Why Third Party Candidates in the US don't stand a chance at winning
Although in theory the United sates has a multi party system in reality the Democrats and Republicans reign supreme. For the last 163 years the president has either been a Republican or a Democrat. This is largely because third party candidates are subject to a plethora of institutional obstacles. Not the least of which is the actual system of voting itself. Indeed, Americas first past the post system is one in which inevitably favours a two party system and renders it virtually impossible for a third party candidate to break through.
In America the Electoral College decides the outcome of a presidential election. Electors are appointed to each of the 50 states plus the district of Columbia. The number of electors per state is proportionate to the population and equal to the members of congress in which that state is entitled. For instance California, with a considerably large population has 55 electoral votes whilst Alaska though geographically large has a miniscule population and thus only one electoral vote. During a presidential election if a candidate wins the majority of votes within that state, they are entitled to all of that states electoral votes. This is why certain populous “swing states” are the focus of such particular attention during elections. Thus even if a candidate is able to win 49% of votes within a particular congressional district, they are left with nothing. This winner takes all system makes it exceptionally difficult for third party candidates as there is little incentive for such a candidate to run knowing full well they will be unable to receive a majority of votes. Indeed, in the 1992 presidential election, independent candidate Ross Perot was able to gain a remarkable 18.91 percent of the popular vote but was still unable to gain even a single electoral vote.
Disregarding the actual electoral system itself there are further significant hindrances to the success of third party candidates, one of which is access to debates. The American primary and presidential debates are significant platforms for candidates to raise their public profile and to distinguish themselves from their fellow candidates. However the debates are controlled by a privately operated group called the Commission on Presidential Debates, which is of course run by Republicans and Democrats. The rules of the CPD stipulate that a candidate must gain 15% of the vote in multiple polls in order to qualify. However the two third party candidates running in this presidential election, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian party and Jill Stein of the Greens, have largely been excluded from polls altogether. Indeed the media largely ignore such candidates, thinking they do not stand a chance at winning anyway so what’s the point, thus creating a self fulfilling prophecy, for with so little media attention candidates are unable to gain the kind of traction and popular support that is needed to secure them a place in the debates. Thus perpetuating their existence on the periphery, in fact, Jill Stein was actually arrested in 2012 for trying to attend a debate she didn’t qualify for.
Another significant factor working in their disadvantage is money. Third parties do not have the large coffers that the major parties do. Nor do they have access to the large corporate lobbying powers and super PACS of the Republicans and Democrats. Indeed why would any significant corporation with money up for grabs back a losing cause. It seems reasonable to assume that money was in fact one of the primary reasons that motivated Bernie Sanders, the longest serving independent in US congressional history, to run as a Democrat in the 2016 election. One could argue the same for Trump. Indeed Trump is hardly in agreement with the republican establishment on a number of issues. Never the less, the name and brand of republican carries with it significant power and reach that Trump would be unlikely to hold as an independent candidate. Indeed although Americans do have a system of federal funding, which is available to candidates, they would need to have gained 5% of the vote in the last election to qualify for it. For third party candidates, the goal is not so much about winning the election, at least not at this point in time, but to try to have an influence on the national conversation. Indeed Ross Perot may not have been able to win the necessary amount of votes but he was able to utilise his position to articulate his concern about the national debt. However many could justifiably contend that winner take all elections inevitably disenfranchise minorities and are thus not particularly democratic.
By comparison Australia’s system of preferential voting is designed to ensure that a duopoly does not reign supreme and that the interests of minority groups and those advocating alternative viewpoints also have a chance of representation. However whilst this seems a more democratic practice in theory it is also what paves the way for extreme right wing groups to claw their way into power. Indeed a snapshot of the makeup of the Australian parliament after this last election is a testament to some of the pitfalls of preferential voting what with the now newly elected four One Nation senators. However one could easily argue that the Republicans have been becoming progressively more right wing and extreme over the last few decades anyway, without the fractioning of the party.
Thus it seems clear that without institutional changes to the electoral process Americas two party system will continue to endure. Perhaps Churchill was right after all when he said that democracy was the worst system of government aside from all the rest.
