The Lesser of Two Evils by Steve Hansen
As Todd mentioned yesterday, there are more than 50 currently active political parties in the US. In most other Democratic nations, there are multiple parties in power. So why not the US? Why are we typically faced with choosing “the lesser of two evils?”
Typically, in nations that have a “plurality” based voting system (also called “winner take all” or “first past the post” voting), the likelihood is that there will become two strong political parties, and all other parties will be incidental. Proportional voting systems (such as those used in much of Europe) tend to result in situations where multiple parties control portions of the distribution of power.
The United States voting system is a plurality system. So why does that tend to create a strong two party system?
Difficult To Get On The Ballot
Many states require non-recognized political parties to submit petitions signed by a minimum percentage of the eligible electorate, frequently 1%. In addition, many states require the petitions to be submitted with a verification fee (for instance, some counties in Florida charge $0.10 per name). Additionally, each state has its own rules and its own process.
Attempting to get on the Presidential ballot is so difficult that in the 2000 election, when Ralph Nader ran a relatively strong election on the Green Party ticket, he was unable to get on the ballot in 3 states. A Supreme Court ruling in 1971 put an upper limit on the number of signatures required to get on the ballot. The limit? 5% of the registered electorate. With the current population numbers, this could be nearly 7.5 million signatures!
Voters Don’t Want To Waste Their Votes
Each state has its own rules regarding how the votes of the electorate are divided up in an election. Typically, the counts are taken at actual count value in smaller elections. In Presidential elections, most states award all electoral votes to the candidate with the most votes. In effect, winning by a single vote is no different than receiving 100% of the vote. When a candidate is viewed as likely to land in third place, most people won’t “waste their vote” by voting for that candidate, knowing that there will be absolutely no value for that vote, unless the candidate happens to win. If, on the other hand, the electoral vote was distributed on a pro rata basis, third-party candidates would have a realistic chance of receiving at least a small number of electoral votes and people wouldn’t feel like they were wasting their opportunity by voting for a third-party candidate.
What About Debates?
Why are third party candidates frequently omitted from debates? This is partially a matter of the networks pushing for ratings, and partially a matter of logistics: If there are 5 parties presenting a candidate, and the rules of a debate allowed 5 minutes per candidate per question, a 90 minute debate featuring all 5 candidates would only allow 3 questions to be asked during the entire debate. Conducting the same debate with only the two main political parties’ candidates would allow for 9 questions.
Does this mean that third party political parties should give up? Absolutely not! Even though the third party candidate may have no chance of actually winning, the third party can certainly put enough information out there to force the main parties to be more responsive.
Also, remember that changing this system would require the existing “Ruling Class” politicians to give up a portion of their power. After all, by controlling 100% of the electoral votes, the primary parties maintain significant control over the outcome, and that’s just a winning business strategy. Also, remember that a strong 3rd party candidate can divert votes from one or both of the primary parties. This happened in 1992 when Ross Perot ran, resulting in a significant portion of votes being diverted from George H.W. Bush to Perot, resulting in the election of Bill Clinton. (I’m not claiming that this was a GOOD outcome, but it was certainly an influence.) The recent election in New York’s 23rd district is another great example. The 3rd party candidate had so much support, that one candidate DROPPED OUT rather than simply losing. Imagine what might have happened if 1) he had run the campaign with the same level of funding as his opponents or 2) had been able to campaign for the same length of time as the other two, or at least been given the same coverage by the media. Lastly, as of November 12, this election has still not be certified, so, even though he conceded, he might still win.