Third Party Presidential Candidates, primarily Gary Johnson
and Jill Stein, are polling better than they have in any election since 1992.
This had added some of the multi-candidate field dynamics back into the
race. Johnson and Stein are serving as
an outlet for voters who disdain both candidates, and at the moment, this
dynamic seems ever so slightly to favor Trump. Although more voters have
disdain for him, the double disdainers are choosing Johnson or Stein, when they
might otherwise have voted Clinton. This
is not a big thing yet, as not every poll has the two-way margin larger than
the four way. Plus the effects are small, because as we covered in a previous
post a four point lead in a four way might be harder to overcome than a five
point lead in a 2-way.
Of course, most voters understand that voting for Johnson or
Stein means giving up their right to cast a vote for their preferred choice
between the two candidates who may actually become President. But if some are taking this step to bring us
closer to the day when we need not choose only from column A or column B, it’s
worth asking what it would take for the U.S. to become a multi-party country. This election has shown to some degree the attractiveness
of such a step. In addition to the
overall dislike for both major party candidates, there is clearly some desire simply
to punish the Government for not working.
Disdain for Congress is at all time high, and while Republicans are more
frowned upon than Democrats, Democrats are not far behind. (The Major
difference is that Republicans dislike Republicans in Congress far more than
Democrats dislike Democrats in Congress, although Republicans who dislike
Republicans in Congress still very much plan to vote for them)
There is basically no successful way in
America to punish both political parties and as such they hold something of a
veto over policy. Prior to 2016, most observers believed that capturing the
elite of both parties meant capturing control of the entire range of options
the Government would consider. No elite insider would get everything he wants,
but neither would he be shut out entirely ever.
Trump upset the apple cart by beating like a drum the Elite of the
Republican Party. But the overall
partisan forces are so strong that even with Republican Elites fleeing to
Clinton or to third party choices, the race is close. What to make of this?
It all comes back to the electoral rules. When running in a winner take all election,
no matter how many opponents you have, in most cases if you get one more vote
than your closest opponent you win. So
long as such a system exists, a third party which is ideologically similar to
one of its opponents, just increases the likelihood that the other party wins.
In 2000 this happened. Nader voters cost Al Gore Florida, and likely New
Hampshire, as well as forcing many states into competition, which would not
otherwise have been meaningfully contested.
Based on county breakdown from four years later, it’s nearly certain that 80% of those voters
ended up in John Kerry’s hands four years later. So what did Nader accomplish? His vote was basically half of what he was
polling on Election Day and nowhere near the 5% he needed for Federal Matching
funds. But it was just enough to elect Bush. The 2000 result undermined any
headway he was making, and he lost 80% of his supporters four years later. (Lots
of people begged him not to run. He didn’t listen, but the beggars all voted
for Kerry thus negating Nader’s 2004 effect.)
The fallout from Nader’s 2000 run has been so powerful that even today,
the people who are old enough to remember hanging chads are supporting third
parties at much lower rates. Only those
much younger are supporting 3rd parties, because they are less aware
of the effects. The worst thing that could possibly happen to the Green Party
again would be a Trump victory by the margin of Green Party votes. The Election
in 2020 to replace him would almost certainly see the Green Party vote collapse
again as the desire to be rid of Trump once he was President would be immense.
With
current rules the U.S. cannot become a multi-party system with any ease. The American tradition is that sometimes the
goal of a third party is not a multi-party system but instead supplanting and
ultimately replacing a major party.
Greens might say, for example, that the Democrats are corrupted, and
therefore the Greens should become the Republicans chief rival. This has two manifest problems. 1) The
effort required to supplant a party is usually more than it is to conquer a
Party. Sanders came much closer to being the nominee than Stein will in seeking
to overthrow the Democratic Party (Not
committing to one path weakness both plays.)
2) The supplanting approach is highly likely to hand power to the other
party in the short term. The other party with this new found power is now often
inclined to change the rules of the game, with voter ID(either upholding it in the
courts or even pushing the idea federal), or gerrymandering or other new fangled contraptions. If you
give a party total control of Government they are going to use that control to
increase their odds of continued control.
Plus it will now be in the party in power’s interest to draft rules that
will make it difficult for dissidents within their party from also adopting a
third party strategy. Why not lock in a
two party system. After all, governing
while unpopular is much easier when all you have to do is make the opposition
slightly more unpopular.
The key
take away is that if you really want America to be a multi-party system it is
essential that one party Republican rule is not established in this election
and that you fight for the rule changes needed to create a multi-party system (
Either instant runoff or some move toward proportional representation.) But in this year voting Third Party is not
sticking it to the two-party system, it is enabling it.
0 comments:
Post a Comment