining popularity. Firstly, the requirements to get on the ballot paper are primarily hard in many states. In Texas, for example, a potential candidate requires popularity signatures from about 80,000 voters. It is not easy to achieve this due to the timeline that is given to do the same (Gibson & Allen, 2016; Prentice, 2005; Sifry, 2003). Based on interviews and comments from political scientists and election strategists, both currently and in the past, there is a consensus that structural hurdles are the main hindrances to the success of Third Party candidates. The candidates have limited access to essential resources like cash. Also, the media focuses chiefly on the prominent parties, that is, Democrat and Republican excluding these candidates from the public eye. Robert Shapiro, a Columbia University political scientist, said this concerning the prospects of a third party candidate winning, ‘It has less to do with the characteristics of the individual candidate, and more to do with how well things are going in the country' (Bush, 2016; Sifry, 2003).
The problem is not that these people are not good enough; the problem is the existing structures in the U.S electoral system. Even though many voters were seeking alternative candidacy because they lacked belief in the ideals held by the respective party nominees, there were no favorable structures to assure victory rather than mere siphoning votes to the other candidate. In America, Third Party candidates have been locked out since early 1800, after adopting the two-party election system. Third party candidates who have succeeded relatively in the past capitalized on divisions within the two major parties, albeit, no one has ever won any election (Bush, 2016).
Past Third Party Presidential Candidacies
Theodore Roosevelt vied for the presidency as a Third Party candidate in the year 1912, about four years since he was in the office. Taking advantage of the schism among the Republicans, he mounted on a Third Party ticket through the Progressive Party. Popular as he was, he did not manage to win the elections. He only managed to come to the second position, with wins from six states and eighty-eight Electoral College votes (Bush, 2016). Another successful Third Party candidate was Wallace, formerly a governor of Alabama. As a well-known supporter of the segregation movement, he managed to win in five states with only forty-six Electoral College votes. According to Dan Carter, a historian, Wallace was the last Third party candidate to get all Electoral College votes from a state. The possibility for Wallace’s success was founded on the racial hatred that was so prevalent during the time. His success in the Third party candidacy ranks second to that of Theodore Roosevelt (Bush, 2016).
After Wallace, more than twenty years passed before another Third Party candidate, Ross Perot, made a national appeal. Ross was a wealthy man from Texas. Having no prior experience in politics, he utilized his wealth to facilitate his campaigns using chart-laden advertisements. Through such model, he managed to raise his popularity and landed a position in the presidential election debate in 1992. He stood alongside political gurus like Bill Clinton and George Bush. Bill Miller, a veteran lobbyist, said of him ‘He was so weird that he captured the imagination. His tone of voice, his style, we'd never seen anything like it before' (Bush, 2016). During the election, Perot capitalized on the events that were prevalent during the time. The economic recession and the fact that Republicans were upset by the Bush breakage of his campaign promises on the tax increase, many electorates were looking forward to change after more than a decade of Republican dominance in the White House. However, Perot managed only a nineteen percent popularity vote, ranking second after Roosevelt in the Third party candidacy history. On the final Election Day, he failed to win even a single Electoral College vote (Bush, 2016; Prentice, 2005).
Third Party candidates should get fair competing grounds
Another Third Party candidate of the past is Ralph Nader, whom until now many Democrats blame for the loss of 200 elections. As a Green Party candidate, he managed about three percent of the popularity votes (Sifry, 2003). However, Nader managed to win ninety-seven thousand votes in the state of Florida, with Bush getting only 537 from the same state. Many Democrats blamed Nader for their loss in the Election stating that if it were not for his candidacy; they would have won. Looking back on the campaign, he accused the two major parties, Democrat and Republican parties, and the media. In his statement, Nader said that the Media and popularity of these parties made it ‘difficult for third-party candidates to compete in presidential elections’ (Bush, 2016; Prentice, 2005).
In the 2016 presidential elections, the Third Party candidates were merely rejected because their parties were unpopular. Many voters quickly dismissed voting for Johnson and Stein because they belonged to unpopular parties. Many voters believe that ‘voting for a candidate destined to lose is a waste’ (Joffe, 2016). Just as it happened in Florida when Nader won a massive sweep against political gurus like George Bush, it was still possible to vote for these people. The Florida outcome during the 2000 Elections shows that when third party candidates are given a fair ground to compete, they can collect more votes and change the outcome of an election (Bush, 2016; Joffe, 2016).
Another hindrance is that people do not even know about these candidates. The media gives little coverage to these people, let alone their not participating in the live debates because of less popularity vote. People, therefore, did not vote for Third Party candidates because they did not know about them or their policy idea, or they were simply ignorant in their thinking (Joffe, 2016). Every vote counts and voting cannot be equated to betting. While gambling relies on the strength of the team, voting is grounded on the preference of the voter. That is, it is only possible for a Third party candidate to win the election if people get over the nuisance of party popularity and vote according to the worthiness of a candidate. Johnson and Stein proved to be viable options for the presidency since both Trump and Clinton showed massive flaws in leadership (Joffe, 2016).
When Third party nominees get enough support through availing of resources and ample media coverage, they can make a massive impact on the outcome of an election. The problem is not siphoning votes; the problem is that people are convicted that a popular party candidate will win even if his policies are shaky (Prentice, 2005). The electorates choose on the basis of who is apt to win the election based on party popularity. Third Parties are like the ‘Muted Groups' in the election campaign process. Prentice reports that , ‘Since our nation is so deeply entrenched in a two-party system, these alternative candidates are viewed with suspicion by major parties who see them as threats to their electability because they are perceived as spoilers, stealing the votes that somehow should belong to one or the other of the major candidates' (Prentice, 2005). It is the existence of major parties that hinder the expression of Third parties, whose ideals may be ignored by the electorates even when they are good. Voters thrive on the notion that voting for a third party candidate is equal to wasting the vote. However, people must know that when Third party candidates are given what is due to them when every voter casts his vote wisely and unbiased, then they can win the election (Prentice, 2005).
For the good of the country and progress of the ideals of democracy, Third party candidates must be given fairground to the campaign. The government and debate organizers must ensure all contestants get ample time to publicize their views, just as the others. It is apt to say that, during the 2106 presidential campaign, the Third Party candidates were muted, with very little presence in the media. Many of the features produced focused on Trump and Clinton, though people knew that these two were not good options for the presidential post. Also, it may be that most of the ideals referred to during the election are grounded on the worldviews of the Democratic and Republican parties. With such a myopic consideration of only two possibilities, people must be given alternatives to choose from when all the two seem unstable.
Third party candidates can make good leaders for the country and should be voted for, and given fair ground of competition. The nation must get over the nuisance of popular votes and give each candidate time to present his or her views to the populace. The 2016 presidential election may have hindered the progress of Johnson and Stein because they did not meet the fifteen percent popularity votes as required for participating in the ‘nationally televised presidential debates' (Gallo, 2016). On the other hand, the media offered a biased coverage for all the candidates. With little coverage in the media or none at all, the Third Party candidates are misunderstood by voters. In other instances, voters may not even have known about them. While many electorates disagreed with the ideals of Trump and Clinton, very few were aware that there were other candidates in the race. The voices of ordinary people are obstructed along the way, prompting a quest to maintain the status quo (Sifry, 2003).
The quest to overcome the long-lived dominance of the two parties never seem to come to an end because ‘to many voters, it appears that the two major parties will never cede their deeply-entrenched positions' (Kannegieter, 2016). The two major parties still have a firm grip on the politics of United States, but another active power can rise above them if voters can actively sabotage their dominance. The reality, as we saw in 2016 presidential campaigns, is that the Democrats and Republicans still dominate the political scene, leaving Third parties as footnotes in the campaign process. Media and federal structures reforms need to be carried out so as to allow for a change in the electoral system. Even the history of America has shown that Third party candidates can make a significant change in an election outcome. In conclusion, therefore, Third party candidates are not spoilers of election outcome but rather legitimate contestants deserving fair ground to campaign.
References
Bush, D. (2016, September 25). What would it take for a third-party candidate to make it to the White House? Retrieved November 29, 2016, from PBS NEWS HOUR: http://www.pbs.org/newshour/updates/americas-off-love-affair-third-party-candidates/
Gallo, W. (2016, November 5). Yet Again, Third-party Presidential Candidates Limp Toward Finish Line . Retrieved November 29, 2016, from VOA News: http://www.voanews.com/a/third-party-candidates-in-us-election-limp-toward-finish/3581426.html
Gibson, G., & Allen, J. (2016, May 7). Chagrined anti-Trump Republicans seek to recruit third-party candidate . Retrieved from Politicususa: http://www.politicususa.com/2016/05/07/chagrined-anti-trump-republicans-seek-recruit-third-party-candidate.html
Joffe, M. (2016, June 21). Your Vote for a Third Party Candidate Won’t Be a Waste in 2016 . Retrieved November 29, 2016, from The Fiscal Times: http://www.thefiscaltimes.com/Columns/2016/06/21/Your-Vote-Third-Party-Candidate-Won-t-Be-Waste-2016
Kannegieter, T. (2016, August 8). How Third Party Candidates Have Already Changed our Elections . Retrieved November 29, 2016, from Real Politics: http://www.realpolitics.us/2016/08/08/how-third-party-candidates-have-already-changed-our-elections/
Prentice, C. (2005). Third Party Candidates in Political Debates: Muted Groups Struggling to Express Themselves. Speaker and Gavel .
Sifry, M. (2003). Spoiling for a Fight: Third-Party politics in America. New York.
