American political history is littered with the wrecks of challengers who thought they could break the two-party system, says an academic.
To paraphrase a very old joke, how do you make a small fortune in America? Start with a large fortune and fund a third political party. American political history is littered with the wrecks of challengers who thought they could break the two-party system and failed.
This makes Elon Musk’s launch of his own new political party as an act of defiance following his falling out with US President Donald Trump even more intriguing.
What do we mean by a two-party system though? Since the 1860s, the Democrats and Republicans have dominated the US political landscape, holding the presidency, Congress and the vast majority of elected positions. Attempts at third parties have usually floundered at the ballot box.
Some have lasted only for a few electoral cycles, including the Progressive Party in the 1910s and the Citizens Party of the 1980s, while others like the Libertarian Party and Green Party have lasted decades and, in some cases, managed some electoral success at the local level.
But this is where an important distinction has to be made between third parties and third-party candidates. Because the US system is so personality-driven rather than party focused compared to Europe, quite often third parties have been built around a single person.
A good example is the previously mentioned Progressive Party. It was founded in 1912 by former president Theodore Roosevelt after he split from the Republicans. Without him it quickly faded away.
The Reform Party was created by billionaire Ross Perot in 1995 after he managed to get 18.9 per cent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. While it continued without him for some years, it was a shell of its former self.
Other parties like the Socialist, Libertarian and Green parties have sprung from more organic movements and thus have been more successful at a local or state level.
When you look at recent polling though, it seems strange that the two parties continue to dominate. Public dissatisfaction with politics as usual seems at an all-time high.
In a recent Pew Research poll when asked whether “I often wish there were more political parties to choose from” describes their views, 37 per cent of respondents answered: “Very well” and 31 per cent answered: “Somewhat well”.
In another poll, 25 per cent of respondents said that neither of the two main parties represented their interests.
So if there is an appetite for some sort of change, why have so few challengers succeeded? The two main parties seem entrenched to the point where it resembles a cartel.
ODDS STACKED AGAINST THIRD-PARTY INSURGENCY
The first and arguably most important reason is the electoral system. First past the post does not guarantee a two-party system (look at Britain, for instance).
But political scientist Maurice Duverger argued that it does mean that the two main parties have a significant advantage. There are prizes for coming first and second, nothing for third place.
Equally, many of the big prizes in American politics such as the presidency and state governorships are indivisible and cannot be shared. So it has become received wisdom that voting for anyone other than Democrats or Republicans is a wasted vote.
In these cases, people either vote for what they perceive to be the lesser of two evils or stay at home, rather than voting for a candidate with no chance or that they may not support.
The other multi-billion-dollar elephant in the room is money. The sheer cost of running for elections in recent years means that any third party is unlikely to be able to raise the funds to be truly competitive. At the last election, the Democrats and Republicans spent hundreds of millions of dollars (which isn’t even counting all of the super-PAC money spent on their behalf).
Whenever billionaires like Perot have attempted to self-fund a party, they have left themselves open to the accusation that it’s a vanity project or lacks true mass appeal.