Give third party politics a chance

What do Bernie Sanders and Donald Trump have in common? The obvious answer is very little — but they do share one important distinction.

The media perceives both as being anti-establishment. One, a radical liberal idealist, the other, a wealthy faux-haired charlatan, these men could not be further from one another. Yet they’ve both been gaining popularity over their more mainstream counterparts.

There is a glaring oversight to their anti-establishment image — both are running under the most dominant political parties. Running as a Democrat or Republican is as mainstream as you can get.

The problems with our political system are not byproducts of unsatisfying candidates — it’s the parties themselves that are the problem.

And for that, there is only one solution. It’s time to vote third party.

For what it’s worth, I actually agree with Sanders on his astute observations and apparent principles. I admire his support of reining in police violence, instituting stronger worker protections — specifically paid parental leave — and a desire to keep money out of politics. But are we really to believe he’ll swoop in and save our dysfunctional government?

I seem to remember, not too long ago, a promising senator with solid ideas. He seemed to be a man of principle. He was a constitutional scholar. He promised that he would change things for the better. His speeches were inspiring, and his campaign promised “the most transparent administration in history.”

How did Barack Obama’s administration end up working out?

How can we prop up candidates who claim the system is broken when they’re as much a part of the problem as anyone? The rate of re-election for Congress was at 90 percent in the 2012 elections, despite the fact Congress has a disapproval rating of 75 percent. Why the cognitive dissonance?

The blame lies solely on the culture of partisanship we have allowed our elites to craft.

In the 2010 Midterm Elections, Democrats suffered huge losses in Congress, shortly after President Obama took office. National Public Radio’s post-election summary ascribed the loss to easily identifiable political targets, such as former House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

Simply put, Democrats and Republicans use each other as lightning rods for their bases — they can attribute all of their political failings to “the other guys.” It’s masterful duplicity, allowing each party to continue to do very little for the average citizen while perpetually sponsoring pro-corporate legislation like the Affordable Care Act. In fact, taxpayers continually subsidize already profitable businesses to the tune of billions of dollars, but politicians rarely consider axing this from the budget.

If there’s one thing Democrats and Republicans have in common, it’s that they love big business and only occasionally care about the electorate, usually right around election time. Take, for example, the prostration of Republican candidates to industry leaders like the Koch Brothers, or the Clinton’s close relationship with billionaire George Soros, chairman of Soros Fund Management.

Or worse yet, take for example the recent Affordable Care Act. While conservatives lambasted it for its supposed cost and anti-business measures, the problems run deeper. Essentially, the Affordable Care Act’s main mandate was that you buy health insurance or face fines. Insurance companies saw a huge surge in profits, but citizens got little positive change in their healthcare system. The four major insurance companies — WellPoint, Aetna, Cigna and UnitedHealthcare — paid a total of $1.95 billion in dividends to shareholders in 2014 from insurance provisions of the Affordable Care Act.

Voting third party is often viewed as throwing your vote away or as a vote for the other guys.

Besides being awfully convenient for established parties, the fact that we see voting as preventative, rather than proactive, is the entire problem. Voting for a party out of fear that something worse could happen, rather than voting for positive change, speaks to the deep cynicism we have developed for our political system.

In a country where we are supposedly grateful for our democracy, voter turnout is abysmal. Roughly 40 percent of citizens abstained from voting in 2012. Increased awareness of third parties, whose political views might actually match one’s own, would likely alleviate such apathy. In fact, in a Gallup poll, 58 percent of U.S. adults expressed a desire for more political parties, citing the poor representation they currently receive.

So why are we so hesitant to vote for parties more in line with our beliefs?

In the past, third party voting has only found success when it has affected the outcomes of mainstream parties in the general election.

Voting third party has had a long history of splitting the vote and losing elections for parties. Ross Perot won 20 percent of the national vote in 1992. Theodore Roosevelt’s run in 1912 with the Progressive party resulted in a  split in the Republican Party. While a strong campaign, Roosevelt’s run fell flat because of limited campaign funding.

Princeton professor of American history Sean Wilentz points to third parties’ ability to bring underrepresented issues to the foreground.

“There’ll be an issue that’s being neglected or that is being purposely excluded from national debate because neither party wants to face the political criticism that it would bring,” he said in an interview with PBS Newshour. “A classic example was slavery.”

Minority parties also fought for women’s suffrage, child labor laws and the 40-hour work week.

With our current parties ignoring so many issues, this should be a time for a third party to stick.

Andrew Boschert writes about a variety of topics, including pop culture and college.

Write Andy at amb306@pitt.edu.