Opinion | Third parties are disingenuous and ineffective

I wholeheartedly support the idea of cleavage parties, or third parties, as we call them in America. Cleavage parties base their party platforms on one or a few policy positions or identities. Think green parties with environmental policy, union parties with — you guessed it — unions, or law and order parties with crime. Third parties in the United States are very similar to other nations like Canada, Norway and the Philippines where cleavage parties reign — they focus on a few key policy positions and stances on law. 

The difference is that third parties, at the national level, have essentially no shot at winning. This isn’t because third-party platforms are highly unpopular or because Americans do not want those kinds of policies highlighted, it’s rather that it simply cannot happen because of the way we vote in this nation.

In my previous column, I mentioned the political theory of Duverger’s Law, which essentially states that in electoral systems that operate with single-person representation and a plurality voting system, only two parties will reign supreme. In the United States, this is the Democratic left-leaning party and the Republican right-leaning party. As much as I would love to see substantial third-party representation at the highest level, the truth is — in my opinion, of course — a vote for a third-party candidate is a waste of a vote when it comes to most federal elections, especially for the job of president of the United States. 

Maybe you will feel better morally with your decision not to choose between two candidates you think are “evil” or “misguided,” but at the end of the day, the trolley problem has two options, and you do not get a reasonable third. Your third-party vote indirectly helps the person you would much rather not see than the person you would rather just kind of not see.

Just because third parties cannot win on the national level does not mean that they do not hold political power. This is incredibly evident with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.’s recent recusal from the race and subsequent support of Donald Trump on the ticket. If third parties can demonstrate that they hold enough political sway, they can get their positions endorsed by a party in return for a recusal and endorsement.

However, if third parties want to actually win — as many I am sure want to do — the way they are going about it is all wrong. Every four years, the Jill Steins and Jo Jorgensons appear, promising that this will be the year a third party wins. They promise a revolution of sorts and a complete dismantling of the political and electoral systems Democrats and Republicans have spent years fortifying to ensure their power. Even if the third-party nominees truly believe they can cause an upheaval of the system and are so jaded by the prospect of revolution that they forget the basics of political theory, the truth is that everyone knows they are not going to win the job of president — including many of the people who vote for them.

Their infrequent exposure to the political stage and step into the spotlight every four years does a lot more damage than good. It is disingenuous to believe that you can actually win the presidency in this fashion, a position which at the end of the day only plays a small part in deciding policy. If third parties actually want to win seats and want to make their platforms heard and policy positions acted upon, they need to start at the local and state levels. Why are we not seeing many green, libertarian, constitution, leftist or socialist parties in lower level, local government?

If those who identify as third-party or independent want to see their ideologies considered, they have to start small. There are many people in and out of politics who only think of the big picture. They think the only way to enact change is to win a Senate seat or win president of the United States and completely forget that hundreds and thousands of other positions in the United States can also influence policy and also vote on statutes and regulations and create referendums. To presume that you are able to secure the highest seats in the land without any kind of lower level and state support completely disregards the real and effective work of grassroots organizing.

Third parties do have a chance of creating positive and effective change, but many just choose to ignore it for the prospect of shiny lights, intense power and a storybook radical revolution. We can have a diversity of parties and a plethora of options to choose from, but third-party candidates simply do not run for the seats that will help get them there. Choosing to always jump for the biggest and brightest seat isn’t creating momentum for your movement, it is just stagnating it and is doing a disservice to the platforms and positions you claim to so valiantly believe in. If you really want to go against the grain and be a viable third-party candidate, start small and start your revolution that way.

Livia LaMarca is the assistant editor of the opinions desk who misses using the Oxford comma. She mostly writes about American political discourse, US pop culture and social movements. Write to her at lll60@pitt.edu to share your own opinions!