It is ironic that the emergence of multiple parties is expanding the democratic process; the Founding Fathers had hoped that the American government would not be plagued by any parties, let alone a plethora of them. At the time of the Constitution, factions, groups of citizens with particular views, presented a hindrance to democracy. Factions were responsible for bloodshed and destruction in England, amongst many other places, and the Fathers wanted to create a peaceful nation (Kernell 60). In Federalist No. 10, James Madison referred to political parties as a type of “faction” whose intentions were “adverse to the rights of other citizens, or the permanent and aggregate interests of the community” (430). Allowing factions to play a role in policy making led to grave consequences; decisions often favored only the group in control, depriving other citizens of basic rights, thus diminishing democracy.
While Madison did so unintentionally, he, as a leading member of the Federalists, who preferred a stronger national government, helped to push the American political system into a party system. He, Alexander Hamilton, and John Jay were prominent Federalists, and they met fierce opposition from anti-Federalists such as Thomas Jefferson and James Monroe, who preached in favor of a stronger emphasis on states’ rights. While succeeding at first, the Federalists failed as a political party after 1800; the Jeffersonians, known first as the Democratic-Republicans, continue on today as the Democratic party, although the principles of the founder and successor parties differ greatly.
Throughout the span of the Democratic party, many contenders have emerged, but most have had little success; only the Republicans, who represented the merger of remnants of the collapsing Whig party and scattered minor groups, managed to reach the prominence of the Democrats. That’s not to say that third parties haven’t made valiant attempts. One of the earliest, which still exists today, though with little presence, is the Prohibition party. For a time the party was the epitome of the successful third party, as its primary goal, the prohibition of alcohol, was achieved under the authority of the Nineteenth Amendment. Teddy Roosevelt, upset with the Republican party, which he had represented in White House before losing the nomination to a more conservative candidate, formed the Bull-Moose Progressive party in order to run in the 1912 election. He was not successful; his campaign displayed another of the effects of the third party: by dividing the Republican constituency, Roosevelt opened the door for Democrat Woodrow Wilson (World Book). Twelve years later Robert LaFollete succeeded Roosevelt in carrying the Progressive banner, but made little headway in what was again a two-party system. George Wallace, unable to win the presidential nomination in a Democratic party ever more entrenched in the civil rights crusades, formed the American Independence party in 1968, winning some 46 electoral votes, all from Southern states still deeply rooted in segregation. All of these historical parties centered more or less around one issue, which was ultimately the cause of the failure of the many attempts at breaking into the mainstream political landscape.
Recently, however, third parties have had more defined platforms, centering around numerous issues. While today there exists an abundance of minor parties, this essay will refer mainly to the four better-known third parties: the Libertarian, Reform, Green, and Independence parties. The Libertarians formed espousing the platform of self-government (laissez-faire economics, personal choice in social issues). The Reform party originated as Ross Perot’s boost into the 1992 political races; originally centered greatly around campaign finance reform, it split in the late 1990s. The more conservative wing kept the name Reform, while the moderate-to-liberal branch now goes under the Independence banner (Members include Minnesota governor Jesse Ventura.). Led by consumer advocate Ralph Nader, the Green Party provides an option for liberals looking further to the left on the political spectrum than the Democratic party tends to reside. Having become more defined in their missions, these parties are reaching the point where it is viable that they can have a major impact on the current political landscape. Because they provide more choices for voters, and because they may finally pose a threat to the controversial Electoral College, whose winner-take-all system usually destroys any third party hopes, third parties are an integral part of democracy. As a result, the United States should lessen the requirements needed to be met by presidential candidates to earn Federal contributions to their parties and should allow serious minor party candidates to participate in presidential debates.
In arguing for an greater inclusion of minor parties in the political process, it must first be shown that these organizations truly expand democracy. Josh Kaplan, Professor of Political Science at the University of Notre Dame, claims that third parties are not necessarily the solution to the problems with the current party system, but he admits that they do offer voters the ability to make choices outside the mainstream realm dominated by the Republicans and Democrats. According to Edward Ashbee, “[...] about forty per cent of the voting-age population claim that there is no important difference between the Republicans and Democrats. More than half those interviewed assert that there is ‘not much difference’ between the parties in their handling of the problem they identified as being most important to them. [...] the proportion favouring the existence of a third party increased from 27 per cent in 1967 to 67 per cent in 1999” (4). Both Kaplan and Ashbee help to justify my argument, as they offer insight into the reasons why third parties should be strenghtened.
Records of past presidential elections defend the point made by Ashbee. Before 1912, the Republican party was enjoying much success, as it was the party of the fourth party system (Kernell 450). Then opposing factions found themselves unable to reconcile; as stated above, Teddy Roosevelt formed a new party, allowing Wilson to defeat conservative Republican President William Howard Taft by drawing Republican supporters (World Book). Recent elections have also been witness to minor party candidates drastically influencing the outcomes of Presidential races. In 1992, politics saw the return of a legitimate third party candidate; incumbent George Bush and little-known Democratic governor Bill Clinton were surprised to find themselves running not only against each other but also against independent Texas billionaire H. Ross Perot. Coming from a business background with a progressive agenda, Perot appealed to moderates from both sides of the political spectrum, but especially to progressive Republicans. His nineteen or so percent of the popular vote, which was widely enough distributed to have a serious effect, stole mainly from Bush, costing him the election.
In the very recent memory of the American electorate lies the conflict in Florida in the 2000 Presidential election. It was more than a month after Election Day that the United States knew who would be its next president. The popular votes earned by George W. Bush and Al Gore were so close that statewide recounts were ordered. Al Gore would have easily won the state of Florida, and as a result, the election, if it were not for a third party candidate. Ralph Nader, running for the Green party, appealed to many liberals disgusted with the Democratic party’s consistent flirting with the political center; he also claimed many Gore votes in New Hampshire. Had Nader not being so alluring to these dissatisfied voters, Al Gore would currently be Commander-in-Chief (Levine 2219). The 1998 gubernatorial race in Minnesota saw voters choose an outsider, Reform candidate Jesse Ventura, a former professional wrestler, for governor over the two major party candidates.
