It is certainly possible and historically has happened. However, an independent candidate winning a national election is a virtual impossibility. The last presidential candidate to win more than 5% of American votes as an independent was Ross Perot, who ran in the 1992 presidential election. He was centered between George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Perot was a billionaire businessman and an outspoken critic of both political parties. Many political scientists credit Clinton's win over Bush as the result of Perot taking votes that may have been cast for the Republican if Perot had not mounted a campaign. Perot garnered nearly 19% of the popular vote (no electoral votes), with much of his support coming from states that traditionally voted Republican. Perot would run again in 1996 but would only receive about 8% of the popular vote. Ralph Nader would run as an independent in 2000, getting about 5% of the vote. No credible independents ran again until the year 2016, when a number of candidates earned votes as write-in candidates, though no one garnered above 5%.
While a serious third party candidate would be a refreshing change from the staleness of the political parties in modern times, there are several reasons why no independent candidate would have much of a chance to win a national election. The first is that the Democrats and Republicans have a political monopoly in the United States. For a candidate to win an election, even a local election, there has to be an organized base of support. Clearly, on a national scale, as Perot learned, even getting on the ballot in every state is no small task. In order to keep their political parties in power, the state laws regarding elections make it extraordinarily difficult for independent candidates to organize, fundraise, and mount a serious campaign. State election laws vary from state to state. For example, in some states, to run as an independent, a candidate has to have verified signatures of between 5% and 20% of the registered voters in the state before they are placed on the ballot.
The second reason is very simple: gerrymandering. Gerrymandering is the intentional organization of congressional districts to favor the party in power. State legislatures decide what voters are in which district and what demographic will produce the desired outcome of sustaining the majority party. Gerrymandering districts can assure one-party dominance for at least a decade. While both parties talk about the evils of gerrymandering, neither party is willing to stop allocating voters to keep the current elected officials in power. Simply stated, gerrymandering discourages competitive elections by rivals in other parties and by potential rivals as independent candidates.
The third reason is the enormous cost of running a national election. Independent candidates must be willing to spend enormous amounts of personal money to build an organization and then wait for donors to fund the campaign. In the last presidential election, The Washington Post estimated that more than two billion dollars was spent by the presidential candidates. Without a strong independent party fundraising structure in place, the financial wherewithal to mount a successful campaign is not available. An interesting aside is that Hillary Clinton spent twice as much Donald Trump in a losing effort, meaning that outspending your opponent doesn't assure a winning result. This would be a positive for an independent party trying to run a credible campaign. Even amongst the current crop of potential independent candidates, the thought that they would have to spend millions of dollars of their personal wealth in what, in all probability, would be a losing cause discourages people from thinking of an independent run for president.
Your question hit on the fourth reason, and that is "a party positioned ideologically between the Democrats on the left and the Republicans on the right." In this country, about 45% of the voters prior to an election identify as Democrats, and about 45% identify as Republicans, leaving about 10% with no party affiliation. Partisan politics is nothing new in the United States, so it should come as no surprise that both parties spend the majority of their time trying to convince about 10% of the voters to move in their party's direction. It would take an inconceivable event to shake loose the natural proclivity of voters to vote inside their historic voting pattern. Party affiliation extends from the local school board to national elections. While some cross-party voting occurs, the further the voter moves from a local election and closer they move to a national election, the likelihood of party change is diminished. An independent party is fighting for 10% and must move an additional 41% from established parties—a tall mountain to climb.
A fifth reason is the Electoral College favors a two-party system. Ross Perot earned nearly 19% of the popular vote, but he received no Electoral College votes. In most states, the winner of the popular vote in the state gets all of the electoral votes. As we have seen in many of our most recent presidential elections, it is possible to get the majority of the popular vote and still not be elected because of falling short of the electoral votes. An independent party without the support of candidates running for under its banner for all the contested elections in the state would have an almost impossible task of getting enough Electoral College votes. And, in the event of an independent candidate earning enough Electoral College votes to deny the other candidates an outright victory, Congress gets to decide the presidency.
While I did not address ideology directly in response to your question, I personally believe that ideology in elections is highly overrated. People often vote for the candidate they believe will win, forgoing ideology to get their candidate elected. There is no "right" ideological position in this country, in my opinion. The purpose of elections is to arbitrate political differences and, through political parties, mediate the best solutions for the most amount of citizens. This is why voters are often disenchanted with the elected officials they voted for once these officials take office.
https://www.economist.com/democracy-in-america/2019/01/30/why-third-party-presidential-candidates-fail
https://www.history.com/news/third-party-candidates-election-influence-facts
https://www.latimes.com/politics/la-na-pol-essential-politics-20190315-story.html
First, it should be noted that the current US two-party system consists of what by most standards of developed countries would be described as a centrist party (Democrats) and an extreme right-wing party with populist leanings (Republicans). With the Democrats currently occupying the political center and the Republicans having taken the extremist right-wing position, there are a few possibilities.
First, the Democrats could drift leftward to become a progressive party, with the Republicans remaining under the sway of the far right. That would open a space for a centrist coalition.
Second, the Republicans could move away from the far right and the influence of Donald Trump and return to a more centrist, business-oriented party, taking a center-right position, while the Democrats hold the center-left. That seems somewhat less probable, as the far right base seems to have a firm hold on the Republican party.
The third possibility is that the Republicans hold the hard right and the Democrats the center-right, and a new progressive party might be created. As this would split the moderate–left-wing vote, it would be strategically problematic for progressives, as it would leave the hard right in control of Congress. Continuing the current state of affairs is more probable.
At this time, although there are progressive movements within the Democratic party, the United States lacks a progressive party in the style of European socialist ones or the Canadian NDP.
No comments:
Post a Comment