Bibby, John F., and L. Sandy Maisel. Two Parties-or More? 2nd ed. Boulder, Colorado: Westview Press, 2003. Print.
"First, in most recent elections, if the voters have been looking for a third-party alternative and have not been finding it, what they have really wanted is an alternative viable candidate"(Bibby 9). This is the overarching theme in Bibby and Maisel's book. Third Parties, potentially, offer viable candidates for campaigns. The more problems the government has, the more displeased voters become. They see the two party system as the long lasting tradition that will take extreme reform to change. Next they discuss why some voters struggle to accept the two party system. They polled a group of voters and found that 38% would prefer an election that left out party names and simply stated the names of candidates(Bibby 87). On the other side, there are politicians who want the opposite. Because, up until this point, politicians have only had to face off against one party, they worry that if more parties are in the race, their party will stop earning incumbency. Once third parties enter the race, it becomes a wait out game. Which of the two party's will be disadvantaged more? The two parties will then attempt to bring the third party candidate over into their party, dissolving the point altogether. They next go into public opinion of candidates, showing that voters are extremely picky and prefer upper class, white male politicians. Usually, the valued candidate is of a high paying profession landing them in a high socio-economic class. These sentiments have become more so as time has gone on between 1992 and 2001 (Bibby 97). In general, Bibby and Maisel show both sides of the argument. Although voters are displeased with the system and are looking for new voices of a "viable candidate", polls show they are still preferring the same demographic of a candidate.
It surprisingly correlates to how tribal partisanship works. As small, third parties become more popular, "officials may seek to benefit--or injure--broad classes of partisan constituents, affiliated policy-making colleagues, or particular named individuals"(Levitt 1799). If the two parties are this strategically acting towards each other, adding a third party will complicate things, and potentially make things worse. Similarly, Bibby expresses that the same partisanship will exist with third parties and it could, potentially, make things worse in D.C. Although third parties may seem like a potential solution for gridlock in American government, by adding more third party involvement, voters run the risk of inflaming partisanship. Both can agree that partisanship will be a result no matter who is running a campaign.
There are many qualms of an increase in third party participation but overall they do offer new voices in the political process. First of all, if they are more present in campaigns won't the two parties base their campaigns off experience? If each party will attempt to dissolve the third party, then those candidates cease to be representatives of a third party and become pawns in the political game. In the end they would be bait rather than new voices. In the United States' game of politics, it is already cutthroat but if we add in even more pawns we are inflaming the strategy game. In the long run, people are comfortable with the norm not change. Even though voters are unsatisfied, the chances of political campaign reform is slim. Voters want change but they aren't willing to see what third parties are willing to offer beyond just their socio-economic and cultural status. In the end, third parties can potentially add a "viable candidate" to the race but voters and politicians aren't allowing their voices to be heard.
I found my answer!
:"
"
No comments:
Post a Comment