Essay On Third Party Candidates

In order to participate in major elections, third parties must first overcome a myriad of obstacles that have been put in place by both the founding fathers and politicians of our current two-party system. Rosenstone and his colleagues contend that the most important barrier in place to discourage the success of third parties is the plurality single-member districts that are the cornerstone of the American electoral process. Not only do single-member districts elect only one member to higher office, but they also allow such elections to occur without an electoral majority. If voters know that a third party is unlikely to receive a substantial amount of votes, they may believe a vote for the party would be a wasted vote. This requirement for a plurality of votes is especially detrimental for a third party presidential campaign, due to the fact that the Electoral College distributes electoral votes to the winner of each statewide vote (excluding Nebraska and Maine), and the only plausible way for a third party candidate to receive any electoral votes is to be extremely popular in a certain region of the United States. Unlike the two major

Sometimes, voting for a third-party candidate can be seen as “worse than wasted,” such as in the 2000 election (Disch 2002). In winning 2.7 percent of the vote, Ralph Nader, the Green Party candidate drew away votes from Al Gore, which may have lost Gore the election, and didn’t even achieve the 5 percent needed for public financing (Disch 2002). The election of 2000 showed the biggest problems of voting for a third-party candidate. Green voters gained nothing from voting for Ralph Nader, and allowed a party even further away from their own preferences to gain power.

The case studies, Perot and Nader, give historical context to the persistent necessity of third parties. Their third-party campaigns changed American political history through the reasons they arose, the effects they have, and their lasting impacts. Perot presented alternative views and issues in a race that was seen as “politics-as-usual”(Toner). Nader presented himself as an oddity in a race that lacked clear contrast between the two major candidates, “a vote for Gore, is a vote for Bush.” Perot’s campaign can be credited with focusing national attention on the national deficit, forcing the two parties to adapt and develop their own agendas. Nader's campaign can be credited with changing history by splitting the Democratic vote and indirectly

In American politics the two party system is so dominant that there not much room left for third parties to get votes from the constituents. This is why third parties are often written off in American politics because they do not have power to effect direct change in the political system. Third parties are more of an indirect change. They draw from the more focused constituents who have a specific grievance that neither the larger parties are concerned with changing. The people who vote for third party candidates are more likely to be unhappy with the direction of the major parties or have grievances with the establishment.

The way that the citizens of the US can swing the votes of others id by having a third party. Third parties can have a negative or positive affect depending on which side you are on. Like in the 20044 election the green party's candidate Ralph Nader affected the democrats in the most negative way. He took the attention off of the democrats candidate and the votes went George W. Bush after a series of recounts (DOC #6). This is just another way just how confusing and how twisted ones vote could get due to the how the electoral court

The third party in American national politics has been unsuccessful, rarely making a big impact although not unprecedented. The Constitution, on the other hand, makes third parties unviable. Third party candidates, such as Ross Perot, who ran as an independent in 1992 have made a great impact on the national politics, forcing both Republican and Democratic Party candidates to debate the issue of a balanced budget. However, the third party has not had much success in the national politics due to lack of media coverage, the nature of the electoral system, and restrictive ballot access laws.

Proponents further dispute that the Electoral College is a chief factor in contributing to the political stability of the nation by promoting a two party system. This is simply true because it is extremely complicated for a new or minor party to win enough popular votes in a sufficient amount of States to have a chance of winning the presidency. The realistic effect of the Electoral College is to practically force third party movements into one of the two major political parties. In this method of integration, third party movements are obliged to compromise their more fanatic ideas in order to stand a fighting chance against the two main parties in elections. Third parties should be considered just as big of a contender in elections as the

From my studies in Political Science it is not hard to understand that the United States political system is dominated by two political parties; the Republican Party, and the Democratic party. This is known as a two-party system, the definition of a two party name is evident from the name. A two party system functions on two parties, much like United States politics this is confusing because more than two parties are allowed to compete in elections. In America, any party outside of Democrats or Republicans is referred to a “Third Party”. My research paper will focus around one of the third parties, The Libertarian party. This paper will set up necessary knowledge through an exploration of the ideals of the party, and where

“The Democratic Party at its worst is better for the country than the Republican Party at its best.” This was a statement made by Lyndon B. Johnson in 1955. Lyndon B. Johnson of course was a Democrat. Is this quote true today? That is a question that can only be answered after a careful analysis of the philosophy of the Republican and Democratic leaders that help to run this nation.

In a political atmosphere where it is easy to be grouped up in either conservative or liberal, it is harder to see such an easy split more and more each day. Non-traditional candidates are now emerging into the political arena that in prior elections would have been scoffed at. Whether we are talking about the unusually high polling Libertarian candidate, Gary Johnson, the Democratic Socialist Bernie Sanders or the Authoritarian Republican Nominee, Donald Trump, It is getting harder and harder to ignore the rise they are having. The two major political parties will have to adapt to these emerging ideologies or face the threat of the dreaded “third party”.

America is vastly known as a country boundlessly pursuing equality in all facets of life. In this seemingly endless quest for equal opportunity, there has been one lurking negation; our election system. The addition to equal representation in public funding and on the ballot will create variability and allow Americans to entrust their vote in a political format that more closely aligns with democratic philosophy. Therefore, a shift away from a bipartisan, a two party, dominated election system would not only be a healthy change for American electoral satisfaction, but for the future of third party politics. Unfortunately affluence and inherent wealth have played a large role in this divide between a true democratic election and our present biased, broken, and benyne system.

In recent discussion of Democrats and Republican parties, a controversial issue has been whether or not the U.S. should expand their options from more than a two party system. On the one hand, some argue that there should be more choices other than between the two Democrat Party and Republican Party. From this perspective, voters have more of a variety when they vote. On the other hand, some argue that the U.S. should remain as a two party system. In the words of Gary Johnson, one of this view’s main proponents, “The Republicans and Democrats have spent decades trading power back and forth between themselves, and in doing so, have managed to install a two-party duopoly that completely controls America’s political process.” According to this view, Democrats and Republicans are dictating other parties opportunities to get elected. In sum, then, the issue is whether there should be other options rather than a choice between the Democrat and the Republican Party. I agree with Gary Johnson’s view that the Democrat and Republican Parties are controlling America’s

Political parties are critical structures in the modern society and universal phenomena in most democracies. In fact, they form major objects of intensive study as they are usually the centre of political and social power. They engage in most activities that are of significant consequence in the lives of citizens and link the common populace to the government. Therefore, it is important to understand political parties fully from every perspective of political systems so obtain their real importance in democracies. A political party is basically a group of citizens who converge as voters, activists, electoral candidates and office holders with a common party label and seek to elect party members into public offices. While modern political

In the movie “The Candidate” I thought that the film was very interesting to me, being a person that has never been interested in politics. I found it interesting even though I am not for sure if this is the way that campaigns are run now. I thought it was nice to see how some candidates may be chosen, especially in this film because he was not expected to win the election. He was not even interested in politics although his father was once governor. The film showed how the campaign was ran and managed by his advisors. Although not expected to win the election, he somehow

Through modern history the winners of presidential elections have been focused on the two major parties that America has. For the past nearly 150 years we have seen the President either have their party affiliation through the Democratic or Republican Party. Even though it is seen that major party candidates dominate the results of the election, it can be seen that third party candidates play a significant role in taking votes away from their opposing candidates. For example, in the 1992 election, third party candidate, Ross Perot gained over 18% of the popular vote. Researchers find that his campaign took away from President Bush and allowed candidate Bill Clinton to win the election, ultimately beating out the sitting President at the time.