As
the Democratic and Republican primaries come to a close, the American
public is increasingly frustrated at their prospects. A summary of
recent polls shows confirmed Democratic and Republican nominees Hillary
Clinton and Donald Trump taking in 95% of the potential voters' support.
However, a look at individual poll numbers from individual polling
outlets show that these polls are generally skewed when only the two
main party candidates are included. When third party candidates such as
Jill Stein and Gary Johnson are included as potential options, support
for either the Clinton or Trump drops dramatically. A recent
Reuters/Ipsos poll exemplifies this, where the aforementioned drop was
significant: down to 37 points each for Clinton and Trump.
Third
party candidates are nothing new to American politics. Although the
two-party system dates back to the very first U.S. Election, active
third parties have consistently played a role in the various U.S.
elections. It is also important to note that the election system has
changed dramatically since the first few decades after the founding of
the U.S.
Third Parties in U.S. History
During
the first election in 1789, only white male landowners could vote. At
the time, there were no political parties to speak of. George Washington
was selected unanimously by the first electoral college. Although
staunch Federalists (those in favor of constitutional ratification) and
anti-Federalists (those opposed to such ratification) existed, these
were not parties in and of themselves, but ideological camps.
It
was not until the second election, in which George Washington was
elected again, mostly unopposed, that parties began to emerge and have a
significant impact on the election process. This was not viewed
positively by Washington, who had this to say in his farewell address at
the end of his second and final term: "However [political parties] may
now and then answer popular ends, they are likely in the course of time
and things, to become potent engines, by which cunning, ambitious, and
unprincipled men will be enabled to subvert the power of the people and
to usurp for themselves the reins of government, destroying afterwards
the very engines which have lifted them to unjust dominion."
Despite
the somewhat dire warnings of America's most celebrated founding
father, political parties continued to proliferate -- and solidify their
place within the American political system. However, only two parties
-- in this case the Federalist Party and the Republican Party) -- were
the norm for decades following.
Yet
the party system then was not what we perceive it as now. Although many
candidates ascribed to certain parties, parties did not hold up one
candidate as their party's standard-bearer and the only one running for
office. The election of 1796 provides a clear example of this. During
that election, 7 men split the electoral vote. The winner, John Adams,
took 53.4% of the popular vote8, but only 25% of the Electoral College
vote. His runner-up, Thomas Jefferson, took 24%. In this case, the
winner of the electoral college held a majority of the popular vote, yet
barely managed to win the electoral college vote.
The Election of 1824
The
election of 1824 proved to be both a defining moment in the party
system, while also showing the weakness that exists within it. In 1824,
Four candidates within the Democratic-Republican party ran for office,
splitting the party 4 ways and splitting the vote. Although they each
ran as Democratic-Republicans, in reality, they were each running as
separate candidates in separate parties. The winner of the popular vote,
Andrew Jackson, squeezed in a win with only 41% of the vote. The
remaining candidates, John Q. Adams, William Harris Crawford and Henry
Clay split the remaining vote among them. This indeed raised a very
legitimate question: If a president wins with less than significantly
less than 50% of the vote, do the still have a political mandate to
govern?
The
concept of a "mandate" is the idea that an elected official or
government "the authority granted by a constituency to act as its
representative". This concept has always been questioned by those whose
party has been on the losing end. But most election results in a
dual-party system to be won with a candidate who either gains close to
50%, or more, of the vote. When that number begins to fall closer to
40%, or even dips into the 30% range, the idea of a political mandate to
govern becomes more questionable.
The
1824 election was historic, not just because the winner of the popular
vote received less than 50%, however. The eventual winner, John Q.
Adams, received more electoral college votes. The electoral of 1824
essentially handed the presidency to a man who had won, not just less
than 50% of the vote, but less than a mere 30.9%. This result has often
created arguments against the electoral college system. However, it
directly relates to what can occur when the two party system is brought
to its knees by multiple candidates who split the vote more than two
ways.
1824
was not the only year third parties resulted in an extremely split
vote. The election of 1860, in which the winner (Abraham Lincoln) won
only 39.65% of the vote also saw four different parties draw significant
margins. This type of situation occurred again in 1912, and not
insignificantly in 1992 when Ross Perot, an Independent, gained over 18%
of the vote.
Current Trends Point to Changes
It
is still too early to predict the eventual results of the 2016
election. However, the aggregate unfavorability ratings for both Clinton
and Trump are above 56% each, with very little signs of dropping in any
measurable way. It is easy to assume, and not without precedent, to
assume that third party candidates will have no impact. After all, they
have had very little impact on most presidential elections. However,
third party candidates can make an impact when the political atmosphere
is right, and in some cases, a very significant impact on the concept of
the governing mandate.
The
2016 election may be another example of an historic election in which a
third party plays a major role. Alternatively, the major third party
candidates may fade into obscurity, much like in most elections in U.S.
history. Yet the blood is in the water, so to speak. This election cycle
has failed to live up to predictions, even from some of the most
respected sources. There's little reason to believe it may not still
have a few surprises in store.
إرسال تعليق