Realpolitik and Minor Parties in the U.S.

“ Politics is the art of the possible, the attainable — the art of the next best” — Otto von Bismarck

Right now, in the United States, there are roughly forty minor political parties. Two of them — the Green Party and the Libertarian Party — actually show up on most ballots. None of them hold as much as a single Federal office at this time; at the state level, there’s less than a dozen seats held by minor party candidates.

As luck would have it, I’m a member of one such organization (the Modern Whig Party). But I’m not blind to political reality… and that reality is all too clear.

“A pox on both your houses!” — Mercutio (misquoted), Act III Sc. 1, Romeo and Juliet

There’s a strong urge in minor parties to speak of the two major parties — the Democratic Party and the Republican Party — with a simple six-word phrase: “A pox on both your houses.” For those parties that tend to be at the edges of the political spectrum, it’s often because neither major party is sufficiently ideologically pure. For those — like the Whigs — that are more moderate, it’s because conflating the two major parties would seem to turn eyes to other alternatives… like us.

The problem is this: those two major parties — at least, as represented by their elected offices — are, at least in this point in time, not equivalent. There’s pretty clearly one that is a good deal more interested in both social and economic justice than the other. There’s just as clearly one that is more willing to keep company with racism, sexism, and anti-LGBT hatemongering than the other. In fact, the two major parties are right now less equivalent than at any point since the Civil War. And minor parties are doing a disservice to themselves and the electorate by pretending otherwise.

When we say, “They’re both the same,” people who are engaged politically at any level look at us as though we’ve grown a third arm… and rightfully so. We’re telling them that the party that says workers should earn a living wage and that everyone should enjoy civil liberties and pursuit of happiness are the same as the party that says we can’t afford the former and strives by legislation to deny the latter. We’re telling them that the party that put forward for President a career politician with a record of capable public service is the same as the one that put forward for that same office a life-long charlatan who’s record has been one of scams and selfishness since he entered the public eye in 1973 after being charged with racial discrimination in housing. We’re telling them that the party that engaged in targeted attacks against a specific religious minority throughout the past two years is the same as the one that stood by the First Amendment protections of same. And in doing so, we’re actually telling people who have any political understanding whatsoever that we’re at best pandering and at worst politically blind.

“You see, how I mean to live is underground…And in all those places we shall gather. Our district will be London…We must make great safe places down deep, and get all the books we can; not novels and poetry swipes, but ideas, science books.” — the Artilleryman, War of the Worlds

“It was the coal cellar of the place, and when I saw the work he had spent a week upon — it was a burrow scarcely ten yards long, which he designed to reach to the main drain on Putney Hill — I had my first inkling of the gulf between his dreams and his powers.” — the Narrator, War of the Worlds

It doesn’t help that the minor parties are, right now, not offering viable alternatives. Oh, to be certain, they all have party platforms… some more fully developed than others, but ambitious nonetheless. And they do field candidates… or at least, try.

But most of those candidates go unseen on any ballot. Ballot access in most states is tightly limited after the two major parties, with others requiring either a certain showing at the last ballot or a large number of petition signatures to gain access. By and large, the only minor party consistently managing that feat is the Libertarian Party, though the Greens often struggle through in most states. Yet, even when there, said candidates are doomed by a system that could not be any more biased to a two-party result if it tried: First-Past-The-Post.

With the exception of Maine (depending how their legal predicament works out), elections in the U.S., at all levels, are won by whichever candidate gets the most votes, with only one vote permitted per office. Few voters are willing to risk voting for a minor party candidate, because (1) the record of minor party candidates as a whole has been abysmal, (2) the quality of said candidates are often wanting, and (3) with the all-but-certain outcome being between the two major parties, most voters prefer to vote for whichever of those is preferable.

And here’s the really sad bit: they’re not wrong to do so, because that truly is the political reality. With the system as it stands, minor party candidates are at best a curiosity and at worst spoilers. And when minor parties put them forward regardless, they show themselves as short-sighted and unwilling to do the serious work necessary to be a meaningful part of the process.

But it doesn’t have to be that way.

“You have to build a foundation before you build a house.” — every successful builder ever

There are ways forward for minor parties. And that’s a good thing, because our nation badly needs them. We need to have more than two parties in our state legislatures and in Congress, because keeping any one party from an absolute majority means that legislation requires meaningful discussion and debate and compromise in order to be enacted. We need quality minor party candidates who can take part in our debate process, not just for those minor parties to get into office but to keep the major party candidates honest. We need minor parties so that we can get away from the “us versus them” dualism that pervades American politics — and increasingly, American society — and move instead to pluralism.

Those ways forward are as follows:

Voting Method Reform. As daunting as it may seem, this may be the easiest of the bunch. We’ve already seen popular support via referendum for moving away from First-Past-The-Post voting in Maine, though it’s tied up in litigation right now. There are better alternatives, be they Ranked Voting (as Maine voted for) or Approval Voting. And in roughly half of the states, these can be implemented via referendum. That part is important, because state legislatures are generally reluctant to change a voting method that put them in office. There are petitions circulating in multiple states at this time; the trick is getting people to see and understand and sign them… and then vote for them when they get on the ballot.

Ballot Access Reform. This one is harder. There’s a legitimate argument against letting every person who says, “I’m running for office,” actually being on the ballot, if for no other reason than it being unwieldy at best to conduct an election when there’s five dozen candidates for a given office. But the current limits go way, way too far in the other direction, and effectively shut out all but the major parties (and most entrenched of the minor parties). If a political party has actually formed up, has registered as such with the Sec. of State, has the requisite bylaws and state officers, has conducted some form of primary or caucus or convention and selected candidates, that party should have a place on the ballot. It’s possible to get there via referendum — indeed, necessary — but we need to work much harder on this, because it’s less immediately attractive to most voters than, say, a Ranked Voting petition.

Redistricting Overhaul. Right now, most redistricting — the redrawing of legislative districts as populations change per the Census — is handled in a partisan fashion by whichever party happens to hold sway in the state legislature. And it is done in a way as to ensure that as many districts as possible elect candidates from that party. It’s a terrible system, not merely rife with abuse but abusive by its very nature. And there are better options. In 2015, the Supreme Court made a landmark decision when, in Arizona State Legislature v. Arizona Independent Redistricting Commission, the court ruled that the voters of a state can remove the authority to draw election districts from the state legislature and vest it in an independent redistricting commission. This needs to be replicated in other states, because absent impartial, nonpolitical redistricting, minor parties face even longer odds than usual trying to win a seat.

Electoral College Reform. I’ll be honest: this isn’t urgent for minor parties, because it’s going to be a long time even with the aforementioned measures before we have the political base and sufficiently qualified candidates to make a realistic run for the White House. But it’s quite urgent for the nation as a whole. We’ve had five elections now where the candidate with the majority of votes nationwide has lost the election to a candidate who garnered the majority of electoral votes. It’s a system quite literally designed to favor rural states over urban ones, small states over large ones… and that’s a big problem, because our President is supposed to be representing the people, not the acreage. And yes, some manner of overhaul is necessary if we’re ever to see a minor party candidate have a shot at the highest office in the land. This is going to be the highest hurdle, because it will require a Constitutional amendment to change. But change it must, and there’s a lot of popular sentiment behind doing so.

The first three items have to happen before minor parties are realistically able to contest election in all but the most unusual of districts. The fourth is necessary before they can seriously enter the Presidential arena.

So what now?

Well, for those of us in minor parties, “what now” is trying to get our fellow minor party members to realize that we need to focus on electoral reform rather than quixotic (and draining) candidates… that we need to pay attention to the concrete-and-block work of the foundation rather than painting the trim or laying out shingles of our eventual house; there will be plenty of time for that when we actually have the systemic changes necessary to actually run a candidate.

And for those in major parties, “what now” is to realize that a two-party system isn’t particularly good for the long run for a nation, and that working with us to help enact electoral reform is not betraying your party but rather making it more viable for the long haul both by improving debate and by opening up opportunity to — for the first time in years — work with other parties to try to get things done.

I dearly hope this happens. I hope you do too.