One prediction for the 2024 presidential race is a sure bet: no minor party or independent candidate will win a majority in the Electoral College. Recent polling suggests none will break double digits in the popular vote. Over the past two centuries, hundreds have tried, but no one has come remotely close to winning. Ross Perot failed to win a single elector in his well-funded 1992 bid. The beloved Teddy Roosevelt sought a third term as the Progressive Party nominee in 1912—and was embarrassed in a landslide, securing just 88 electors.
Nonetheless, many voters could very well see five uncompetitive candidates on their ballot this November: in addition to the perennial Green Party and Libertarian Party nominees, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West have launched independent campaigns, and No Labels is floating a possible bipartisan ticket. While the precise electoral implications of these candidacies are unknowable, they spell trouble for the effort to sustain a broad coalition unified in support of democracy and the rule of law. In all likelihood, a multi-candidate ballot would splinter the pro-democracy vote—and increase the likelihood that former President Donald Trump returns to the White House.
Why then, if minor party and independent candidacies are doomed to fail, are they so common? Some candidates know they cannot secure an Electoral College majority—but think they could win enough electors to ensure no one else gets a majority. This would trigger a contingent election, where Congress, instead of the voters, would select the president. In 1948 and 1968, segregationist tickets carried the Deep South and nearly sent the race to the House or Representatives, where their strong voting bloc could have delivered the White House to whichever major party would acquiesce in turning back the clock on civil rights. In 2016, Evan McMullin hoped to win a few electors and present himself as a compromise alternative to Trump or Clinton. Today, a contingent election would devolve into intense partisan conflict—and a likely constitutional crisis.
Some minor party and independent candidates might harbor illusions that they can defy the odds and pull off an historic upset. But many surely know that winning even a single elector is unlikely, instead seeking the spotlight of a presidential election to bring attention to their priority issues and to signal to the major parties how their voters might be won over. Yet, this strategy carries a serious and well-known risk: by casting a protest vote for a third candidate, voters may inadvertently help elect the major party nominee they like the least. Voters who supported Ralph Nader and Jill Stein might come immediately to mind, but they are not alone: since 2000, the minor party and independent vote total in a state has exceeded the margin of victory 31 times. Over the last two cycles alone, these races accounted for 233 electors.
But the answer is not for minor parties to throw in the towel: in a diverse and pluralistic society like ours, we would benefit from more than two outlets for constructive political expression and association.
Instead, we should allow minor parties to cross-nominate one of the two competitive, major party candidates. Neither is likely to be a perfect match for a minor party's agenda—but politics is the art of the possible, not the ideal. A minor party elevating pragmatism over purity should have little trouble identifying which of the two is more closely aligned. The more votes the minor party can deliver to a candidate, the more likely they are to convince the candidate to prioritize their top issues. Voters frustrated with the two major parties would be freed from the false binary choice of either begrudgingly supporting one of them or voting for a non-viable candidate running on a minor party platform they like. Parties and voters with shared goals would have an incentive to collaborate, in contrast to today's zero-sum dynamics, where minor party efforts lead to more division and conflict.
This coalitional strategy is known as "fusion voting," and it used to be a common feature of elections throughout the country. Today, it is practiced in only a handful of states and is banned under state law in most of the country. While people may be most familiar today with progressive and conservative minor parties using fusion in New York, this strategy has been used throughout history to build bridges in the middle. We need those bridges now more than ever.
The anti-authoritarian group Protect Democracy just released a new study, Fusion Voting and a Revitalized Role for Minor Parties in Presidential Elections, that details the decisive impact of minor party cross-nominations where fusion has remained lawful. They conclude that allowing presidential cross-nomination from a minor party championing political centrism and moderation could have an outsized impact in our polarized politics today.
American voters clearly want more than two options on a presidential ballot. Our winner-take-all electoral system means that only two candidates can be viable without a third candidate risking being a spoiler. This is a catch-22—but one that fusion voting can help resolve.
Tom Rogers is executive chairman of Oorbit Gaming and Entertainment, an editor-at-large for Newsweek, the founder of CNBC and a CNBC contributor. He also established MSNBC, is the former CEO of TiVo, a member of Keep Our Republic (an organization dedicated to preserving the nation's democracy). He is also a member of the American Bar Association Task Force on Democracy.
The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
Newsweek is committed to challenging conventional wisdom and finding connections in the search for common ground.
The Presidential Election Needs More Parties, Not More Candidates
5
0
19.12.2023
One prediction for the 2024 presidential race is a sure bet: no minor party or independent candidate will win a majority in the Electoral College. Recent polling suggests none will break double digits in the popular vote. Over the past two centuries, hundreds have tried, but no one has come remotely close to winning. Ross Perot failed to win a single elector in his well-funded 1992 bid. The beloved Teddy Roosevelt sought a third term as the Progressive Party nominee in 1912—and was embarrassed in a landslide, securing just 88 electors.
Nonetheless, many voters could very well see five uncompetitive candidates on their ballot this November: in addition to the perennial Green Party and Libertarian Party nominees, Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West have launched independent campaigns, and No Labels is floating a possible bipartisan ticket. While the precise electoral implications of these candidacies are unknowable, they spell trouble for the effort to sustain a broad coalition unified in support of democracy and the rule of law. In all likelihood, a multi-candidate ballot would splinter the pro-democracy vote—and increase the likelihood that former President Donald Trump returns to the White House.
Why then, if minor party and independent candidacies are doomed to fail, are they so common? Some candidates know they cannot secure an Electoral College majority—but think they could win enough electors to ensure no one else gets........
© Newsweek
visit website
login
who are we?
contact us
qosheapp
Toi Staff
Gideon Levy
Belen Fernandez
Andrew Mitrovica
Mort Laitner
Nikkei Editorial
Rami G Khouri
Ali Fathollah-Nejad
