Will This Be a Four-Party Election?Roundup
tags: election 2016
Third parties don’t fit cleanly into the simple political narrative most of us have in our heads of red versus blue, and two parties battling it out, Super Bowl-style. Yet for much of our history, outsiders have pushed their way onto the playing field, disrupting the narrative of the Big Game.
In the closing weeks of the 2016 campaign, Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party and Jill Stein of the Green Party are holding steady with 9 percent and 3 percent, according to a recent CNN poll of polls. It is never an exact science to assess the impact of third-party votes — there are libertarians at both the right and left ends of the spectrum — and third-party types are notoriously fickle. But there is a rising possibility that these votes will affect the outcome in close states.
A survey of our chaotic past suggests that third parties have done considerable damage to the major parties. Certainly that is the feeling among Democrats, whose memories of Ralph Nader’s turn in 2000 remain raw. But third-party runs have also opened windows that might have remained shut. A proliferation of parties in 1860 helped elect Abraham Lincoln, and in 1912 Woodrow Wilson was another beneficiary of a four-party contest.
It would be tempting to cite stern warnings from the founders against this potential threat to the political establishment. But they were so hostile to the idea of parties writ large that they do not provide much help. In The Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned against the spirit of “faction,” and George Washington amplified these fears in his farewell address of 1796. Four years later, the barn door was wide open, and the horses were running free. It was as if no one had heard him at all.
In the 19th century, messy elections persistently undermined the claim of Americans to have invented a system of politics worthy of global emulation. In 1806, a prominent Virginian, John Randolph, was trying to organize a new party that was neither Federalist nor Republican (Jefferson’s claim that all Americans were united persuaded no one). Randolph called it a “tertium quid,” or a “third something.” ...
comments powered by Disqus
- Trump’s Getting Us Ready to Fight a Nuclear War
- Monticello Is Done Avoiding Jefferson’s Relationship With Sally Hemings
- Sessions cites Bible passage used to defend slavery in defense of separating immigrant families
- Trump-Kim Deal Promises Answers for Families of Korean War M.I.A.s
- Massachusetts High School Apologizes After Nazi Quote Is Printed in Yearbook
- Randall Stephens predicts most evangelicals will probably fail to come to grips with Trump’s cynical manipulations, his divisive, culture-war grandstanding, his philandering, and his lying
- Wiliam Reese, Leading Seller of Rare Books, Is Dead at 62
- Alisse Theodore points out that women first became politically active in the fight against Andrew Jackson’s genocidal Indian Removal campaign
- More fallout from SHAFR's decision to invite David Petraeus as keynote speaker
- ‘EU is weakest world power’ Niall Ferguson says