How Third-Party Candidates Shape Big Election

Elections, especially in democratic governments, have a tendency to be framed as contests between two dominant political parties. 

Democrats and Republicans dominate the political landscape in America, for instance, but in other countries, such as the United Kingdom, Conservative and Labour parties enjoy a similar grip. 

Yet, in nearly every election, third-party candidates emerge, threatening the grip of the established powers. 

Although they never actually do win federal elections, they can have a tremendous influence on outcomes, set political discourse, and alter the strategy of mainstream parties.

This article reports on why third-party candidates are important, how they influence big elections, their historical place, and the controversy over their role in democracy.

What are Third-Party Candidates?

Third-party candidate refers to any political candidate who is not one of the two major parties in a two-party system. 

In the US, that would imply anyone who campaigns outside of the Republican or Democratic Party. 

Some examples would include the Green Party, Libertarian Party, and independent candidates.

Third-party candidates represent niche ideologies, unconventional policy platforms, or disillusionment with traditional political choices. 

Despite encountering considerable hurdles be it low funding, low media coverage, and tight ballot access laws they are accountable for shaping election outcomes regardless.

The Role of Third-Party Candidates in Elections:

Even when they lose, third-party candidates shape elections in certain important ways:

#1 The "Spoiler Effect":

Perhaps the most controversial role of third-party candidates is the so-called spoiler effect. 

That is when a third-party candidate steals votes away from a major party candidate, altering the outcome of an election.

For example:

• Ralph Nader of the Green Party was allotted approximately 97,000 votes in Florida in the 2000 U.S. Presidential Election. George W. Bush won the state by only 537 votes. The majority of analysts continue to hold that Nader's candidacy cost Democrat Al Gore the votes and changed the entire course of the election.
• Similarly, in 1992, independent candidate Ross Perot garnered nearly 19% of the national popular vote. Although he secured no electoral votes, his candidacy had an impact on the dynamics between George H.W. Bush and Bill Clinton. Some argue Perot siphoned votes from Bush, contributing to Clinton's election.

The spoiler effect demonstrates how third-party candidates with tiny percentages of votes can have an influence in close races.

#2 Shaping the Political Debate:

Third-party candidates also bring new issues to the forefront that are not being dealt with by major parties.

• The late 1800s Populist Party pushed for policies like direct election of Senators and progressive taxation ideas ultimately adopted by mainstream parties.
• Environmental issues have been brought time and again to the forefront by the Green Party, pushing Democrats to make more clear-cut stands on global warming and sustainability.
• Libertarians embrace minimal government and individual freedom, shaping arguments around taxation, firearms control, and government surveillance.

Third-party candidates are therefore policy innovators, pushing the two major parties to address neglected issues in order to gain a wider following.

#3 Political Dissatisfaction Representation:

Vote third-party candidates because they may be vehicles of voter dissatisfaction. 

The majority of citizens are disenfranchised by the two-party system and seek alternatives that are in concordance with their beliefs.

For instance:

• Ross Perot's win in 1992 was motivated by widespread discontent with mainstream politics, especially government expenditures and foreign trade.
• Dissatisfied voters tired of both Donald Trump and Hillary Clinton cast their ballots for third-party candidates like Gary Johnson (Libertarian Party) and Jill Stein (Green Party) in 2016.

Although such candidates rarely win, their share of the vote expresses deeper discontent with the political establishment.

#4 Compelling Strategic Shifts in Major Parties:

Third-party candidates typically force major parties to adjust their platforms or strategies.

• If a third-party candidate is becoming popular, major parties will try to co-opt their message in attempts at winning back voters. For example, most of Perot's economic concerns of the 1990s were ultimately adopted by both Democrats and Republicans.
• Third parties can also shift the dominant parties' campaign focus to prevent vote splitting. Democrats, for instance, emphasize progressive causes when Green Party candidates begin to compete, while Republicans make an appeal based on libertarian values when Libertarian Party candidates begin to drain votes.

These third-party campaigns thus alter the agendas of the mainstream parties even when they lose an election.

Examples of Historical Third-Party Influence:

#1 Theodore Roosevelt and the Progressive Party (1912):

One of the best-remembered third-party candidacies was Theodore Roosevelt's bid for Progressive ("Bull Moose") president in 1912 after he had broken with the Republican Party. 

He won 27% of the vote, one of the strongest third-party showings in U.S. history. 

His candidacy divided the Republican vote, allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win.

#2 Strom Thurmond and the Dixiecrats (1948):

Campaigning on a segregationist agenda, Thurmond defected from the Democrats and won four Southern states. 

Although he failed to win nationally, his campaign exposed contradictions in the Democratic Party, which foreshadowed party realignments in the decades to come.

#3 George Wallace (1968):

Wallace campaigned on a populist, segregationist platform and captured five states and 46 electoral votes. 

His campaign demonstrated the continued strength of third-party candidates to shape regional politics and national discourse.

#4 Ross Perot (1992 and 1996):

Perot's 1992 campaign, based on budget responsibility and trade, reshaped national debates about deficits and globalization. 

His near win attested to the extent of voter discontent with the two major parties. 

#5 Ralph Nader (2000):

Nader's presidential campaign is the most contentious example of the spoiler effect. 

Many argue that if he had not run, Al Gore would have become president. 

His campaign stirs controversies over whether third-party candidates undermine democracy or enrich it.

Criticisms of Third-Party Candidates:

While third-party candidates bring fresh ideas, they are also criticized:

• Spoiling Elections: Opponents contend they distort results by helping to put minority candidates into office.
• Wasted Votes: Voting third party is symbolic, not practical, most believe, as they are never close to winning.
• Fragmentation: Third parties may prevent building of big coalitions needed for a stable government by splitting the electorate.
• Lack of Viability: Limited budgets, ballot access barriers, and lack of media coverage usually prevent third-party efforts from being able to compete.

Arguments in Defense of Third-Party Candidates:

Supporters make the following arguments about the importance of third-party candidates to a functioning democracy:

• Democratic Choice: They provide voters with more than two choices, broadening representation.
• Innovation: They bring innovative policies and ideas into play that ultimately find themselves part of mainstream discussion.
• Accountability: By potentially siphoning off votes, they keep the big parties honest with their base.
• Voice of the Disenfranchised: They are the voice of people disenfranchised by the two-party system.

The Future of Third-Party Candidates:

As more and more people become dissatisfied with politics in most nations, third-party and independent candidates can become more significant.

• Ranked-Choice Voting (RCV): Some states and cities in the U.S. are adopting RCV, which reduces the spoiler effect because the voter can rank candidates by preference. It could make it easier for third-party candidates to compete.
• Media and Social Platforms: New media have enabled outsider candidates to bypass traditional hurdles and speak directly to voters.
• Polarization: Increased exasperation over hyper-partisanship can cause more voters to look toward third-party candidates.

Although structural barriers exist, these developments potentially can open the door further for third-party involvement in the future.

Final Thoughts:

Third-party candidates, though rarely victorious, are an important factor in principal elections. 

They are capable of tipping the balance of power, introducing new ideas, and expressing dissatisfaction with the reigning political powers. 

Instances throughout history arise from Theodore Roosevelt to Ross Perot and Ralph Nader, demonstrating their ability to alter outcomes and set national agendas.

Although they spoil elections or waste votes, in the eyes of their detractors, their supporters interpret them as a bedrock of democracy, offering choice, innovation, and accountability. 

Polarization and voter outrage remain entrenched in democratic politics, and therefore the third-party candidates are still a significant, if divisive, component of political life.