Why bother voting for 3rd parties?
I have heard a lot of complaints about why third parties do not get the respect like the current two major parties that exist today. People complain that these parties are not included in debates, that the media does not give them equal time, and that by doing all this, the people are not given a real “choice” since they are only showed the two “main” candidates.
In today’s age this is flawed. Why? Well if any voter wants to know about any candidate running for any office, they are free to look at that candidate’s website and see what platform they support. Most candidates, even the “small” ones, will have some sort of donation link set up so you can directly contribute to his/her campaign. And if a candidate wants to complain about not being included in a debate, then he can always record the questions to that debate, answer them in his own video, and post it on youtube for all who care to see. (And a candidate who doesn’t at least try and use the power of the internet is absolutely not worth my time or consideration).
The reason we should not feel sorry for these other parties and alternate candidates goes much deeper though. If someone doesn’t have the common sense to understand the political system that we operate in and refuses to play the game by the rules that we set up, then that person can really not expect to be taken seriously.
Let’s look at the most serious third party candidate in recent history: Ross Perot. He had a lot of money and was able to actually get on the debates and snag the media’s attention. He got less than 20% of the popular vote and managed to win exactly 0 states. What good did those votes do him? Some people say he played the part of a spoiler and allowed Clinton to win. Which is basically one of the rolls that third party candidates really play in presidential politics. If they cannot even win one electoral vote, then all they do is draw votes away from candidates.
But lets imagine that Perot was able to win more votes and actually took some states. If he took those states away from George H. W. Bush then there would be no change. However, if he managed to take states away from Clinton and nobody won the required number of electoral votes, then the winner of the election would be chosen by a state by state vote in the House of Representatives and the Republican candidate would have won. So again, by running a campaign that wasn’t able to take advantage of the rules of the system, the third party candidate is stuck playing the part of the spoiler).
Which brings me to my point. The third parties and their candidates are not going at this the right way. They ignore the realities of the political world and go after the White House in a quixotic quest (and I may be wrong but I do not recall seeing a windmill on the top of the White House). A smart third party would work from the ground up. They would try and get seats on local city councils (gaining favor locally). They would work on getting Congressional candidates who can actually win a congressional election. By building up their network from the ground up, they would work on manufacturing a get out the vote organization that is vital to any successful campaign. They would work on gaining favor in specific states, especially the small ones, and move to become the favored party in those states. They will only win by changing the colors of the state, not by changing a minority of voters nationwide.
Believe me, I am well aware of the media and their refusal to cover elections properly. However, this is the biggest office in the land and I think the media has the “right” to only cover those candidates and parties who prove that they are serious about winning the election. And as I said over on Oyster’s blog, if third party candidates refuse to campaign smart and insist on placing themselves in the roll of “spoiler”, why should we bother taking any of them seriously.
Cross posted on my Barack Obama for President blog.