I’m sure everyone has heard someone say, “A vote for the third-party candidate is a vote for the winning candidate,” or “A vote for the third-party candidate is a wasted vote.” For many, those statements seem a bit off; if we are the land of opportunity, why should running as an independent lower a candidate’s opportunity? Well, our country, founded by our founding fathers, was created for a two-party system and only a two-party system. Many speculate the reasoning behind this is that the founding fathers wanted to prevent the American government from becoming like the old British government. Which is fine and dandy; however, times have changed, and so have politics.
When broken down, our government is made up of three branches, one being non-partisan and the other two being partisan. The majority of the representatives in the two partisan branches fit into either the Democratic or Republican party. When defined as the third party or informally known as the independent party, it can be seen as Libertarians and Green parties or anyone who doesn’t fit under our two majority parties. Currently, three U.S. senators identify as Independent, and all caucus with the Democrats Angus King, Bernie Sanders, and Kyrsten Sinema. Historically, only three individuals have won a presidential term: George Washington, John Tyler, and Andrew Johnson.
Many aspects of our governmental structure block third-party candidates from success, such as the electoral college’s Winner-take-all, which makes it nearly impossible for third-party candidates to win. Winner-take-all is the most prominent issue independents face. Still, they also face the spoiler effect, ballot access laws, debate rules, and majority parties adopting third-party platforms if they gain popularity from the people. As CNNpoltics said, “The viable third-party presidential option is the fever dream of American politics.”
Despite the overwhelming evidence against third parties in American Politics, with the glooming oversight that the 2024 election may be a rematch of Trump vs. Biden, more people are turning their heads to the third party. Many young advocates on social media and in many political organizations against current American politics and polarization have started questioning the existence of a two-party system in general. How often has someone uttered, “I am just going to vote for the lesser of the two evils.” A two-party system limits our options and usually guides the people into voting for a potentially unfavorable candidate because the other may be worse.
Beyond the limitations a two-party system can bring, it also brings lots of stagnation and polarization that, unfortunately, doesn’t stop after a candidate is elected. The more polarized a society is, the more divided they becomes, and the more divided it becomes, the more distracted and less educated they will be. Without the ability for a society to talk to one another regardless of party affiliation, the less educated a society is, which only makes it easier for the government to get away with political and economic corruption.
To return to my original question, if we are the land of opportunity, why should running as an independent lower a candidate’s opportunity? I’d like to change it: if we are the land of opportunity, why should we continue to follow a two-party system that only divides the people living in the land of opportunity? More importantly, as citizens of the land of opportunity, how can we live politically beneficial lives when today’s politics are meant to control and reform our lives? Voting third-party may not change the trajectory of American politics, but opening our eyes and seeing that our two-party system isn’t working anymore could possibly change our future.