What is keeping third
parties from office?
Nader, Ralph, and Theresa
Amato. "So You Want To Run For President? Ha! Barriers To Third-Party
Entry." National Civic Review 90.2 (2001): 163. Academic Search
Complete. Web. 4 Mar. 2015.Mar. 2015.
The three authors attempt to explain why
third party candidates are unsuccessful and according to them, it is nearly
impossible due to many factors. They start by blaming media coverage. According
to them, media never covers any candidate that doesn’t speak in “eighty-second
sound bites”. The rare moments third party campaigns are covered is in the spin
that they “are ‘stealing’ votes from either of the major party candidates”. They
continue on to ballots themselves as a hindering factor for third parties. Each
state has different laws concerning how to run in an election and some
eliminate any third party chance. In some states, like Illinois, third parties
are required 20,000 more signatures than an “established party”. This alone is
challenging, “but there are also excessive filing fees, early deadlines, and
administrative hurdles”. They continue the process with discussing presidential
debates: the most challenging element of all. After surpassing a series of
barriers, like ballots and lack of media
coverage, for a third party, trying to get their message out, the debates can
pose a insurmountable challenge. In order to prepare for these debates, the main
two parties decide on the terms of the debate and leave third parties out of
the negotiations. Overall, the general hurdle for third parties is the lack of
funding. For big parties, gaining special-interest support, and more
importantly their money is easier than for a smaller party.
It is clear that third parties struggle
throughout the entire election process and gain little success for their
efforts. To start with, lack of media coverage immediately hurts a third party
campaign. Without having that platform
to speak on, third parties are less known by voters. Because all states have
different election and ballot laws, it is easier for third parties than for
others in different states. With the examples given by the authors, it is clear
that in many states independent parties are at a huge disadvantage due to the
law. When they talk about presidential debates, I can’t help but think this is
a case of ganging up on the little guy. By leaving out the third party, it’s
not only strategic but undemocratic. In essence, third parties, from all sides,
are being silenced. In the United Staes, parties with the most money,
generally, are elected. After all of the hurdles of campaigns, not being
invited to the grownup table seems to be an unfair play of action.
Both Hirano and the
Nader discuss the relationships between politicians and the overall refusal to
hear differing opinions. Hirano explains that, “candidates who appealed to
voters who were dissatisfied with the major parties’ policies were likely to be
shunned by the major parties’ leaders”. Nader replies by providing an example
to support a similar argument. Ross Perot a third party candidate was included
in a debate and ,“the viewership shot up to more than ninetly million
Americans, and Perot got 19 percent of the vote. But four years later, after
the Clinton and Dole camps decided to exclude Perot, network viewership
plummeted to fourty-two million”. Nader brings up a good point: what the people
want to see. In general, voters want to
hear new voices and opinions but because the main two parties felt threatened,
the American people were unable to hear from Perot.
Now that I have
a better look at the hurdles, third parties face, I want to know if third parties are really needed in the political process.
No comments:
Post a Comment