The recent discussions about third party candidates here on ProU got me thinking. Sure, I'd entertain the notion of voting for a few third party candidates, but that's just not very realistic. A vote for a third party is a vote which is wasted, and nobody here can contest that. The winner of the upcoming presidential election will be Obama or McCain; the minor party candidates and independents do not stand a chance.
Some might say that my negative attitude about supporting third parties is exactly what contributes to their downfall and the perpetuation of the rigid two party system in America. I am an idealist, but even my idealism is tempered with some rationality. I do not believe it is my fault that the Republicans and Democrats have a stranglehold on American politics just because I won't waste my vote on a third party candidate.
How, then, is a third party candidate supposed to get elected? After pondering the quandary for awhile, I came upon two situations in which a third party candidate has a realistic chance to be elected President.
First is the "accident postulate": a third party candidate, like a Libertarian or Green Party member, could win a presidential election if both the Republican and Democratic candidates are simultaneously plagued by some terrible scandal. The scandal would have to be an exceedingly grievous one, something along the lines of Watergate. For example, if both Obama and McCain are discovered to have been involved in a racketeering plot, and had criminal charges brought against them, neither would win the election. Bob Barr, the Libertarian candidate for president, or Ralph Nader, or some other minor candidate would have to step up and fill the void.
Of course, while I strongly believe that a situation similar to the one outlined above would result in a third party winning the presidency, it's extremely unlikely to happen in the first place. It depends entirely on chance- so much for the "accident postulate."
I want to know if a third party candidate can rise to national importance on his own accord.
As it turns out, it is possible. And it even happened once fairly recently. I'm thinking of the independent candidate (or Reform Party candidate; for the purposes of this blog I'll just call him an independent since the Reform Party was not officially formed until after he first ran for president) who ran in the 1992 election against Bill Clinton and George H.W. Bush. He is Ross Perot, a multibillionaire businessman, and his run for the highest office in the land provides the second situation in which a minor candidate can capture the presidency: the "billionaire postulate."
In this postulate, a candidate must be incredibly wealthy in order to feasibly run for President, as he must buy his influence. Ross Perot spent $57 billion dollars out of his own pockets during his campaign, according to an online biography. He spent his money on commercials and infomercials getting the word out about his candidacy and his ideas. When Election Day arrived, Perot carried an astounding (for an independent candidate) 19% of the popular vote. Unfortunately, those popular votes did not translate into any electoral votes. Still, Perot had received the largest number of popular votes for a minor candidate since Theodore Roosevelt ran with the "Bull Moose" Party nearly a hundred years ago.
I can conclude that although Perot failed miserably in his presidential bid, he came closer than anybody else had in a century- so the "billionaire postulate" is a possibility.
Obviously, neither of the two above postulates applies to any minor candidate currently running for the presidency. However, I also think they all have problems of their own. For example, Bob Barr, the Libertarian, is the type of person who just can't get people excited. He would make a terrible cheerleader- he's got no pep, no spark. He is incapable of capturing the people's attention. He's represents a commendable party, but is a subpar leader.
A second example of a potentially good party with a bad candidate is the Green Party and Cynthia McKinney. She is the type of person nobody wants to be associated with because she's a little (make that a lot) eccentric. She claims that the government used Hurricane Ike as a cover-up, so they could dump the bodies of executed prisoners without being noticed. She also once punched a Capitol Hill police officer in the face when he asked her for identification. So of course no one takes her, or her party, seriously.
There are other minor candidates out there, such as Ralph Nader (again), and various candidates from "fringe" groups like the American Socialist Party. They too are not taken very seriously by the American people, and are not very remarkable politicians or leaders.
I think part of the problem is that our two mega-parties, the Democrats and Republicans, suck up all the intelligent young minds, our potential great leaders, for themselves. They have a monopoly on political talent. I wonder- could the Green Party, for example, gain headway in a national election if their candidate was Barack Obama? Too bad for them the Democrats drafted him into their fold. The two major parties also weasel their way into our minds, transforming us from "liberals" into "Democrats," or "conservatives" into "Republicans," when in fact liberals and conservatives can be members of a multitude of different parties.
When an American steps into a voting booth on November 4th, he or she really has no choice but to vote for McCain or Obama. I don't blame them- there aren't any other realistic options. It is a veritable quandary for independents- only accidents and billionaires have the potential to change that, as far as I can tell.
your theories require magic or a Miracle to happen.although those are some ways a third party candidate might get elected, but it is not what minority parties are truely aiming for at the moment. most minorities that are running for the presidential election are running to receive at least 5% of the vote so they may gain national attention and funding. (It is obvious that thrid parties will not be elected today) so that they may eventually work their ideals and values into one of the values of a major party or themselves may become a larger party over time by electing representives.
My theories do seem to require miracle or magic to work- hence the great dilemma of independent voters.
I think you bring up a good point when you say third party candidates may have other objectives in running for an office besides actually being elected. Even major party candidates do this- for example, Ron Paul, a Republican, ran for president not because he thought he would win, but because he wanted to show how the Republican party had lost touch with its original principles. Mike Huckabee's campaign (and his new political action committee) are a similar example.
I also forgot that minor parties tend to be slightly more popular in local elections, though the purpose of this blog was to focus on the presidential election, anyway.