A Nader’s third party bull
By MIKE KOTLARCZYK
Ralph Nader’s recent announcement that he would run for president in 2004 did not come as much of a shock to anyone. What was somewhat surprising was that he was willing to make the run without the support of a third party. His campaign in 2000 was largely about this need America has to cultivate a third party to present real choices to the American people. This message resonated with a lot of people, many of whom voted for him, and many others who voted for Gore (or, less frequently, Bush) but agreed with the need for a third party.
I have no serious objections to America establishing a third party, but I will say this: it ain’t gonna happen. And furthermore, it would solve much fewer problems than people think.
The reason that America will never have a third party is because of our voting system. There’s a principle in political science called Duverger’s Law, named after a French sociologist, that states a voting system like ours will always result in a two-party system. This is pretty obvious when you think about it. Since all you need to win an election in our country is a plurality of votes in your district (let’s not think about the electoral college here), a variety of parties on either side of the political spectrum would fragment the vote. It makes more sense, then, for groups of a similar ideology to coalesce into one party.
Compare this system to countries that do have multiple parties. Although these nations have vastly different voting systems, in general voters vote for a party rather than a candidate. The party then gives out its seats to its members, based upon how many seats it won in the election. A vote is never "thrown away" in such a system because they all count towards giving your party more seats. America will not develop a viable third party until our voting system changes, and you can be pretty sure when that will happen (hint: never).
But not only is it impossible for third parties to arise in our system, its also not particularly desirable. The way that I see it, there are two groups of people who are attracted to third parties: the ignorant and radicals. The ignorant I’m referring to here are people who don’t really know politics but think that they do. Maybe they read a book by Michael Moore or something like that, and can spout off some populist rhetoric about how America is a plutocracy. But they do not understand the substantive differences between Democrats and Republicans and do not really recognize political realities. Such people tend to use the third party issue as an excuse for not voting as opposed to any sort of meaningful political statement.
The other group of people that clamors for third parties is radicals. I don’t mean the word "radical" in a negative way here, I just mean to signify people whose beliefs are well outside of the mainstream: socialists, communists, libertarians, and so on. These people want a viable third party because they feel that the two major parties fail to adequately represent them. And in this they are right, for the main parties are both centrist. But what they forget is that the two parties are centrist because the American people are centrist. The parties should be reflective of the American people, and radicals and their affiliated parties are simply not in the mainstream of American thought.
So just remember, as Nader’s campaign starts churning out the anti-two party rhetoric, that we are tied into the two-party system for better or for worse. One thing that the past four years have really demonstrated to anyone who has been paying attention is that Nader’s claim that there is no difference between the two parties is bull. No matter where you sit on the spectrum, pretty much everyone thinks that we would either be much better or much worse off if Bush was never elected (or appointed, depending on your point of view). Nader will say some valid things about the influence of corporations in American politics in the months ahead. Bus ask yourself: is voting for him really going to make any difference at all in the things I believe in?
