3rd parties in the US become viable. How does this effect the two main parties?

Great Debates
1

Specifically I’m interested in which groups, if any, would leave the umbrella of the Republican and Democratic parties and either form their own, or join up with already established third parties.

So, for example, would environmentalists leave the Democrats and join the Green party? Would Paleocons leave the Republican party?

Or do you think the makeup of the parties would pretty much remain the same?

What about party bases? Lots of people would like to vote for a third party but compromise on one of the two major parties. If third parties became viable, how many voters do you think the Democrats and Republicans would lose now that some of their base could vote for the parties they actually like, and which would now have a chance of winning?

2

If Canada’s any guide (and in a sane world, it always would be), the third party might have the occasional balance-of-power moment, but the American fixed-schedule election will be a major problem. Consider a three-way split in Congress, but with no way for a minority government or coalition to face a no-confidence vote. For the better part of two years, your legislative branch could be completely paralyzed.

3

Interesting, but I’m focusing more on the makeup of the parties and their bases, how those might change, or if they would change.

4

Well, I guess it would lead to permanent pockets of mostly-impotent pissed-offedness, much like our Bloq Quebecois and New Democratic Party who have no chance of forming a federal government but can occasionally position themselves where the big boys have to listen while suppressing their giggles. This gives their followers hope that they can make a difference.

5

The threat of people voting third party, even with our winner take all election system preventing them from becoming winners, could still influence the platform of the major parties.

For instance, if all the actual fiscal conservatives left the republican party and millions of people voted libertarian - we’re not going to have a libertarian president, but we would see a rush by the republicans to reform their ways and recapture those votes. Voting third party does have a positive influence.

6

I would consider joining a Democratic splinter party that had cojones and was more than just passingly socially liberal.

7

Both of these phenomena are already possible in the US Congress, simply among factions of parties rather than parties themselves.

8

I don’t think it’s possible to have long-term, viable third party in the US. Historically, third parties have been successful for an election cycle or two but then one of two things happens. Either the party essentially dissolves, having achieved their goal, or one of the two major parties sweeps up the platform of the third-party to snag their voters. Either case results in the deprecation of the third party.

9

Third parties in the US aren’t going to get anywhere without a change in our voting system, so the exact effects depend a lot on what the new system is.

10

I disagree. One needs a celebrity spokesperson (or several) and a big ad campaign. It’ll blow up.

11

True. Let’s assume implementation of all electoral-system reforms most third-party-friendly: (1) instant-runoff voting; (2) electoral fusion; (3) (some form of) proportional representation.

What party lineup to expect in that environment?

First, let’s consider the current lineup – see the “Political Parties” page of politics1.com. At present, in addition to the two main parties, we have the “big three” third parties:

Constitution Party (theoconservative/paleoconservative)

Green Party of the United States (environmentalist, progressive/social-democratic) (I’m here using the word “progressive” to mean something well to the left of “liberal” and well to the right of “socialist,” a position I explained and defended in this thread.)

Libertarian Party (libertarian)

In the next tier, we have other third parties, with varying degrees of active existence, falling into roughly the following categories, roughly from right to left (and feel free to question my classifications):

FASCIST:
American Nazi Party
National Socialist Movement
(There were once a couple of Falangist parties listed on this page but they appear to have gone defunct.)

PALEOCON/RW-POPULIST:
America First Party
American Party
American Independent Party
American Patriot Party
America’s Independent Party
American Reform Party
Independent American Party
Prohibition Party
Reform Party

LIBERTARIAN:
Boston Tea Party
Objectivist Party

PROGRESSIVE (EARLY-20TH-CENTURY SENSE):
Independence Party

PROGRESSIVE/LEFT-LIBERAL/SOCIAL-DEMOCRATIC (as defined above):
Labor Party
Social Democrats USA
Working Families Party

SOCIALIST/COMMUNIST:
Communist Party USA
Democratic Socialists of America
Freedom Socialist Party/Radical Women
The Greens/Green Party USA (distinct from and further left than the Green Party of the United States)
Party for Socialism and Liberation
Progessive Labor Party
Revolutionary Communist Party USA
Socialist Party USA’
Socialist Action
Socialist Equality Party
Socialist Labor Party
Socialist Workers Party
Workers Party, USA
Workers World Party
World Socialist Party of the USA
HARD TO CLASSIFY:
Libertarian National Socialist Green Party
Light Party
Modern Whig Party
Pansexual Peace Party
Peace and Freedom Party
The Third Party
U.S. Marijuana Party
U.S. Pacifist Party
Veterans Party of America
Note that, other than the Republican Party, there is no party representing neoconservatism; and, other than the Democratic and Republican Parties, there is no party representing neoliberalism. These are important and influential ideologies in America today, but they are mostly policy-wonk/think-tank phenomena without much in the way of grassroots mass base.

Now, the dynamics of an electoral system that is naturally bipolar, like ours, tends to make each of the two major parties a “big tent” accommodating a range of viewpoints and ideologies. Those who don’t fit under either tent, OTOH, tend to split and splinter, over ideological or policy disagreements, into a multitude of minor parties – because there is no obvious practical advantage to not splitting anyway; if you can’t win any public offices, you might as well keep your party “pure.” But electoral-system reforms would change that dynamic. We might expect, e.g., all the paleoconservative parties to merge, into one big one that has a real chance. In the case of socialists – well, given their aggregate numbers in America, all their parties rolled together still might not make up one that matters electorally even in a PR system; likewise with fascists.

Conversely, the two major parties, unstable coalitions as they are, might break along their natural fault lines.

I imagine the result might look something like this:

  1. One big paleoconservative/theoconservative party, formed out of a merger of Constitution with America First (with or without the rest, it doesn’t really matter); traditionalist in values, decentralist in governing philosophy, nativist WRT immigrants, isolationist in military/foreign policy, protectionist in trade policy, populist in economic policy – i.e., hostile to Washington and “liberal elites,” but no less hostile to Wall Street and the financial sector.
    Alternative scenario: Paleocons and theocons remain separate parties – they mostly differ on matters of emphasis only, but they really do differ on foreign policy, especially WRT supporting Israel: Pat Buchanan and the paleocons are dead against it, “Christian Zionist” theocons are for it.

  2. A bigger Libertarian Party, hostile to big and/or intrusive government at all levels, federal or local; consistently hostile to government interference in the economy, whether it takes the form of regulations on corporations or bailouts of corporations.

  3. A “centrist” party in the Progressive tradition currently represented by the Independence Party (one of the splinters emerging from the Reform Party’s breakup, Buchanan’s America First Party being the other). Moderately but not ideologically libertarian. Devoted to “good government,” honest, transparent, vigorous and effective government, but also fiscal responsibility with no deficit spending. Devoted to a technocratic, professional vision of government that purports to transcend ideology, class interests and partisanship – an old Progressive slogan was, “There is no Democratic or Republican way to pave a street.”

  4. A remnant Republican Party left after the exit of voters inclining to any of the above – a GOP now more purely representing big-business interests and neoconservative foreign policy, but no longer distinctly conservative on social issue. Still a big player, because still lavishly funded by corporate donors, and because of some residual brand loyalty to the name.

  5. A “progressive” party in the contemporary left-liberal sense, possibly forming around the Working Families Party and the Labor Party. Not a communist or socialist party, but all America’s communists and socialists would vote for it as the nearest thing on the ballot. (Likewise, fascists and racists would vote for the paleoconservative party.)
    Alternative scenario: Labor forms a separate party, more culturally working-class, meaning, socially conservative.

  6. A Green Party, similar to the above but with more emphasis on environmentalism.

  7. A remnant Democratic Party, left after voters inclined to the progressive or Green agendas have left. This party would represent “neoliberalism,” economic globalization, the politics of Clinton and the Democratic Leadership Council. Socially liberal but inclined to ally with the Republicans on business-related issues. Like the remnant GOP, still a big player because of lavish funding and brand loyalty.

Now, I’m positing all of the above as forming around the ideologies and political positions to date represented by activists, by politically interested persons actually engaged in politics to some degree. No matter how wide-open a party system is, the vast interested-only-at-election-time majority of voters have to vote for the choices offered them on the ballot, i.e., the choices organized as partis by activists.

When we look at the people to whom all of the above will be trying to market themselves, the picture is rather different. See the 2007 version of the Pew Political Typology, which, based on opinion-survey data, sorts Americans into nine political “typologies” or categories:

ENTERPRISERS:
9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters.
“As in 1994 and 1999, this extremely partisan Republican group’s politics are driven by a belief in the free enterprise system and social values that reflect a conservative agenda. Enterprisers are also the strongest backers of an assertive foreign policy, which includes nearly unanimous support for the war in Iraq and strong support for such anti-terrorism efforts as the Patriot Act.”
– I’d expect these to vote for the remnant Republican Party.

SOCIAL CONSERVATIVES:
11% of adult population, 13% of registered voters.
“While supportive of an assertive foreign policy, this group is somewhat more religious than are Enterprisers. In policy terms, they break from the Enterprisers in their cynical views of business, modest support for environmental and other regulation, and strong anti-immigrant sentiment.”
– The paleocons’ and/or the theocons’ base.

PRO-GOVERNMENT CONSERVATIVES:
9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters.
“Pro-Government Conservatives stand out for their strong religious faith and conservative views on many moral issues. They also express broad support for a social safety net, which sets them apart from other GOP groups. Pro-Government Conservatives are skeptical about the effectiveness of the marketplace, favoring government regulation to protect the public interest and government assistance for the needy. They supported George W. Bush by roughly five-to-one.”
– If a socially-conservative Labor Party separate from a socially-liberal Progressive Party emerges (see alternative scenarios above), this is its base.

UPBEATS:
11% of adult population, 13% of registered voters.
“Upbeats express positive views about the economy, government and society. Satisfied with their own financial situation and the direction the nation is heading, these voters support George W. Bush’s leadership in economic matters more than on moral or foreign policy issues. Combining highly favorable views of government with equally positive views of business and the marketplace, Upbeats believe that success is in people’s own hands, and that businesses make a positive contribution to society. This group also has a very favorable view of immigrants.”
– I see this vote as up for grabs between the Independence Party, the Libertarians, and the Republicans.

DISAFFECTEDS:
9% of adult population, 10% of registered voters.
“Disaffecteds are deeply cynical about government and unsatisfied with both their own economic situation and the overall state of the nation. Under heavy financial pressure personally, this group is deeply concerned about immigration and environmental policies, particularly to the extent that they affect jobs. Alienated from politics, Disaffecteds have little interest in keeping up with news about politics and government, and few participated in the last election.”
– Up for grabs between the Progressives, Labor, and Paleocons.

LIBERALS:
17% of adult population, 19% of registered voters.
“This group has nearly doubled in proportion since 1999. Liberal Democrats now comprise the largest share of Democrats. They are the most opposed to an assertive foreign policy, the most secular, and take the most liberal views on social issues such as homosexuality, abortion, and censorship. They differ from other Democratic groups in that they are strongly pro-environment and pro-immigration.”
– Probably split between the Democrats, Progessives and Greens.

CONSERVATIVE DEMOCRATS:
14% of adult population, 15% of registered voters.
“Religious orientation and conservative views set this group apart from other Democratic-leaning groups on many social and political issues. Conservative Democrats’ views are moderate with respect to key policy issues such as foreign policy, regulation of the environment and the role of government in providing a social safety net. Their neutrality on assistance to the poor is linked, at least in part, to their belief in personal responsibility.”
– Up for grabs between the Paleocons, Independence and Labor.

DISADVANTAGED DEMOCRATS:
10% of adult population, 10% of registered voters.
“Least financially secure of all the groups, these voters are very anti-business, and strong supporters of government efforts to help the needy. Minorities account for a significant proportion of this group; nearly a third (32%) are black, roughly the same proportion as among Conservative Democrats. Levels of disapproval of George W. Bush job performance (91%) and candidate choice in 2004 (82% for Kerry) are comparable to those among Liberals.”
– No party or potential party listed above really is of or speaks for this group – the Paleocons are too exclusively white, the Democrats too corporate-dominated, the Progressives entirely sympathetic but really middle-class in base, and Labor speaks for the steadily employed. A toss-up.

BYSTANDERS:
10% of adult population, 0% of registered voters.
“These Americans choose not to participate in or pay attention to politics, or are not eligible to do so (non-citizens).”
– Even more of a toss-up than the Disadvantaged Democrats. Depends on who can get them interested (and registered).

12

People’s Front of Judea…

13

Splitters!

14

What ever happened to the Popular Front, Reg?

15

Yes, but so?

Suppose you’re a celebrity that wants to be elected to office on some idiosyncratic platform. What to do? Start your own party, with a massive ad campaign, fight your way onto the ballot, and push aside both the Republican and Democratic candidates?

But what if there were a simpler way? Why not just pick one of the major parties, join them, and win the primary for that party. And now you’ve got the backing of one of the major parties. Not only do you not have to fight them, they’re backing you! That’s twice as good.

If your idiosyncratic platform isn’t popular enough to let you win the major party primary, then how the heck do you expect to win the general election?

In the United States, parties don’t typically decide who will run for a particular office. Instead, people volunteer. So someone like, say, Arnold Schwartzenegger, who could have run on a third party ticket, would much rather run on a major party ticket. And the major parties are glad to have the “mavericks” on the inside. And so you see that even when someone wins office on a third party ticket, they end up a de facto member of a major party–like Lieberman and Sauders. The parties are coalitions of officeholders, rather than entities who choose officeholders.

And so there’s almost no room for third party candidates. Anyone who seriously wants to win office picks a party that most closely matches their views, rather than fighting an uphill and futile battle on a third party ticket. And once in office, they change the party from within to match their views.

Of course, if you change the voting system and the ways candiates are chosen, you could have a multiparty system. But that will never happen, because every officeholder is already a member of a major party, and so has absolutely no incentive to make things easier for third parties.

And so the major parties will continue to dominate. That doesn’t mean nothing can change, because the makeup of the major parties can change radically. The Republican party used to be a Northern industrial anti-slavery party, now it’s a conservative southern white party. The parties remain even though the officials and constituents who make up the party have changed ideologies, sometimes 180 degrees.

So we might have a secular liberal environmentalist party 50 years from now, just don’t be surprised if that party is the Republican Party.

16

A viable 3rd party will not emerge in our winner take all system. As soon as a 3rd party gets big enough the Dems or Pubs will just widen their base to include them. Now that we have accurate and timely polling the parties can titrate their positions to appeal to the widest base possible. If both parties have access to perfect information we would see each party with 50% of the vote. Think of a bell curve with one side of the median for one party and the opposite side for the other party.

17

No, of course not; but for purposes of this thread, we are assuming changed conditions and debating the result.

18

Well in that case, the turtles holding up the world will eat the unicorn.

19

Of course the titration system won’t work perfectly either, since under the US system the elected officials control the party, rather than the party controlling the elected officials. So we often see politicians that win office who are personally popular, but hold positions that are unpopular in their constituency. In the US system we vote for officials, not parties.

20

Good point. I could see an independent/3rd party candidate elected due to a “cult of personality” thing. I don’t think that would hold up long term however.