We need a third party candidate! We need a third party!
>>crickets<<
Stalking the wooly fringes of the internet are articles like this from Thomas Molitor who writes at NMPolitics.net. He posits that the voters want a new candidate and a new party because two policy ideas are missing from the current political debate: An reformed money system, and a flat tax. I could go into a long discussion that these two ideas are missing from mainstream political debate for a reason: they are really, really bad ideas.
However, the issue I would like to discuss is what it would take to have a robust multi-party system.
What would it take? I am asking you, my tens and tens of readers. Comment and let me know.
My belief is that it would take three things: Money, votes, and for people to do more than just wish for a third party or third party candidate.
In nearly every partisan race for office across the nation, from city council, to state legislature, to Congress, and the presidency, there are more than just Republican and Democratic Party candidates. Just look a bit farther down the ballot, and by golly, there they are! So, the extra choices are there. What's missing?
Money and votes - that's what's missing. Running for office, even a small race in a geographically limited area takes money. To raise the money, you need an organized group of people who can build a donor base. The vast majority of third party candidates are missing this piece of the puzzle. Many are so uncomfortable about asking for money, or so head-in-the-clouds, that they think money doesn't matter and should not even be discussed. This is one of the main reasons they do not, and cannot win, an election.
Votes, in the end, are what it takes to get a candidate and their party into power. The responsibility rests on two parties: the voter, and the candidate. Voters say they want third party candidates, and third parties. Well, I can say I want a unicorn, but that isn't going to make one spring into existence. When it comes down to the actual casting of their vote, the vast majority of voters chicken out and vote for either a Republican or Democratic candidate. Why? The reasons are myriad, but the two main comments are: "I don't want to help the candidate I really oppose" (this is the spoiler argument), or, "I want to vote for a winning candidate." Vast articles have been published on why both of these are crap reasons to vote for a major-party candidate, so I will skip the discussion here. The responsibility of the candidate is to give the voters a compelling reason to vote for them. Hint: a compelling reason is not "hey, I'm not a democrat or a republican." The candidate must mount a campaign that is relevant to the race they are campaigning in. Why do I say this? In 2004, a Socialist Workers Party candidate ran for mayor of a mid-western city on a policy of reforming our relations with Cuba. Um.....what? An interesting issue, but one that has near zero saliency in that particular race. A campaign, based on clearly articulated values, and built around issues relevant to the campaign is the only want to actually get a meaningful number of vote. Does this mean the candidate has to talk about exactly the same thing in exactly the same way the two major-party candidates do? No. In face, differentiation is important.
If you are a voter, stop and seriously consider if you really want more than two parties or not, and what you might be willing to do to make that happen. You can give money, you can give your vote, you can do both, or just one or the other. But, you must do one of these things, or you will not get what you claim to want. It's really that simple.
If you are a third-party candidate, stop and seriously consider what you are really doing. Are you running a campaign to make yourself feel good about an issue? Or, are you running a serious campaign that is focussed on winning the election, or at least building credibility for yourself and the party which could help win future elections? If not, you may be technically running for office, but your words and actions are completely irrelevant, and those people who choose to give their funds and votes to you are wasting their resources.
Thanks for reading, and your comments are welcome!
--
Daryl Northrop
Sunday, September 4, 2011 at 8:49PM 
