Role Of Third Parties In Presidential Elections

Despite being the constant underdog and loser in major elections third parties make some significant contribution to the political spectrum in the United States. Third Party Agendas are taken serious by the Democratic and Republican Parties and specific pieces of the Third Party Agendas are sometimes adopted by the two major parties. Third parties give discontented voters other alternatives. The Republican and Democratic Parties have been known to operate in similar styles and third parties give the voter the opportunity to express their discontent. The third parties in the United States are policy advocates and often are more specific about were they stand ideologically. Often the Republican and Democratic Parties try and take a moderate

In recent discussion of Democrats and Republican parties, a controversial issue has been whether or not the U.S. should expand their options from more than a two party system. On the one hand, some argue that there should be more choices other than between the two Democrat Party and Republican Party. From this perspective, voters have more of a variety when they vote. On the other hand, some argue that the U.S. should remain as a two party system. In the words of Gary Johnson, one of this view’s main proponents, “The Republicans and Democrats have spent decades trading power back and forth between themselves, and in doing so, have managed to install a two-party duopoly that completely controls America’s political process.” According to this view, Democrats and Republicans are dictating other parties opportunities to get elected. In sum, then, the issue is whether there should be other options rather than a choice between the Democrat and the Republican Party. I agree with Gary Johnson’s view that the Democrat and Republican Parties are controlling America’s

I agree with this statement because third parties are not very well known enough to get the presidential election and have never had a party member elected into the presidential office. Third party influence is not very high so even though the option is there, more people are likely to vote for the more well known Democratic and Republican than the third party, which means third party candidate votes

the president of the United States every four years is the focal point of the

When George Washington was elected President in 1789 by members of the fledgling United States of America, he was setting into motion a tradition that has stood the test of over 225 years - the presidential election. Even as the United States has seen dozens of wars, made hundreds of scientific advances, and selected thousands of politicians to seats everywhere from small town councils to Congress, the principles of the election have remained the same; the people band together to determine who will best protect their interests at home and assure that the US will always remain on top in foreign policy. Oftentimes, this is found to be a difficult decision, as public opinion is constantly wavering. One sees this in action particularly during the 1992 election - a battle of wills between Bill Clinton, George H.W. Bush, and Ross Perot; complete with lead changes, major vote swings, and Perot’s unprecedented initial success - ultimately a false alarm to the bipartisan establishment.

As the pillars of the electoral college collapse under the tests of time, the institution itself becomes obsolete. First, the concept of, “Winner Takes All,” means that if an election splits 49%-51%, then the smaller party’s votes are virtually erased. This system represents only the majority party in each state, thus effectively silencing all other parties. Additionally, basing the number of electors on the members in both houses of Congress creates an unequal distribution of votes across the states. Due to their infamously low population, Wyoming should statistically have only one elector, but the addition of their two senators brings them to a total of three electors. This means that each of Wyoming’s votes represents less people than every other state. For instance, each of Texas’s 38 votes represents 733,157 people while each of Wyoming’s votes represents 195,157 people. Therefore, the votes of the people of Wyoming are worth 26.62% more than that of Texans. The inequality of voting power between states combined with the “winner take all” system method of tallying votes projects an inaccurate portrayal of will of the American people.

Although no third-party candidate has ever won a U.S. presidential election, I disagree that a third party candidate has only slightly affected the elections. Third-party candidates rarely win elections, but they can split parties. That can affect the outcome of an election when a third-party candidate is especially strong, or when the race between the two other candidates is especially close. Third-party candidates exert influence by focusing the election on particular issues and taking votes away from major candidates. During the 2000, election, Green Party presidential candidate Ralph Nader took votes away from Democrat Al Gore, thus contributing to the loss to George Bush. The most successful of the third parties in any one election was

Third party candidates have the potential to play a significant role in influencing the outcome of elections. In 2000, Ralph Nader, the green party candidate for President, was said to have handed the election to George W. Bush after he received 97,488 votes in the swing state of Florida (Baughman). Ralph Nader was accused of taking votes away from Al Gore, evidently costing him the election. Most recently, third party candidate Gary Johnson was accused of swinging the election in Hillary Clinton’s favor when he received 9% of the popular vote in the state of New Mexico.

In order to participate in major elections, third parties must first overcome a myriad of obstacles that have been put in place by both the founding fathers and politicians of our current two-party system. Rosenstone and his colleagues contend that the most important barrier in place to discourage the success of third parties is the plurality single-member districts that are the cornerstone of the American electoral process. Not only do single-member districts elect only one member to higher office, but they also allow such elections to occur without an electoral majority. If voters know that a third party is unlikely to receive a substantial amount of votes, they may believe a vote for the party would be a wasted vote. This requirement for a plurality of votes is especially detrimental for a third party presidential campaign, due to the fact that the Electoral College distributes electoral votes to the winner of each statewide vote (excluding Nebraska and Maine), and the only plausible way for a third party candidate to receive any electoral votes is to be extremely popular in a certain region of the United States. Unlike the two major

With the level of scandal and conspiracy surrounding our current presidential election, it may seem difficult to imagine an election where the candidates were barely divisive, and a photo of a presidential nominee skinny dipping in the Hudson River was not enough to cause scandal, or even interest in a major-party candidate. However, if we rewind the clock just 112 years to the election of 1904, we find a Cortland County native running as the Democratic Party candidate that no one could say anything bad about. Unfortunately for him, he was running against the very popular Theodore Roosevelt.

The United States presidential election of 1992 was held on November 3, 1992, the three major candidates were Republican George H.W. Bush, Democrat Bill Clinton, and third party Independent Ross Perot. This was one of the most crucial impacts from a third party candidate ever seen in American history. During this time period the public had concern for the federal budget debt, many constitutes of the Democratic and Republican had feared that both Bush and Clinton would lead us into further debt, this allowed multi-millionaire Ross Perot to rise to the rankings. Ross Perot was an industrialist independent who had experience as the head of multiple corporations as well as involvement with public affairs for over thirty years. Perot focused his

In a political atmosphere where it is easy to be grouped up in either conservative or liberal, it is harder to see such an easy split more and more each day. Non-traditional candidates are now emerging into the political arena that in prior elections would have been scoffed at. Whether we are talking about the unusually high polling Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders or the Authoritarian Republican Nominee, Donald Trump, It is getting harder and harder to ignore the rise they are having. The two major political parties will have to adapt to these emerging ideologies or face the threat of the dreaded “third party”.

While other parties did also make a comparable difference when looking at Gore vs. Bush in Florida, the Green Party had the greatest influence and lead over other third parties in the election when looking at more hyperbolic claims by Gore-supporting democrats or analytical studies of Florida third party voters, and Nader’s efforts to essentially defeat a corrupt system, along with his appeal to a more liberal America seemed to help aid in this influence. Furthermore, the Green Party’s surmountable 3% of the national vote (2,882,955 total according to 270towin.com) proves that even though the Green Party was unlikely to win the election, it had great prowess among the American people, and was virtually known by most American voters in the

America is vastly known as a country boundlessly pursuing equality in all facets of life. In this seemingly endless quest for equal opportunity, there has been one lurking negation; our election system. The addition to equal representation in public funding and on the ballot will create variability and allow Americans to entrust their vote in a political format that more closely aligns with democratic philosophy. Therefore, a shift away from a bipartisan, a two party, dominated election system would not only be a healthy change for American electoral satisfaction, but for the future of third party politics. Unfortunately affluence and inherent wealth have played a large role in this divide between a true democratic election and our present biased, broken, and benyne system.

A measurement that could favor and improve third party’s success rate, without changing the Constitution or abandoning the two-party system, would be fusion voting. Under this system, third parties could cross-endorse leading party candidates and have their votes accumulated. This system has been regulated in New York, where a Conservative Party, Liberal Party and many others are found. Oregon has also approved this system recently. The main advantage of fusion voting is that it would pressure leading party candidates to pursue the additional nomination of third parties and work to board their interests.