Why There Is No ThirdChoice in the American Election
Published in Guangming Daily
(China) on 5 January 2012
by Zai Fei (link to original)
(China) on 5 January 2012
by Zai Fei (link to original)
Translated from
by Trevor Cook.
Edited by Andrew Schmidt.
Following the first round of primary elections held on January 3 in Iowa, the first stage of the 2012 general election has begun. During the primary stage, in all the country’s 50 states and in the District of Columbia, Republicans and Democrats separately select the delegates that will participate in their party’s national convention. After the primaries end, the two parties will separately convene national conventions to determine which candidate will represent the party.
But people are discovering that these parties, the two major players in the general election, are more and more becoming enemies who cannot tolerate each other; their attitudes toward several political and economic issues are becoming polarized and seemingly irreconcilable.
The People Await a “Third Party”
Last year, on several occasions the two parties reached a stalemate over the budget, resulting in the government nearly losing its power to cover daily expenses and experiencing repeated crises over keeping itself operational. The American people seem to have had enough of this sort of partisan political struggle under the banner of democracy. According to the results of a Gallup poll conducted this month, dissatisfaction with the work of Congress reached a historic 86 percent. Regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrats, ordinary people all gave low ratings.
Some angry and disappointed Americans have suggested establishing a third party separate from the Republican and Democratic parties. They believe that the current two parties have both become too extreme, leading to repeated deadlock and that a more neutral, pragmatic “third party” must be established. They believe that a “third party” could bring life into the political atmosphere and end the confrontation between the two parties. The famous New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, author of The World Is Flat, is one of the personalities who hold this view.
Although thinking about it may be nice, putting it in practice would not be easy. Learning from history, the history of America’s ruling parties can shed some light on “third parties.” Over its history, the US has had no lack of small parties, but only two presidents ever emerged from outside the dominant two-party structure. One was George Washington and the other Andrew Johnson. The former was the first president of the United States and loathed political parties. The latter was vice president under Lincoln and succeeded to the presidency after Lincoln was assassinated.
Power has always alternated between two major parties on the stage of American politics, and they have never met a strong rival. Even though a few small parties have emerged at various times, they have been unable to find a way to establish themselves. The greatest victory in the last hundred years for a “third party” outside of the Democratic and Republican parties was in 1912. That year, the previous President Theodore Roosevelt left the Republican Party and campaigned under the Progressive Party, earning 27.4 percent of the popular vote. Still, he lost to the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson, who won 41.8 percent of the popular vote. The American General Election is carried out indirectly, with the winner of over half the votes of the Electoral College winning, so Roosevelt actually lost even worse there, receiving only 88 Electoral College votes to Wilson’s 435.
The Electoral System Limits Small Parties
Why is it so difficult for small parties to form? This has to do with the American electoral system. Each electoral district utilizes a plurality system for the General Election; that is, the candidate who wins the most votes wins. Thus, even if there are several candidates, as long as a candidate gets the most votes he or she will be declared the winner, and it is not inherently necessary to win over half the vote. For example, if candidates A, B, and C won 25, 30, and 45 percent of the vote, respectively, C would be the winner even though 55 percent of voters do not support C.
According to “Duverger’s Law” in political science, America’s electoral system naturally results in a two-party system. That is to say, in electoral districts that use a plurality system, where the one with the most votes wins, the electorate recognizes that it’s difficult for a small party win, that if they vote for a small party it is equivalent to wasting their vote. Because of this, the electorate tends to vote for the candidate of the mainstream party they favor, even if that candidate is certainly not their first choice. This makes it difficult for small parties or lesser known candidates to win elections and creates the situation of competition between two main parties.
Another obstacle small parties face is meeting the qualifications for participation. Each state has its own law that specifies whose name can appear on the ballot. Generally requirements include the signing of a petition by a certain number of voters and some registration fee. Many small parties are never able to meet the states’ requirements. In the 2008 presidential election, three small parties — the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green Parties — met the requirements to be listed on the ballots of 45, 37, and 32 states, respectively.
Small parties are often marginalized by the major parties. In American history, a few small parties advocated positions that were welcomed by voters, but these positions were quickly “stolen” by candidates from the major parties and were integrated into their platforms. In this way, over time the major parties have snatched away the base of popular will for “third parties,” and having lost their unique position, the “third parties” also gradually fade out of the public view.
Throughout American history, although small parties have proposed some new ideas that were overlooked by the major parties, they have been unable to shake the current two-party system, and it looks like there won’t be any major changes in the two-party system during the 2012 election.
“Primary Economy” Spreads Over Iowa
According to a Xinhua News Agency Des Moines wire on January 2 (reporter Wang Fengfeng), on January 3, the 2012 presidential primaries will take place in Iowa in America’s Midwest. In the midst of Winter, Iowa will welcome a “primary economy” surge following the arrival of a large number of reporters, volunteers, and tourists. The state’s tourism department estimates that the primary will generate an economic benefit of several million dollars.
The “primary economy” can be seen all along the streets of Iowa’s capital, Des Moines. The Texas representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul held an event at a Des Moines hotel on the afternoon of the second. Outside the venue, salesman Thomas Prague, also from Texas, sells $55 worth of merchandise within ten minutes, mainly Ron Paul badges, hats with Paul’s name embroidered on them and other such souvenirs.
There are also many people who came to Iowa specifically to participate in the many election events taking place. Twenty-two year-old college student Kyle Morrell specially drove from Canada with some friends to participate in a Ron Paul campaign event. He feels that being able to see these political figures at such close range is a special experience.
There are even more tourists from other parts of the U.S. than there are those from abroad. Some from California, Texas, and other states say that in those heavily populated states, if you want to see a heavyweight political figure, you have to make a large campaign contribution, but in Iowa you only need to go into one of the restaurants or hotels where they are holding campaign events and you can come into close contact with the candidates and even get pictures with them.
Along with tourists, the election campaigns and large groups of reporters also bring a generous income to Iowa. As the primaries draw closer, it becomes difficult to find hotel rooms, the restaurants are always full, and all types of communications and technological service companies work nonstop. Additionally, each campaign has spent many millions of dollars on advertisements on the state’s television and radio stations and in newspapers and magazines.
But people are discovering that these parties, the two major players in the general election, are more and more becoming enemies who cannot tolerate each other; their attitudes toward several political and economic issues are becoming polarized and seemingly irreconcilable.
The People Await a “Third Party”
Last year, on several occasions the two parties reached a stalemate over the budget, resulting in the government nearly losing its power to cover daily expenses and experiencing repeated crises over keeping itself operational. The American people seem to have had enough of this sort of partisan political struggle under the banner of democracy. According to the results of a Gallup poll conducted this month, dissatisfaction with the work of Congress reached a historic 86 percent. Regardless of whether they are Republican or Democrats, ordinary people all gave low ratings.
Some angry and disappointed Americans have suggested establishing a third party separate from the Republican and Democratic parties. They believe that the current two parties have both become too extreme, leading to repeated deadlock and that a more neutral, pragmatic “third party” must be established. They believe that a “third party” could bring life into the political atmosphere and end the confrontation between the two parties. The famous New York Times columnist Thomas Friedman, author of The World Is Flat, is one of the personalities who hold this view.
Although thinking about it may be nice, putting it in practice would not be easy. Learning from history, the history of America’s ruling parties can shed some light on “third parties.” Over its history, the US has had no lack of small parties, but only two presidents ever emerged from outside the dominant two-party structure. One was George Washington and the other Andrew Johnson. The former was the first president of the United States and loathed political parties. The latter was vice president under Lincoln and succeeded to the presidency after Lincoln was assassinated.
Power has always alternated between two major parties on the stage of American politics, and they have never met a strong rival. Even though a few small parties have emerged at various times, they have been unable to find a way to establish themselves. The greatest victory in the last hundred years for a “third party” outside of the Democratic and Republican parties was in 1912. That year, the previous President Theodore Roosevelt left the Republican Party and campaigned under the Progressive Party, earning 27.4 percent of the popular vote. Still, he lost to the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson, who won 41.8 percent of the popular vote. The American General Election is carried out indirectly, with the winner of over half the votes of the Electoral College winning, so Roosevelt actually lost even worse there, receiving only 88 Electoral College votes to Wilson’s 435.
The Electoral System Limits Small Parties
Why is it so difficult for small parties to form? This has to do with the American electoral system. Each electoral district utilizes a plurality system for the General Election; that is, the candidate who wins the most votes wins. Thus, even if there are several candidates, as long as a candidate gets the most votes he or she will be declared the winner, and it is not inherently necessary to win over half the vote. For example, if candidates A, B, and C won 25, 30, and 45 percent of the vote, respectively, C would be the winner even though 55 percent of voters do not support C.
According to “Duverger’s Law” in political science, America’s electoral system naturally results in a two-party system. That is to say, in electoral districts that use a plurality system, where the one with the most votes wins, the electorate recognizes that it’s difficult for a small party win, that if they vote for a small party it is equivalent to wasting their vote. Because of this, the electorate tends to vote for the candidate of the mainstream party they favor, even if that candidate is certainly not their first choice. This makes it difficult for small parties or lesser known candidates to win elections and creates the situation of competition between two main parties.
Another obstacle small parties face is meeting the qualifications for participation. Each state has its own law that specifies whose name can appear on the ballot. Generally requirements include the signing of a petition by a certain number of voters and some registration fee. Many small parties are never able to meet the states’ requirements. In the 2008 presidential election, three small parties — the Libertarian, Constitution, and Green Parties — met the requirements to be listed on the ballots of 45, 37, and 32 states, respectively.
Small parties are often marginalized by the major parties. In American history, a few small parties advocated positions that were welcomed by voters, but these positions were quickly “stolen” by candidates from the major parties and were integrated into their platforms. In this way, over time the major parties have snatched away the base of popular will for “third parties,” and having lost their unique position, the “third parties” also gradually fade out of the public view.
Throughout American history, although small parties have proposed some new ideas that were overlooked by the major parties, they have been unable to shake the current two-party system, and it looks like there won’t be any major changes in the two-party system during the 2012 election.
“Primary Economy” Spreads Over Iowa
According to a Xinhua News Agency Des Moines wire on January 2 (reporter Wang Fengfeng), on January 3, the 2012 presidential primaries will take place in Iowa in America’s Midwest. In the midst of Winter, Iowa will welcome a “primary economy” surge following the arrival of a large number of reporters, volunteers, and tourists. The state’s tourism department estimates that the primary will generate an economic benefit of several million dollars.
The “primary economy” can be seen all along the streets of Iowa’s capital, Des Moines. The Texas representative and presidential candidate Ron Paul held an event at a Des Moines hotel on the afternoon of the second. Outside the venue, salesman Thomas Prague, also from Texas, sells $55 worth of merchandise within ten minutes, mainly Ron Paul badges, hats with Paul’s name embroidered on them and other such souvenirs.
There are also many people who came to Iowa specifically to participate in the many election events taking place. Twenty-two year-old college student Kyle Morrell specially drove from Canada with some friends to participate in a Ron Paul campaign event. He feels that being able to see these political figures at such close range is a special experience.
There are even more tourists from other parts of the U.S. than there are those from abroad. Some from California, Texas, and other states say that in those heavily populated states, if you want to see a heavyweight political figure, you have to make a large campaign contribution, but in Iowa you only need to go into one of the restaurants or hotels where they are holding campaign events and you can come into close contact with the candidates and even get pictures with them.
Along with tourists, the election campaigns and large groups of reporters also bring a generous income to Iowa. As the primaries draw closer, it becomes difficult to find hotel rooms, the restaurants are always full, and all types of communications and technological service companies work nonstop. Additionally, each campaign has spent many millions of dollars on advertisements on the state’s television and radio stations and in newspapers and magazines.