Third parties Flashcards
(47 cards)
What national third parties ran in all 50 states in 2000?
The Reform Party
The Libertarian Party
The Green Party
Name two examples of regional third parties?
Strom Thurmond’s State’s Rights party founded 1948
George Wallace’s American Independent Party, founded 1968
Name two ideological third parties?
Socialist party
Libertarian party
Name two issue based third parties?
The Prohibition party
The green party
Name two permanent third parties?
Green Party
Libertarian Party
Name two temporary third parties?
Reform Party
American Independent Party
What was the combined popular vote of third parties in 2012?
2%
This is tiny- insignificant
In how many of the nine presidential elections between 1968 and 2000 did a third party play a significant role?
5 played a significant role ]
3 (1968, 1992 and 2000) it could be argued that a third party decided the outcome
Did third parties make a difference in 2016?
no
although narrow victories for Trump led to his electoral college win and enough people voted for third parties in Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania to change the outcome, it is unlikely that all of these voters would have voted fro Hillary Clinton
How did Nader affect the election outcome in 2000?
Nader won 2.7% for the Green party (portrayed as extreme), this probably cost Gore the presidency. Nader had name recognition but lacked resources
Florida decided the outcome by 537 votes, in Florida Nader polled 100,000 votes in the state, polling suggests that half of these voters would have voted Gore had Nader not been on the ballot,
Who was the third party candidate in 1968? Were they significant?
George Wallace of the American Independent Party
racist, regional policy for the South, portrayed as an extremist by the GOP
won 13.5% of the vote, mostly in the Southern states, 45 ECVs, this nearly deadlocked the electoral college- significant
co-optation as Nixon creates the Southern strategy of dog whistle politics
Who was the third party candidate in 1992?
Ross Perot, won 19% of the vote but 0 ECVs
splits Republican vote so led to a Democrat victory
spent 62 million dollars of his own money as did not qualify for matching funds
his flagship policy of federal budget deficit was co-opted
Who was the third party candidate in 1980?
John Anderson, National Unity Party, 7% of the vote, took votes from Democrats
had to spend 3 million dollars of his own money to get on the ballot in all 50 states
He was in the Presidential debates but Carter refused to debate him, this made Carter look weak
bad running mate - Patrick Lucey
Who was the third party candidate in 1996?
Ross Perot again
reform party 9% of the vote
Why does the Electoral system make things difficult for third parties?
FPTP and winner takes all system
votes have to be concentrated
Perot won 19% of the vote but no ECVs shallow support, Wallace won 45 ECVs but only because his support was very concentrated in the south
FPTP is not designed to benefit third parties
How do matching fund rules disadvantage third party candidates?
To qualify for matching funds third party candidates must have won 5% of the popular vote in the previous election. They only get full funding if they get 25% and the main parties get a subsidy for their NNC
This is difficult because:
a) it is difficult to hit 5%, only Perot 1992 and 1996, Anderson 1980 and Wallace 1968 have ever achieved this
b) many third parties are temporary and may only contest one election, e.g. Anderson
These weird rules mean that Perot did not qualify in 1992 when he was attracting 19% of the vote but the predecessor to Perot’s reform party that he created, Pat Buchanan qualified in 2000 when attracting less than 1% of votes
Why do ballot access laws make things difficult for third parties?
Third parties are disadvantaged by state ballot laws
different states have different requirements. In Tennessee you have to get 25 signatures on a petition.
In California you have to get signatures equal to 1% of the state electorate.
In 1980 John Anderson estimated he had to gather 1.2 million signatures to get on the ballot in all 50 states, he spent $3 million doing that
How does a lack of resources disadvantage third party candidates?
People are reluctant to give money to parties that they know will lose
don’t qualify for matching funds so are often reliant on donations or the candidates own money
have to spent cash on just getting on the ballot
How does a lack of media coverage disadvantage third party candidates?
News programmes often do not think third party candidates to be sufficiently newsworthy
the third parties can not afford the costs of making and airing adverts
Most debates do not allow third party candidate participation.
-in 2000, Nader was excluded from the presidential debates. However, Perot was included.
How does a lack of suitable candidates disadvantage third parties?
difficult to find running mates
Perot talked of big names like Colin Powell but had to settle for Admiral James Stockdale. He was a no hoper in terms of Washington politics.
How do allegations of extremism disadvantage third party candidates?
Portrayed as ideological extremists, may be some truth in this as if they weren’t extreme they would probably be running under the Republican Democrat umbrella.
The two parties are broad churches and ‘catch all’ so there is little ‘issue space’ for third party candidates
Republicans smeared pro-segregationist George Wallace as an extremist with slogan ‘if you liked Hitler, you’ll love Wallace.’
Left wing parties such as the socialist party as easy to smear as there is a deep seated fear of the left still leftover from the cold war days.
How does co-optation disadvantage third party candidates?
If a third party does well in pre-election opinion polls major parties may try to adopt their policies in order to win over their voters. Or if a candidate does well on election day their policies may be taken in the next election.
It happened to Wallace as Nixon adopted the Southern Strategy in the run up to the 1972 election
It happened to Perot when both Democrat President Bill Clinton and the congressional Republicans adopted policies to deal with Perot’s flagship policy- the federal budget deficit. By 2000 the federal budget deficit was in surplus and the Reform party had fallen to just 0.4% of the vote.
Why could co-optation be a good thing for third party candidates?
depends on their aims
Wallace and Perot probably didn’t think they would win the Presidency but wanted to influence the policy debate- this means they were a massive success
How could you argue third parties are insignificant?
Two parties dominate elections, congress, state politics
they coopt policys of third party candidates
