It’s even worse:
Mike Huckabee, a former Arkansas governor who is also a possible 2012 contender, urged Republicans not to support third-party candidates, warning that doing so was a recipe for defeat. “There is potential danger if people believe the way to get the attention of Washington is through third-party candidates,” he said. “Typically what a third-party candidate does is ensure the election of the one you like the least.”
In our two-party system, Huckabee is entirely correct. But, what if Conservative Party nominee Doug Hoffman had won the special election in Upstate New York? Well…he would have caucused with the Republicans. In fact, he would have run for re-election as a Republican. That’s pretty much what would happen to a successful Green Party candidate, too. Maybe they wouldn’t run again as a Democrat, but only if, as is done for Bernie Sanders, the Dems agreed not to offer their own candidate.
It’s not just the difficulty of competing with the two major parties in the election that makes it impossible for third-parties to get a foothold. Even if elected, they have to rely on one of the majors for their committee seats.
In the long-term, there is merit in campaigning to change our winner-take-all elections. But, until that happens, the only way to actually get different ideas represented in Washington is to elect Democrats and Republicans who espouse those different ideas. Everything else is no more than a form of mild pressure that is only effectual so long as it isn’t effective enough to elect the ‘one you like the least.’
That changes if you get a block. You don’t need that many in the grand scheme of things, perhaps 30 or so.
the way blocks work can be seen in the Dem caucus. You have all kinds of sub-groups within the caucus. Not really true of the GOP for some reason, though. They do have the Main Street Caucus, but they rarely show any independence.
Tiny flaw: Democrats do not nominate candidates with truly different ideas, and if one slips through they refuse to support them or even acknowledge them. As James Galbraith reminded us recently on Moyers, those who attained power and status in this ship of state are not inclined to rejigger the order of command. That goes for the media too.
As to Hoffman, if he’d won he would have been instantly powerful and feared as the representative of an insurgency with the potential to upset the status quo. He would have proven that, by GOP standards, his notions are neither fringe or barriers to electoral success. Once seated, on what issues do you think he would have had to go up against the current GOP congressional leadership? I don’t see anything in his speeches the don’t pretty much echo the standard rhetoric of the GOP leadership.
I think that’s the key: being able to express new or “out there” ideas in the traditional language of the party — in the case of the Dems, the New Deal and the Great Society. In the case of a Green, s/he would be at more of a distance from the leadership, sadly enough. I don’t see why there would be a problem, though, letting the Green join the Dem caucus.
It’s not a problem to let a Green join the Dem caucus. It’s a problem that the Green has no choice. And, if they want to be reelected, they need to get the Dems to convince the Dems imn their district to field no candidate.
The Dem and Repub parties expend a great deal of effort to ensure there cannot be effective third parties. I saw Nader on DemocracyNow! in 2007 talking about the fight they had to wage in each state to get on the ballot. Many states have passed “qualifying” laws that make it virtually impossible for any organized third party to get on the ballot.
For example, in Arkansas in 2008 the Repubs “neglected” to run anyone against Sen. Mark Pryor (perhaps because he voted with them more often and more reliably than anyone else they could find in the state). However, the Green Party candidate got 15% of the vote. That was, apparently, way closer to opposition than the Dems could tolerate. They filed this year and had the Green Party decertified, so they cannot just have a candidate on the ballot. The only way they can field a candidate for any position now is to go through the write-in process — a daunting and expensive process — for EACH candidate.
Given that the Greens have about 10 members elected to the state legislature, it is going to become difficult for them to even get those legislators re-elected. That will teach them to run a good candidate against the anointed (but very unpopular) establishment candidate. The Greens and the ACLU have sued, but it probably won’t be adjudicated before the 2010 elections.
It seems that the hugely Dem state legislature passed a law (like at least 25 other states) that requires any third party to get at least 3% of the vote in the presidential election and governor’s race in the most recent presidential election year (the Supreme Court ruled that the previous standard of 7% was unreasonable). Of course, no third party has ever had BOTH a presidential candidate and a gubernatorial candidate on the ballot in Arkansas. Voila! No pesky third party to worry about.
The Dems and Repubs know very well that the easiest way to defeat opposition is to see it never gets on the ballot. For the most part, these actions fly under the radar for most voters, who don’t know why no third party ever has a candidate.
yes, that’s all true. Although the reason Pryor had no opponent was because the GOP lazily assumed that Hillary would be the Dem nominee, and no one wanted to compete with that downticket in Arkansas.
However, ticket access is the least of the problems for third parties. If they get on the ballot, they bleed votes from the candidate closest to them in ideology. It’s the winner take all aspect of our federal elections that makes it impossible to advance an agenda thru third parties. And even if they win, they instantly become de facto members of the major party that they need to give them a committee seat and to help them get reelected.