Are 3rd parties/ Independents signficant? Flashcards
Introduction? Stances? Point?
Do not significant: Limited impact/ ability in getting elected, influencing policy debates, spoiler effect/ spilling votes.
Getting elected: Sanders and King
FOR
Independents in Senate
FPTP has not barred non-mainstream candidates and parties from achieving major electoral success, overcome through wishes of the public (in voting for alternative representatives).
Getting elected: Portland (Maine/Oregon) –> Switch to PR.
In Maine, some members associated with 3rd parties such as Trevorrow (Green Independent party).
Broadening choice for voters, realistic chance for alternatives to be elected.
Getting elected: Counter
Sanders and King: Superficial/ limited level of independence, both caucus with Democrats, with Sanders having major impact after operating within the realms of the Democrat party when trying to run as Democrat candidate in 2016 primaries.
Portland (Oregon): Despite using PR, all members are still democrats. →Two parties still ultimately dominate.
Getting elected: FPTP as a system.
No independents in the House, no 3rd parties in the House or Senate.
AO2: The success in the FPTP system maintaining a two-party system, favouring Democrats and Republicans.
Getting elected: Additoanl Barriers
Ballot laws, not automatic. → For example in California, an independent candidate must collect over 200,000 signatures in just over 100 days to be even on the ballot.
AO2: Shows how candidates are penalised from the very beginning, even before the actual election starts.
Influencing Policy: Perrot and Balanced Budget
Perrot (1992) won 19% of the votes. His campaign solely focused on forming a balanced budget, forcing both major parties at the time to address this issue.
–> Highlights how they can force parties to change agenda, especially if they receive enough public support.
Influencing Policy: Sander’s Green New Deal
Influenced the Inflation Reduction Act (2022) passed by Democrats, which also focused on promoting clean energy.
AO2: Not just shape direction or approach, but actual party legislation and priorities.
Influencing Policy: Counter
Perrot: Continually growing US deficit today highlights how in practice, Perrot had little influence.
Sanders: Anomalous, with failure of his more progressive policies such as Medicare for All, tuition-free college. → Limitations if going beyond what the party is willing to do.
Influencing Policy: Wallace and Segregation
1968: Despite winning 13.5% of the vote and 45 electoral votes, his key focus on segregation did not catch on widely with the public or any of the two main parties.
AO2: Highlights how even with seemingly high public support, does not guarantee that it will have any real impact on policy focus/ agenda.
Influencing Policy: Stein and Gaza
Jill Stein (2024) in her campaign heavily focused on US foreign policy, especially Israel-Palestine, criticising US support for Israel and Israeli military action. → Both parties continue to support Israel as a US ally.
AO2: Little impact if their agendas/ ideas do not align with major party positions, unlikely to do anything.
THIRD PARTIES HAVE LITTLE IMPACT if no common ground with two major parties.
Spoiler Effect: 2000 Election
In 2000, Bush defeated Gore by 537 votes in Florida, with Nader receiving 97,000 in the state. → Nader took enough votes from Gore in Florida to cost him the election.
AO2: In particularly tight-races, 3rd/indy can influence the winner of the entire election, even by securing a small fraction of votes.
Spoiler Effect: 1912 Election
Roosevelt running for president as a third-party candidate under the ‘Bull Moose Party.’ Wilson won the election despite not winning a majority of the popular vote (41.8%), with the Republican vote split between Roosevelt and Taft.
Highlights how both historically and in modern times, third party candidates continue to be successful (even if not intentional!!) in splitting the vote, allowing the candidate from the opposing party to win.
Spoiler Effect: Counter
AO3: Both examples are still rarer, with it only happening 4 times in history out of 59 presidential elections!
Spoiler Effect: 1968 Election
1968: The five Southern States that Wallace had won had still been won by Republicans previously. → Despite this, Nixon was still able to win the presidential election.
AO2:Major parties even if they lose some support to third party/ indy are often able to gather enough support elsewhere.
Spoiler Effect: 1948 Election
1948, despite managing to win 39% of the electoral vote, Thurmond had little effect on the outcome of the race → With Truman far ahead with 303 of the electoral vote.
AO2: Highlights how even candidates who are successful as third parties/ independents, have no real impact if they do not influence outcomes for main two parties → Will never get enough ECV to win themselves.
Conclusion?
Nope!
