In Defense of Voting Third Party…

Introduction

2016 is bringing us a very unusual presidential election.  On the Republican side, we have an outsider with a decidedly politically-incorrect resume and stye has been nominated to be the party’s standard-bearer.  On the Democratic side, we have the ultimate insider with an impeccable resume that lacks notable accomplishments who is out of sync with her own base. The party traditionally known for hawkish international exploits and free trade is arguing to build a wall and abandon treaties, while the party traditionally known for workers rights and domestic concerns is arguing for more open borders and focusing on international issues.  Neither candidate is well-liked either within their own party or outside of it.  In fact, both are most notable for having the highest negatives of any candidate their respective party has ever run.

While we have exceptional candidates breaking every tradition of politics, we hear the same old argument.  “You have to vote with your party.  A vote for anyone else is a vote for the other party!”  Notables within the party power structures and outside of it are making the same point over and over.  “We have a two party system.  Choose one or the other."

But why?  If both Coke and Pepsi both offered you an unacceptable product, you’d look to someone else to provide you with an alternative.  Why should it be different in the political realm?  In fact, the United States has a long history of third parties.  And third parties serve critical functions in our Republic.

What is the function of a political party?

When the Constitution was signed and the first Federal government was formed, common wisdom said that political parties were bad and to be avoided at all costs.  But it quickly became evident - much to the disgust of George Washington - that parties had a critical function to serve within our political system.  Jefferson and Madison formed the first party - the Republicans (who, despite the name are the forerunners of the modern Democratic Party).  And Adams and Hamilton formed their opposition - the Federalists.

Political parties serve important functions:

• They bring together diverse coalitions with diverse interests 
• They advocate common goals
• They centralize fund-raising and communication
• They coordinate political actions for common benefit

How do political parties and presidential elections relate?

The creation of parties was not primarily about electing a president.  But over time, the selection of President has become a proxy battle to decide the core values of the party for the next 4 to 8 years.  The core values of the Executive become the core values (i.e. platform) of the party.  Ronald Reagan’s election brought about the “Reagan Revolution” for modern Republicans  The rise of Bill Clinton put the values of the “New Democrats” at the forefront of the modern Democratic Party.

Conversely, the defeat of a presidential candidate brings about the defeat of their core values as guiding principles of the party.  No one is talking about “Romney Conservatism” or the “McCain Revolution” after their electoral losses.  Winners run the party and create the future.  Losers take their lumps and go home (though they are always free to try again.)

How do THIRD PARTIES influence the political process?

Since the very beginning, there have been two major American political parties.  Republicans vs Federalists, Democratic Republicans vs Whigs, Democrats vs Republicans, etc.  Instead of breaking up into a myriad of parties who form short-lived coalitions (as in the English system), we pull broad coalitions into long-lived major parties.  These parties generally represent the majority of American voters and their interests, and the intersection between them is the “dynamic center” where the majority of voters generally agree on issues.

Third Parties exist to represent issues or positions which are unrepresented or underrepresented in the two major parties.  These may be issues which have fallen out of favor (see: The Prohibition Party) or issues which are gradually rising in popularity in a major party but have not yet reached critical mass (see:  The Green Party).  Or they may be issues present in the platforms of the major parties, but not given sufficient priority in the eyes of the third party (see:  Libertarian or Constitution Parties).

Overall, Third Parties serve a few key functions:

• They provide a place for new ideas to incubate which may eventually be adopted by the Major Parties
• They provide a place for old ideas to gracefully die out without bothering the Major Parties
• They provide fertile ground for new broad coalitions to form which will replace one of the Major Parties (the Republican Party was once a third party)
• They provide a place for protest votes when neither major party is representing a pool of voters

So why might I want to vote Third Party in the coming election?

This election is unusual in that neither major party candidate is considered the best person, the best philosopher, the most qualified, or the best representative of their parties values within their own parties.

• Donald Trump, Republican Nominee:  A political outsider who has surfed a wave of populist discontent against both parties for failure to listen to their constituents and provide tangible advancements since at least the economic crash of 2008.  Mr. Trump wasn't a political figure until fairly recently, has never held political office, does not appear to have firm philosophical or political views, and has supported the Democratic Party and its candidates publicly on numerous occasions.  Mr. Trump has also had numerous public lapses of personal ethics and has a pugnacious and impulsive temperament.  He is, however, the clear choice of the Republican nominating process.
• Hillary Clinton, Democratic Nominee:  A political insider nearly her entire life, Mrs. Clinton lost to Barack Obama in 2008 but survived politically by becoming Secretary of State within his administration.  She defeated insurgent candidate Bernie Sanders and laid claim as Barack Obama's heir to win the primary.  Mrs. Clinton has an impressive resume - lawyer, First Lady of Arkansas, First Lady of the USA (under President Bill Clinton who called her his “co-president”), Senator, Secretary of State, etc.  But she is hard-pressed to point to specific victories or accomplishments.  She has been dogged by scandals throughout her career - both her own and her husband’s - and as her party has moved Leftward she has remained a New Democrat staying close to the left side of Center.  Recent leaks of DNC e-mails raise questions of whether there was a level playing field for her nomination and thus whether she is a "legitimate" candidate

In short, we are being asked to choose either:

• Republican:  An unethical narcissist with no Conservative resume
• Democrat:  An unethical scandal-plagued candidate whose values are not in line with her own party

Either choice requires voting for “the lesser of two evils” by the voter’s conscience.  Either one is sure to put someone in the White House that will  likely be a disappointment to their party and to the people of the USA.

This seems like the best possible time for a protest vote to a Third Party candidate which would:

1. Clearly communicate to the leaders of both parties that the nominees are unacceptable
2. Demonstrate a rejection of the candidates’ platforms and personal pedigrees
3. Potentially keep one of the major parties from adopting the platform and identity of an unacceptable candidate

But what about all the arguments against voting Third Party?

There are plenty of arguments being floated by party leaders on both sides worried about voters abandoning their candidates.  Let me address just a few:

• Voting Third Party is throwing your vote away and the equivalent of staying home on Election Day.  
• Election Day is about far more than the President.  By not staying home, I still decide who are my local, state, and national representatives which is more likely to impact my daily life.
• A vote cast for a third party is a protest vote.  And by voting for a candidate which better reflects my values and priorities, I send a message that party leaders can easily read by poll results.  They can then factor that into the next election.
• If both candidates are completely unacceptable, what advantage is there to voting for a “lesser evil”?  If leaving by the front door will get me eaten by tigers and leaving by the back door will get me trampled by rhinoceroses, I am wisest if I find a third option.
• Voting Third Party could get the other guy elected!
• If I distrust both candidates equally, then either one winning is a loss for me.
• If I repudiate both candidates equally, then either one winning will be a loss for me.
• There is still the potential - however remote - of a third party candidate gathering enough votes to capture the presidency.  Our system allows for it and even presupposes it.  If enough Republicans and Democrats walk away from the nominee to someone else, then that someone else could win.
• What about the Supreme Court?  The winner of this election will decide who serves and could swing future cases!
• The Supreme Court is designed as the last line of defense of the Constitution.  A bad law should first NOT be passed by Congress, then SHOULD be vetoed by the President, and only should reach the Supreme Court if everyone else failed.  It is better to focus on getting the right people into Congress in the first place, and in putting pressures onto the President to toe the line.
• If I do not trust either candidate, then what assurances do I have that the “right one” will nominate justices who reflect my political and philosophical opinions?  George H. W. Bush was a great man and a moderate Conservative, but he nominated David Souter who has consistently sided with the Liberal wing of the court.  
• If a bad justice if nominated, the Senate can still shut them down.  Again, better to focus on Congress.
• The court should not serve one party or the other, regardless.  Their role is to be an impartial interpreter of the Constitution.  They can’t help but bring their own world views to the table.  But ultimately, a good justice is better than a bad justice, regardless of their political affiliations.
• What about [Insert Favorite Issue Here]?
• If I do not trust either candidate to do what they promise, then my favorite issues are already in jeopardy.  Neither major party candidate has a resume showing faithful support for the issues closest to the heart of their base.
• There are few issues so dear to me that I would abandon all else for them.  And none of those issues are obviously more or less safe with either major candidate.   

So are you saying everyone should vote Third Party?

Not necessarily. Voting is a grave civic duty that calls upon the best intentions of every citizen.  Each of us should make their own determination and vote their conscience.  If you like and trust Donald Trump, then cast a vote for him.  If you like and trust Hillary Clinton, then cast a vote for her.  

But stop acting and speaking as though a Third Party vote is irrational or unethical.  And if your conscience is calling upon you to vote that way, strongly consider it.

Thank you for your attention.

Third Party Debate Tonight

Unfortunately, nothing that has happened in the last few weeks has changed my decision to vote for a third party in this election. If you are still interested in exploring the beliefs and approaches of the third party candidates, consider tuning into the third-party-candidate debate tonight on CSpan at 9 PM EST. We usually tune into these third-party debates, and they are always interesting, as they provide a view into a side of politics that we rarely see on the major networks. Even if you are already committed to a major candidate, consider tuning in as an educational exercise.

(Not) Voting for John McCain

As I indicated, I have sent a letter to the RNC and John McCain's campaign on the reasons I do not plan to vote for him. I have done so, and thought I would enclose it here.

To whom it may concern at the Republican National Committee and the Campaign to elect John McCain,

After much soul-searching and observation of recent events, I have decided not to vote for Senator John McCain and the Republican ticket. Instead, I currently plan to vote for the Constitution Party Candidacy of Chuck Baldwin as a protest vote. I have been a faithful Republican voter since George H. W. Bush ran against Bill Clinton (my first election in which I could vote for president). But I find Senator McCain wanting as a presidential candidate, even though I also find myself unable to support Democratic candidate Barack Obama due to his views on abortion and consistently Left-wing voting record.

Rather than simply cast my vote in silence, which would be emotionally satisfying but ineffective, I thought it wise to send an e-mail in which I lay out my reasoning. This might be useful in guiding the Senator in reaching out to voters like me, or to the GOP in a post-election world.

First, let me start with the straw that broke the camel's back for me - the Bailout/Rescue Bill. This bill was concieved with little public scrutiny, rushed to two separate votes, and was passed with no real explanation beyond "We have to do something." While I was always skeptical of the Bill, I was waiting for the Senator or the President to lay out a clear and argued case for why these maeasures were the right ones to address our economic meltdown. Economics is complex, but the causes of the current crisis were not. The solution itself should be explainable and defendable, and the Senator had multiple opportunities to directly address this. He did not. Instead, we were told again last night that "We had to do something" and to trust the machinery of government to work it out. When the machine has already proven itself to be broken - hence the economic turmoil - you simply can not assume the same machine can fit itself. Proof needs to be offered. None was.

Second, the Senator has yet to enunciate a clear and specific philosophy for his campaign. Say what you will about President Bush, he had a fairly clear philosophy and guiding principles coming into each election. It was clear what he planned to do, how he planned to do it, and what his priorities were. Senator McCain is proud of being a "maverick who crossed party lines", but as often as not this has meant going against the apparent philosophical underpinnings of the Republican party. This means that I am never sure which principles are near and dear and which are negotiable. I do know what the Senator plans to do: work on earmarks, focus on reducing corruption, and work towards energy independence, among others. But I am unclear what his priorities are, and when push comes to shove what is his #1. That came across painfully last night in the debate.

Third, the Senator has yet to give a clear explanation of why this is his moment in history. Senator Obama may be inexperienced, but he has made a clear case for why he deserves to be in the White House: returning dignity and dliberation to the process, correcting the wrongs of slavery, and pulling us back from the excesses of Post-9/11 reactions. Senator McCain, on the other hand, has offered a good resume of skills for the office, but has never explained how history points to him being the next logical link in the chain of executive leadership. I strongly respect his record of wartime, his record of service in the Senate, and his record as a man in his personal life. But at the moment, I do not see why he deserves to be president aside from a sense that it is "his turn".

Please note, none of my concerns have to do with the vice-presidential candidate, Sarah Palin. But I do not vote based on who is up for vice-president.

I hope you find this useful, or at least enlightening, in the day ahead.

Thank you for your time.

Alright, folks. Go ahead and tear it apart. And if you have also decided to go third party, I encourage you to compose, send, and post your own letter. This way, at least the major candidates have a chance to respond before the election.

If I recieve a non-form-letter response, I will post it here.

Bob Barr's Libertarian Party Acceptance Speech

I am thinking perhaps today is "third party options day" here at Mod-Blog. After finding the Constitution Party nomination speech, I thought I should go out and pull in a few others. Here is Bob Barr from the Libertarian Party. He has better rhetorical skills than McCain, but seems a bit light on content here. Again, I doubt that either Obama or McCain will be watching their backs on this one.

Constitution Party picks a nominee

The Constitution Party, a third party espousing Conservative ideas which is far more isolationist than either of the two majors, has chosen their nominee: Pastor Charles "Chick" Baldwin. While I am supportive of third parties and expanding the choice of the American political system, from the acceptance speech I do not think John McCain has too much to worry about from this particular competitor.

PREDICTION: We will hear someone propose a third-party run for Obama or Clinton this week

With the Democratic race drawing to a close without either candidate having the requisite number to win, we are beginning to see the start of desperation politics. Hillary Clinton, despite no realistic shot of winning without political games and likely smear tactics, shows no sign of considering dropping out or considering a VP position. And as the rhetoric heats up, we are starting to see headlines like "Hillary Clinton, Fratricidal Maniac". Clinton supporters are accusing Obamaniacs of betraying the legacy of feminism to push an inexperienced child-man for president. Obama supporters are accusing Cintonistas of betraying the legacy of Martin Luther King, Jr by crowning a woman whose greatest claim to experience is being married to a former president.

This leads me to an inescapable conclusion. The Democrats have now passed a critical point, and the die-hard supporters of each side are unlikely to accept a victory from the other side. Thus, I predict this week we will hear either an extreme Obamaniac or an extreme Clintonista float the idea of a third-party run for their candidate if they are denied the Democratic nomination. This, of course, will be immediately rejected by the candidate in an attempt to show their party loyalty. But it will set up an internet movement which may well dog the eventual nominee right up to the vote in November.

What do you think? Am I underestimating Democratic party discipline? Or am I right in seeing a Ron-Paul-type momentum taking on a life of its own for these candidates?

The Return of Darth Nader

In what is sure to infuriate the Obamaniacs, Ralph Nader has announced another run for President. Denouncing all of the front-runners as too close to big business, he will be running as a third-party candidate.

"You take that framework of people feeling locked out, shut out, marginalized and disrespected," he said. "You go from Iraq, to Palestine to Israel, from Enron to Wall Street, from Katrina to the bumbling of the Bush administration, to the complicity of the Democrats in not stopping him on the war, stopping him on the tax cuts."

While I do think the country is open to a protest candidate, I do not think Ralph Nader is the man for that job. Of course, the one upside is John McCain is no longer the oldest candidate running.