fbpx

Democracy in America: The Electoral College versus Third Party Candidates

These days, one frequently hears criticisms from Democrats of the elections of Donald Trump and George W. Bush because they did not receive a majority of the popular vote. I can understand the frustrations of a political party losing under these circumstances. But it is not clear that the Electoral College is a big problem for our democracy. There are arguments for and against the Electoral College. But even if one believes that the Electoral College is a defect, I believe there is a much bigger defect in our electoral system: the possibility of a third party candidate changing the outcome of an election.

In 1992, George Bush ran against Bill Clinton, but a third party candidate Ross Perot also entered the election. In an election that saw Clinton beat Bush in the popular votes by 43% to 37%, Perot won 19%. Since Perot appealed to many traditional Republican voters, there is a good reason to believe that Perot changed the election results. If Perot took significantly more votes from Bush than Clinton, then Bush might have won the election if Perot had not run as a third party candidate.

The basic problem occurs when the third party candidate splits the votes between the first two. These changes can be consequential. There is a strong case for concluding that Woodrow Wilson—an extremely important and in my opinion bad President—was only elected in 1912 because Theodore Roosevelt ran as a third party candidate and split the vote with William Howard Taft. (Complicating matters, though, is that a fourth party candidate, Eugene Debs, won 6% of the vote as the Socialist Party’s standard-bearer.)

Another more recent example involves the third-party candidacy of Ralph Nader, who ran in the presidential election of 2000, with George W. Bush and Al Gore. In an extremely close election, Bush won the electoral vote, but Gore won the popular vote by 500,000 votes. Nader received nearly 3 million popular votes. Without Nader, Gore might have won a big victory in the popular vote and secured a victory in the Electoral College. (Of course, there was another defect in that election—a November surprise, where the release of information on the Thursday before the election of a DUI committed by George W Bush, no doubt, gave Gore a significant benefit. While such November surprises are problematic, it is not clear what can be done about them.)

There is an easy way to prevent these third-party candidates from spoiling the election. As in many other countries, election rules could require a candidate to win a majority of the vote, not just a plurality. If no candidate wins a majority in the first round, one has a runoff between the top two candidates. In that way, the winner of the election must actually be more popular than the person who comes in second. And therefore third party candidates cannot spoil an election by entering the race and splitting the vote.

Yet, one does not hear much about the problem of third-party candidates or this reform. No doubt, this is because a third party candidate has not affected elections in recent years. But, in my view, it is a more serious defect than the Electoral College and we would be much better off if we eliminated it. In this era of hyperpartisanship, a third party candidate that spoils an election will only add fuel to an already out-of-control political conflagration.

Reader Discussion

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

on October 19, 2018 at 10:19:49 am

A major "defect" in 3rd party strategy has been that they have seldom started from the ground up, choosing instead (mainly) to jump in at the national level. 3rd party candidates appeal often on an emotional basis to a fustrated electorate that feels they are stuck between "the lesser of two evils."

That said, to ascribe the perjorative "defect" to the Electoral College system without clearly explaining the purpose of it is in my view a glaring defect in the telling.

read full comment
Image of Wes
Wes
on October 19, 2018 at 15:39:10 pm

I see no real difference in the two "major" political parties . One is a wolf and the other is a jackal fighting over the American corpse. Over the past several elections,at least as far as nation wide and state wide elections were concerned I have voted for the Libertarian Party candidate. People ask me why I "waste" my vote on a candidate who has little or no chance of winning? I explain,that I would rather vote for someone who shares my political views and not see them elected then to vote for someone whose views are repugnant to mine and see them elected. In the end the lesser of two evils is still evil. All voting does is legitimize and endorse a corrupt system that works against my best interests. Slogans such as "the people have spoken,"the voice of the people," a mandate of the people" is nothing but an excuse for politicians to rob you blind. And rob you they will,both Republicans and Democrats. There is no real difference. So,in the end,its best you vote for the candidate who shares your views or just don't to vote at all.

read full comment
Image of libertarian jerry
libertarian jerry
on October 19, 2018 at 16:14:20 pm

"So,in the end,its best you vote for the candidate who shares your views or just don’t to vote at all."

A distinction without a difference one could suppose.

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 19, 2018 at 16:19:04 pm

"There is an easy way to prevent these third-party candidates from spoiling the election."

I suppose that may be true.
However, in an essay that alludes to the value of the Electoral College, and its underlying implications for Federalism (unfortunately neither stated nor implied by the essayist) why would one propose UNDOING or DISREGARDING the results of the Electoral college tally.
There is NO need for a runoff election should any candidate secure a majority of the Electoral College votes - third party candidates effect upon *pluralities* be damned!!!!

read full comment
Image of gabe
gabe
on October 20, 2018 at 08:42:55 am

This drives me crazy, when intelligent people blithely call our CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC, a democracy.

Get it right, we are not a democracy, the Founder's hated democracies because they self destructed rather quickly.

read full comment
Image of Jim Lewis
Jim Lewis
on October 23, 2018 at 10:48:52 am

Not true. The third-party candidate can alter the Electoral College results as well as the popular vote. But Rappaport is incorrect in thinking a run-off election will ensure the College goes to the one with the most votes. ("In that way, the winner of the election must actually be more popular than the person who comes in second.") But the College exists for a reason that is outside the issue of who gets the most votes, and that's a feature, not a defect.

read full comment
Image of Brian
Brian

Law & Liberty welcomes civil and lively discussion of its articles. Abusive comments will not be tolerated. We reserve the right to delete comments - or ban users - without notification or explanation.

Related