Depressing third party realization (historical)

Politics & Elections
1

Was unsure if here or MPSIMS was appropriate forum.

Was reading some political discussion and it made me curious as to the last time a third party presidential candidate got any electoral votes in the US, so I went to Wikipedia. And I learned that, aside from a few faithless electors, the only times since 1924 that any third party candidate carried a state, it was because of racism. 1948 - Strom Thurmond, because he and other southern delegates walked out of the Democratic National Convention after the passage of the civil rights platform. Again in 1960 (Byrd/Thurmond). And in 1968 with George Wallace as the candidate.

I know we’re entrenched in a two-party system. I understand why people (at least swing-state voters) don’t want to “throw [their] vote away” on a third party candidate. I understand the spoiler effect. It’s just incredibly depressing that the only thing powerful enough to sway >50% of voters in any given state to vote third party over the last 90 years has been opposition to civil rights and desegregation.

2

I think a key thing to remember is that although there are only two major parties, each of those parties is compromised of a distinct bunch of smaller groups, along similar lines as the Pew Political Typologies. Although they’re somewhat set in place, they can shift around and lead to a situation where the name may be the same, but the character of the party is significantly different.

3

I agree. And to make matters worse, the two major parties agree about most things.

There are millions of Americans who want the War on Drugs seriously scaled back, overseas military presence reduced, civil liberties restored, corporate welfare eliminated, and useless bureaucracy trimmed. But the two party system is so entrenched that there’s no chance of these things getting representation.