Honors Political Science - Research Paper Example

Honors Political Science Research Paper Introduction Third parties have long been recognized for their attempts at capturing the presidency with no success. Nonetheless, these parties have been instrumental in the formulation of relevant regulations and legislations in the US. Third parties refer to political parties within the US that do not fall under the umbrella of either of the two principal US political parties. However, the term also defines politicians running independently without being affiliated with any political party. Over the last century, the US has had a two-party system, which entails presidential elections run on a winner-take-all system and a plurality voting system for Congressional elections. Third party candidates seldom win elections, for instance, since 1990 nobody out of third party candidates could do that; only one third party candidate has won a Senate election. This encompasses 0.6% of the Senate election wins. This percentile is reduced to null when considering presidential elections. No third party candidate has won a US presidential election in the last few decades. This paper will examine the reason why third parties have been unsuccessful in capturing the presidency in the twenty first century despite having progressive ideas. Ideas from third parties have had substantial influences on US legislation. Third Parties The American political system has been mostly unkind to third parties. Third parties function more as sideshows or irritants than significant rivals in US elections. Third parties, such as the American Vegetarian Party, Libertarian Party, Nativist Know-Nothing Party and Agrarian Populist party, have been invaluable as safety valves with regard to alienated voters, as well as sources of new ideas. When these new ideas become popular among the electorate, principal parties typically adopt the ideas. In the last half of the 20th century, third parties were considered as transitory and primarily had insufficient and ineffective infrastructures (Aldrich 211). In 1948, Southerners rejected the Democratic Party’s turn towards civil rights; thus, the Southerners exited to establish the Dixiecrats or otherwise called State’s Rights Democratic Party. Dixiecrats’ candidate Storm Thurmond won many popular votes and 39 electoral votes from numerous Southern states. In the same year, Henry Wallace’s party, which had broken away from the leftist Democratic coalition, formed the Progressive Party and won a majority of the votes scattering the North and Midwestern votes. Two decades later, similar civil rights issues pushed a Southern breakaway political group to unite in the American Independent Party allowing George Wallace’s party to win nearly 10 million votes. In the modern era, third parties draw the most attention by being the heroic independent voice against the nominees of the main parties. The modern era is marred by public disengagement and cynicism (Disch 52). Public opinion polls indicate that Americans assert they would like to see a leader from a third party. Americans prefer third party leaders to provide an alternative to the century-long leading party presidential candidacy. On the local and state level, certain third parties, such as Liberal and Conservative Parties of New York and the Farmer-Labor Party of Minnesota have lasted and triumphed. Consumer-oriented Americans typically approve third parties, especially with regard to the parties’ principles. However, despite third parties’ efficacy in terms of formulating effective policies and measures, third parties have still been unable to acquire the presidency, which is the most important political office in the nation. In the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, third parties were quite popular and acquired significant votes in elections. However, this scenario shifted over the last few decades, especially over the final half of the 20th century when third parties failed to acquire substantial votes in presidential elections. The popularity of third parties in contemporary elections shows that such parties face serious drawbacks that deter their attainment of the top political position. Electoral support in the twenty first century has especially declined for leftist third parties. This emanates from the changes established in electoral laws, especially with regard to direct, primary elections laws. In the US, ballot access laws have been quite detrimental to third party candidates seeking presidential election. The Republican, as well as Democratic Party, easily acquires ballot access in all states during all elections as third parties usually fail to meet the threshold for ballot access. These include essential criteria, such as registration fees, petition requirements, which require that a certain number of voters sign a petition to endorse an independent or a third party. Perhaps, the most successful independent politician to run for the presidency was billionaire Ross Perot who managed to raise substantial funds for his campaigns. Perot’s name appeared on ballot papers in all 50 states in 1992 (Bernstein 21). The fact that Perot is one of the few independent or third party candidates to appear in all state ballots is implicit of just how difficult it is for third parties to meet all thresholds for ballot access. Since then, the Green Party was able to access 44 state ballots in the year 2000, this figure dropped to 27 in 2004. In 2004, the Constitution Party appeared in 42 state ballots, while, in 2008, Ralph Nader appeared in 34 state ballots. Debate rules that govern US presidential elections also deter third parties from successfully attaining the presidency. Presidential debates between nominees of principal parties began in 1960 and took place in all elections except three cycles after 1960. Nominees from third parties and independent candidates have participated in only two cycles of the presidential debates. The 2000 revised rules on debate access made it rather difficult for third party candidates to gain access to presidential debates. This is because the new rules stipulate that, despite having sufficient state ballots to win a majority in the Electoral College, debate participants have to clear up to 15% in the pre-debate opinion polls. This means that third party candidates are ineligible to participate in presidential debates, which, in turn, means that such candidates have no chance of winning the nation’s presidency. If the 15% criterion were in place, nominees, such as Perot and Anderson, would not have participated in the presidential debates (Open Debates 1). Furthermore, third parties have failed to win presidential elections in years because the major parties always try to do their best to marginalize them. In some instances, third party candidates strike a chord with a majority of voters because the parties raise pertinent issues to national prominence. In most cases, key parties respond to this strategy by adopting the proposed issues in the subsequent elections. For instance, pursuant to 1968, the Republican Party adopted the Southern Strategy to gather support of conservative Democrats who opposed the Civil Rights Movement, the subsequent legislation and to tackle third parties with Southern agendas. This move was in response to the popularity of segregation candidate called George Wallace. Wallace used the same strategy to acquire 13.5% of the nation’s popular votes in the 1968 election under the umbrella of the American Independent Party. In addition, in the year 1996, Democrats and Republicans consented to deficit reduction following Perot’s popularity in the 1992 elections as a result of the deficit reduction strategy (Moscow 53). Other electoral laws, such as the introduction of direct primaries and the adoption of the Australian ballot, adversely affected the chance of third parties capturing the presidency. These institutional transformations reduced electoral support for third parties through the reduction of incentives for nominees affiliated with third parties. Progressive leaders supported direct primaries as a means to reduce the influence of party machines with regard to taking control of party nominations. Before the establishment, of direct primaries, candidates that appealed to voters dissatisfied with policies in main parties were often shunned by leaders of the major parties. These persons were forced to seek nominations in third parties. Transitory Nature of Third Parties As earlier noted, third party candidates have rarely won any elections in the US. To date, only two US Senators, these are Bernie Sanders and Joe Lieberman, have won US Senate elections without being affiliated to either Republican or Democratic Parties. Currently, only Governor Lincoln Chafee is an affiliate of a third party. In American history, only two US Presidents were elected without being affiliated to either major party. George Washington and Andrew Johnson became US Presidents but did not hail from any major party. In the 20th century, independent governors have been elected from third parties, such as Reform, Prohibition, Populist, Progressive and Farmer-Labor parties (Bibby and Maisel 142). However, despite not winning any presidential elections, third parties have had significant influence on the elections. For instance, third parties often draw attention to pertinent issues that main parties may ignore. When such issues find acceptance among voters, one or even all principal parties may end up adopting the issues into the party’s platform. In addition, voters also use third parties to cast protest votes, which are seen as a form of referendum with regard to fundamental issues that affect a state or the entire nation. The impact of third parties on national and state-wide elections is indispensible. This is so because third parties, to some extent, promote voter turnout by bringing many people to the polls. Third party candidates holding the top positions on the ticket help pull attention to other third party candidates at the bottom of the ballot ticket. For instance, the 2004 US electoral elections encompassed 43% Democrats, 33% Republicans and 25% belonging to third parties. In 2000, renowned reformer Ralph Nader launched a third party effort, which helped him acquired 90,000 votes in the state of Florida. The votes cast for Nader may have thrown the election in favor of George Bush. Third parties have an immense impact on US legislation. History shows that third parties propose the following issues: electoral changes, changes in communication laws and changes in gun ownership policies. Major parties adopt these proposals in subsequent polls to help raise popularity of their candidates. This shows the indispensable impact of third parties on US legislations. Ross Perot Despite being affiliated to a third party, Ross Perot had immense influence on US legislation. After Perot organized a rescue mission in Iran, Bill Clements, the then Texas governor requested Perot’s assistance in formulating policies to curb illicit drug use. Perot was successfully able to lead the Texas War on Drugs Committee in establishing five substantial laws that were subsequently enacted by the US legislature. In addition, in 1983, Democratic Governor Mark White sought the assistance of Perot to augment the condition of the state’s public education system. Perot ended up leading a Select Committee on Public Education that reformed the school system. This committee’s proposals, under the leadership of Perot, resulted in significant legislative changes. However, despite his enormous input in the US legislative system, Perot is renowned for his “No Pass, No Play” doctrine that was passed into law. This rule requires that students should pass in their respective grades in order to take part in school sponsored extracurricular activities. This law aims at preventing high school sports from becoming the focal point of school’s funding, as well as emphasizing the essence of education in students who engage in sports. Perot’s input in US legislation also entails a reform measure that called for teachers to undergo competency testing. However, the Texas teachers unions strongly opposed the rule (Alvarez and Nagler 723). Perot was adamantly opposed to US involvement in war on the global front. This put him at loggerheads with the Bush administration, especially with regard to the US involvement in the Persian Gulf War of 1990-1991. Conclusion That third parties in the American political arena are insignificant with regard to attaining presidency is undisputed. However, third parties also hold a significant position in US politics as they facilitate reforms and the formulation of pertinent legislations (Anthony 12). Perhaps the most notable example of the input of third party political parties is the input of Ross Perot in the establishment of legislation in Texas, and the nation as a whole. Nonetheless, despite their input in US politics, third parties still experience serious drawbacks that prevent their capacity to capture the presidency. This paper has examined some of the drawbacks experienced by third parties in the US political arena, aspects, such as ballot access rules, debate rules and the introduction of primaries, have immense impacts on the success of third parties to capture the presidency. Works Cited Aldrich, J. “The Study of Party Politics in the Twenty-First Century”. Election Law Journal: Rules, Politics, and Policy 6.2 (2007): 209-219. Print. Alvarez, R. M., and J. Nagler. “Economics, Issues, and Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Election.” American Journal of Political Science 39(1995): 714-44. Print. Anthony, L. "Abroad at Home: Why Perot?” The New York Times 27 May 2010. Print. Bernstein, J. “When Third Parties Do Well.” Washington Monthly. Web. 16 May 2012. . Disch, L. J. The Tyranny of the Two-Party System. New York: Columbia University Press, 2002. Print. Bibby, J., and L. S. Maisel. Two Parties – Or More? The American Party System. Boulder, CO: Westview Press. 2003. Print. Moscow, H. "An Astonishment of New York Superlatives: Biggest, Smallest, Longest, Shortest, Oldest, First, Last, Most, Etc." New York Magazine 7.1 (1974). Print. Open Debates. The 15 Percent Barrier. Web. 28 May 2012. . Pradeep, C. and K. Kollman “Party Aggregation and the Number of Parties in India and the United States.” American Political Science Review 92.2 (1998): 329-42. Print. Reynolds, David. Democracy Unbound: Progressive Challenges to the Two Parties System. Boston: South End Press, 1997. Print. Read More