In the lead-up to Election Day 2024, as in every election before it, dissatisfaction with the presidential candidates of the two major parties is erupting. Many thoughtful and idealistic Americans are wondering: cast a protest vote If enough voters follow suit, they are supporting third-party alternatives in hopes of breaking the Democratic-Republican duopoly.
The problem is not that third-party candidates can't win in November, but that they can't win for reasons unrelated to Trump or Harris. Given our existing organization, there is no rational reason to vote for a third-party candidate.
this is, Republican and Democratic conspiraciesbut a fundamental political science concept known as Duverger's Law.
In the 1950s, French political sociologist Maurice Duverger articulated what was happening. law-like regularity that exists in politics. Duverger demonstrated that election results and party systems are determined by the electoral system and how votes are counted.
A first-past-the-post voting system like the United States creates a two-party system. proportional representation system europe and latin americagenerates a multiparty system.
This makes sense. In proportional representation, people vote for the party that reflects their ideology. If you're a Green or Liberal and your party wins 15 per cent of the vote, they'll get a respectable 15 per cent of seats in Parliament. There is no reason not to vote your conscience, so there can be a wide range of parties at the top and bottom of the ideological spectrum.
But in America, the first-past-the-post voting system replaces ideological expression with geographic expression. The entire country is divided into states and congressional districts, and whoever receives the most votes wins. It's a winner-takes-all method. The winner gets 100% of the representation rights and the runner-up gets nothing. Greens, Libertarians, and other third parties who also ran won nothing. The inevitable result is a deeply entrenched two-party system.
Thanks to the Electoral College, Duberger's Law also applies to American presidential elections. With the exception of Nebraska and Maine, statewide presidential elections follow the same winner-take-all logic.
In order to break the two-party duopoly, successful third-party candidates face the insurmountable task of eliminating some form of psychological influence on voters. core partisan identity It gives meaning and direction to people's political decisions as “Republican” or “Democrat.”
For a third party to succeed, it must run a campaign that is liberal enough to defeat Democrats in blue states like New Jersey, but conservative enough to defeat Republicans in red strongholds like Kansas. need to.
This is a political unicorn, something that cannot exist. And every attempt to come up with a moderate, centrist, or coalitional alternative, from the Reform Party and the Unionist Party to the No Labels and Andrew Yang's Forward Party, has struggled, collapsed, or This is also the reason why it is doomed to collapse.
Dissatisfied voters have long been lectured by politicians, pundits, and academics. Alien from “The Simpsons” Voting for a third-party candidate is throwing away your vote, or worse, spoil the election.
But that doesn't mean third-party voting simply doesn't matter. It doesn't matter.
For this reason, “voting your conscience'' for third-party candidates as a protest against the Democratic Party or the Republican Party is nothing more than a spectacle of personal affirmation and self-congratulation. Real change in America comes from the hard work of fighting for meaningful institutional reform.
Voters may not know Mr. Duverger well, but politicians have long understood these dynamics.
Even before Donald Trump transformed into MAGA, the Republican Party was an unruly monster with two heads in one body: Establishment Republicans versus “tea partyers.” The two leaders rarely got along, as evidenced by repeated government shutdowns. So why didn't the Tea Party simply happen? leave the Republican Party?
the 24% support In the 2010s, the Tea Party could have become a very influential third party in proportional representation. But in a winner-take-all election, that would be political suicide. If Tea Party spoilers had stolen 24 percentage points from Republicans up and down the polls, every competitive election in the country would have tilted toward Democrats. The resulting blue wave would have swept away both the Tea Party and the Republican Party itself.
Or consider Bernie Sanders. Why would someone who calls himself an independent socialist run for president in 2016 and 2020 as a Democrat? After all, as Mr. Duverger suggests, it is easier to cooperate within the two-party system than to oppose it. Recreate his “Barney Two-Step” Vermont approachSanders will run in the Democratic primary to eliminate a Democratic opponent, then become an independent to face his Republican rival in the general election. If he ran as an independent, he would become a traditional third-party spoiler, splitting the Democratic vote and allowing Republicans an easy victory.
Finally, consider the most successful independent presidential campaigns of recent times. H. Ross Perot won in 1992. 19.7 million votes19% in the U.S., with Maine and Utah ranking second. But again, second place doesn't get you anything. For all the millions of votes and $64 million The populist Texans, who spent their own money, won zero electoral votes. may have He handed the victory to Bill Clinton. After making one of the most “successful” third-party bids in memory, Perot was no closer to winning the Oval Office than you or I.
In each case, the third-party challenger loses and Maurice Duverger wins. No amount of wishful thinking can break his golden rule.
Meaningful electoral reform, including abolishing the electoral system, is the only way to promote viable third-party alternatives, not the delusional self-affirmation of disposable protest votes.
mark lawrence schradPh.D., Professor of Political Science and Director of Russian Area Studies at Villanova University, and author of .Destruction of Liquor Machines: A World History of Prohibition” and “The Politics of Vodka: Alcohol, Dictatorship, and the Secret History of the Russian State”
