Why Be Sneaky About It? Let's Rig the System Against Presidential Third Parties

It seems official. Ralph Nader is going to repeat his irresponsible and self-indulgent presidential run. I am horrified for all the obvious reasons every other Democrat is. It's ironic -- no it's just sad and inexcusable -- that this generation's most prominent critic of corporate privilege handed the presidency to George W. Bush.

Setting this very large grievance aside, there are lots of good reasons to prefer a head-to-head matchup of two candidates to the cacophany made possible by third-parties. We saw in 2000 that even a minor third-party candidate can tilt an election to thwart the views of most voters. From the perspective of democratic process, this was not a tragedy. Of course, Bush's presidency has been disastrous, but no process can fully protect us from that. I would gnash my teeth if John McCain won in similar fashion this year. Yet he would still need to get within a whisker of a true majority to pull this off.

Things easily get wackier and scarier when third parties attracted someone of greater backing and stature. Imagine some parallel universe in which Obama becomes the Democratic nominee and a disaffected Hillary Clinton decides to run as a third-party candidate. (If you prefer, imagine the opposite scenario.) John McCain could conceivably take office with less than 40 percent of the vote. We don't need this kind of stuff.

More fundamentally, third-party candidates raise the probability that a nutcase could someday win the presidency. Imagine that the 1992 election had gone a bit differently, that Ross Perot was a somewhat smoother candidate and that Bill Clinton's candidacy had suffered some serious post-nomination blow. We could have had a genuinely scary figure win the presidency on the basis of an unlimited war chest and the need to reach some threshold below 50% of the popular vote. If third parties become fourth and fifth parties, the dangers magnify. A depressing number of countries provide evidence for this point.

Sanford Levinson's terrific book Our Undemocratic Constitution notes many ways that our constitution and our political traditions aren't perfect. We do dumb things, such as granting Supreme Court justices lifetime rather than 20-year appointments. Watching the sequelae of the Lewinsky scandal and President Bush's sad limp through his final year, the virtues of a parliamentary system seem more compelling than they did ten years ago.

One thing we've done well is to design a system that vets presidential candidates through two stable major parties, and that forces the resulting nominees to compete for the political center. It isn't always pretty. The two parties often screw up. Moreover, the American political center has often been wrong about important things. On balance, however, our nation has profited from the safety-valve created through the two-party system. It's one thing to have independents in Congress and at the state level. When we are talking which human being has the power to send our nation to war and launch nuclear bombs, I like our system uncreative.

If Ralph Nader goes through with it, Democratic operatives will surely work to keep him off the ballot and off of the public stage. They will work under the radar, and might be embarrassed if their efforts are discovered. They shouldn't be. State legislators should do this work openly.

Many voices, one head-to-head choice. That is the best way to pursue American democracy.

Comments

[DavidGaines]

Obviously Mr. Pollack comes to precisely the wrong conclusion here but I admire his intellectual honesty in the matter. Would that the operatives and goon squads who so shamefully interfered with ordinary voters' right to choose in 2004 were as honest. I think many, if not most, Democrats need to think hard about the "right to choose" and just how far that ought to extend.
{{ What about the people who voted for any of the other 7 presidential candidates on the ballot in Florida in 2000? What about the 12% of registered Democrats who voted for Bush? What about the nearly 50% of registered Democrats in Florida who didn't even bother to vote!}}
Exactly. No Democrats, to my knowledge, have ever provided any substantive response to this. Nader's candidacy was only one variable. Even the exalted Todd Gitlin could only sputter a non sequitur reference to a dog eating one's homework when the subject came up during an interview.
I'd like to see Tim Russert hold up a chart that shows BUSH - GORE - MOOREHEAD or BUSH - GORE - MCREYNOLDS instead of his famously tiresome BUSH - GORE - NADER chart. I once asked David McReynolds (the 1980 & 2000 Socialist Party nominee and quite an American treasure in his own right) via email about Florida and he seemed amused by the whole thing. Obviously the system is ridiculously broken if a Socialist who polls 600 votes holds the key to the presidency. Yet Democrats are deeply silent over the issue of changing this system.
{{ where the hell has your saint Nader been? What has HE been doing for the good of this country? }}
Statements like this reveal a great deal about the people who have been making them over the last few years. Specifically, it reveals that this person doesn't know squat about Ralph Nader and hasn't seen any of his speeches, read any of his books, or looked in on any of the cable news interviews he's done. Just to give one example of what he's been doing, I would refer this person to the D.C. Library Renaissance Project, something Ralph started very much under the radar in order to fix the embarrassing state of the District of Columbia's public library system (thanks for which go to the Democratic Party, by the way). He has been quite successful in not only raising consciousness about this but funds as well. Even Mark Fisher of the Washington Post, no Nader fan he, wrote a remarkable story about this issue in the Post in December 2002 that was astoundingly complimentary of Ralph.
I could cite dozens of other examples. From 2001 to now, both during and outside of election cycles, Ralph Nader has given countless speeches, walked numerous picket lines, started several new organizations, written hundreds of articles and op-ed pieces, given thousands of interviews in all media, and benefitted dozens of Green Party, anti-war, and other fundraising events.
A better question to ask would be: what have YOU been doing over the last few years to walk the walk and not just talk the talk, as RN does day after day, whether the spotlights are on him or not?

[ProudLiberalDan]

While I will not be supporting and running for President, this is the most outrageous post I have read in a long time.

Remember, the Republicans were a "third-party" once.

This is AMERICA. Everyone has a right to run. Everyone has a right to try and form a new political party, despite the odds.

I don't have such a short memory that I forget Clintonian DLC-corporate triangulation. They people who really don't want there to be other parties on the right, left or center are the corporate lobbyists who know that with only two parties, it is possible to control and influence both.

We should have direct elections with a runoff if no candidate gets 50% in the first round -- so that citizens can vote for the candidate and party (or non-party) they wish as their first choice rather than settling for the lesser of two evils.

[AnninCA]

Talk about partisanship! *whew*

[Rescisco]

Ralph is "irresponsible and self-indulgent?" Perhaps, and I do agree that he should not run. But is he any more "irresponsible and self-indulgent" than amyone else who runs for president? I just think he has lost the capacity to carry a message given the baggage he has accumulated. All of that aside, we do not need to rig a game that is already rigged! Quite the opposite, we need more and newer voices ready to persist in promoting the kind of reform no major candidate will touch (i.e. they want to win and real change or reform that goes to the heart of corporate rule is not a platform upion which that can happen). I say yes to the notion of a third voice and no to Ralph. You cannot blame third party candidates for the inadequacy and the failures of the two major parties (which are really one party when it comes to where the power and the influence truly reside).

[Sundialsvc4]

The fundamental message that is shrieked out from every media orifice is that "you have one of two 'choices.' We, of course, have already groomed and paid-for both of them ... they already consider themselves hundreds of millions of dollars in-debt to us ... but you can choose between them if you like. Or not."

In all of this media feeding-frenzy, the Congressional elections are not mentioned at all: keep it simple for the stupid-plebes; you are electing a Savior. Pick one. Or not.

That, of course, is no way to run a country of more than 320 million people. Public policy cannot long be defined by who has the more (stolen) money with which to bribe Members of Congress.

History tells us that history moves from age to age. Within each age, one country rises to supremacy for a time, then declines into oblivion... essentially, at its own hand. It will be a curious footnote to history that the United States of America rose to great prominence in about 140 years, then vaporized itself, figuratively if not literally, in less than 100 more. Barely a blip on the radar. A curious statement of "what might have been." But history will shake its head at the fact that the American people never understood what they had so-briefly had; did not value it; did not prize it; made no move at all to save it. They stared open-mouthed at the headlights and flicked their little white tails.

[Wolfgang]

The best solution is to abolish the electoral college and have a direct election by popular vote. The winner must receive a majority of the votes cast. If not, than there is a runoff election between the top two candidates.This will allow a voter to cast his ballot for someone he likes rather than voting for the lesser of two evils.

[ProudLiberalDan]

Absolutely. It's simple. It's the way other democracies that directly elect President's do it.

We can do two-round runoff voting like France and Brazil or ranked-choice runoff voting like Ireland and Australia.

[pfc1369]

The Supreme Court handed the presidency to Shrub.
Not R.Nader.

[RumiSouth]

So you would be against the election of Abraham Lincoln, Harold? Because he was a third-party candidate.

I like the constitution just fine the way it is, and I really don;t want to live in an official two-party state. That's just one party better than a one-party state.

[elleng]

Cacaphony made by THIRD PARTIES?

What's going on now in the Democratic party?

The system is rigged against democracy, as it has granted such huge benefits to corporations that the msm can't be challenged, they love a fight, and that's what they've given Democrats. NO discussion of the many capable Democratic contestants, due to Dem party's screw ups, we're stuck with a divided Dem party causing apparent grass-roots mayhem.

I'd be happy to see Nader and Bloomberg and Hagel force real discussions into the public arena.

[FearlessFreep]

Anyone can see that the system is ALREADY rigged against third parties!

[runswithscissors]

In the last election Bush officially won 27% of registered voters. Roughly 45% didn't bother to leave the house. This tells me that a majority of registered voters find our system to be a joke, and that an overhaul is in order. Why not start with a candidate/party that isn't beholden to the same interests as the other two?

[Lon]

The idea that the system should be rigged against third parties is a silly one. Parties are not built into the constitutional system nor should they be. And third party runs can have a variety of effects. The Perot run actually put the focus on budget balancing. One may approve or disapprove of that, but there is nothing wring with that as a way to contribute to the political system.

It is unfortunate that Nader's run in 2000 had disastrous effects. It did not help that he embarassed himself by claiming there was no difference between the two parties. And now he seems to be driven by a need to not take responsiblity for what he did in 2000. How else to explain the ludicrous argument that people who blame him should be blaming Bush instead. How simple minded does one need to be to think different people can't simultaneously be responsible for their individual contributions.

Today I saw him making the incompatible claims that what he gained was to move Gore to the left, and that the lose was exclusively Gore's fault for not winning Tennessee. Obviously the only way for Gore to win Tennessee would be to move to the center. But then he is reduced to flailing like a 5 year old blaming everyone but himself for the result he contributed to.

But however sad it may be that Nader would embarass himself in this way, it is not justification for stacking the deck against future third party runs which can have a variety of legitimate roles.

And face it, Nader is not likely to match his 2004 numbers this time, and the people who do vote for him are more likely to stay home than vote democratic. After all they have to be people who look at 2000 and say things went pretty well that time, so I think we should try to do it again. It is hard to imagine many potential democratic voters actually thinking that way.

[Ides]

I was pissed at Ralph Nader, not so much because he ran as a third party candidate, but he had the shit-brained gall to declare George W. Bush a better candidate for president than Al Gore (AND YES, THIS DID HAPPEN!)


It's one thing to run as an option, it's another to skew the field and confuse the electorate into achieving the opposite result. I want to hear what third and fourth parties have to say, and I would love to hear them all in a debate, but in the end it is up to the VOTERS to stay informed and know who and what they are voting for. They are ultimately to blame for their choices.


As long as third party candidates play fair.

[ljsfolly]

The hatred that divides not the red and blue states nor the men againest the women or any of the choices we might have is hatred of someone who believes differently than I do. Who ever I is. What has come out of the anger at how we have been lost in the world created by Bush Jr this time but is always there when we have to choose a president and people actually care. This election people honestly care because of how we perceive the losses Bush has caused us. We don't want this damn war! We don't want to lose our house! We don't want to not be able to afford whatever it is we need/want/desire! Above all we don't want to lose who we feel we are and our country. All of these things have come about in the last 8 years and we can point at someone and say "He did this to us". Now we want to change what we have seen as lost and we have two different but nor so different democrats running this time. One Black man and one white Woman. in this country that we have evolved to where other countries have been for many years. The UK had a woman. The french a woman and so on. Black men have been leaders across the world just not here or the UK. Racial bias has taken a long time to die and we might make it yet. Ralph will alwasy be seen as the spoiler. But the Supreme Court was who stole from us the election. He once was a meaninful man but has one hiding in recent past until the presidential election comes and he does it again. Those not satisfied with the democrat or the republican will vote for other, Ralph. That is our nature and unfortunately with our system of electorial college which is not a college at all is still is place and we fight to the end of relationships now instead of death for who we will believe in.

[AgathaX]

There is nothing to fear from Nader this year, but our country would be much better of with a presidential election process that required the successful candidate to have garnered a majority of the vote. I'm in favor of amending the constitution to require a run off if no candidate garners a majority of the vote in an election. And do away with the electoral college. It's obsolete.

The run-off election should be held on New Years day and the innauguration could be pushed back just a bit if necessary, but I don't know why that would be necessary.

[LeoMarvin]

The electoral college is going nowhere. The half least populated states benefit from it, and it takes three quarters of the states to ratify a Constitutional amendment. Do the math.

[CanSoc]

A run-off system a la France would be too much of an expense for a geography and population as large as the US's. The logical solution would be to follow Ireland and have what is called in the US instant runoff voting (IRV). Under this system voters rank-order their choices by preference (1,2,3 etc.), and candidates with the least votes are eliminated and their votes are transferred to voters' next highest preference until a candidate gains over 50% of the vote. In Australia the system requires all candidates on MP ballots to be rank-ordered but in my view it would be better to leave the number up to voters. Under such a system Gore would have won but Nader supporters could also have pushed him to take more progressive stands by threatening to withhold their second-choice support.

[HAP]

A variety of voting schemes have been proposed to avoid these paradoxical outcomes. Eric Maskin and Roger Meyerson (Nobel economists) are working on this.