Party Crashers: What Makes Independent Candidates Run?

by Darren Garnick

Wednesday, September 29, 2004

One of the quirkiest souvenirs from the 1980 presidential race was a bronze coin with the bust of Ronald Reagan on one side and President Jimmy Carter on the reverse. Heads or tails, undecided voters could let go of their anguish and yield to the laws of probability. But Americans in 1980 actually had at least three choices for president, and coins only have two sides. The fine print acknowledged this discrepancy: "If coin lands on edge, vote Anderson."

John B. Anderson, a former Republican congressman from Illinois, attracted nearly 7 percent of the vote that year--a respectable showing for an independent candidate, but a mere historical footnote given the Reagan landslide. In truth, his odds of winning the White House were worse than the coin standing freely on its edge. We can all imagine a scenario in which a penny digs into a clump of freshly dug soil or rests gingerly up against a wall.

The 50 percent of Americans who bother to show up to the polls don't pick their president with a coin toss. But let's take a step back for a moment. How do the candidates for president get chosen in the first place? If a candidate does not win the Democratic or Republican nomination, what options are available to still make his case to the electorate?

Earning the right to be on the ballot can be a Herculean task: there are 50 sets of rules for the 50 states, ranging from gathering only 25 signatures in Tennessee to 150,000 in California. But even when Americans have the choice to vote for an independent candidate, they decline to do so in overwhelming numbers. Part of the reason is that voters don't want to "risk" voting for someone they believe cannot win; another simple explanation is that most third-party candidates have almost zero name recognition.

But a third-party victory is not impossible. Before mysteriously dropping out of the race temporarily in 1992, Ross Perot had led Bill Clinton and George Bush in the polls. Perot's still impressive 19 percent of the vote that year drew from both disenchanted Democrats and Republicans searching for the elusive political center.

For the upcoming PBS special, "Crashing the Parties 2004," I spent the past year on the campaign trail with third-party and independent presidential candidates struggling to be heard by voters--many of whom are unaware that these candidates even exist. Third-party hopefuls have no money, no name recognition (with the exception of Ralph Nader) and virtually no organization. Most of these underdogs know from the moment they launch their campaigns that their ultimate destiny is failure.

It was exhausting to bounce across the country with these candidates and watch them speak to small groups of supporters--and, more often than not, empty rooms when they dared venture outside their ideological comfort zone. So why do they do it? What motivates someone to put his life on hold for 18 months of slammed doors and merciless ridicule mixed with only brief moments of political encouragement?

They do it because they have guts, passion and an insatiable desire to make America a better place. Regardless of how you feel about their unorthodox platforms--most third parties represent a rigid ideological niche that detests compromise--these candidates are an insurance policy against complacency in the two mainstream parties. They raise ideas and issues that otherwise would never blip the radar screens of Democrats or Republicans.

The Libertarians, for example, are always conscientious watchdogs for wasteful spending in government. They and the Greens also have been aggressive advocates for medical marijuana--an issue that is slowly gaining momentum on both sides of the political divide. Independent Ralph Nader, the Constitution Party, the Libertarians and the Greens all have called for an immediate U.S. withdrawal from Iraq--a view at odds with the current positions of both Bush and Kerry.

In short, third parties make it more likely that our country's most vital issues are debated from every angle--that our leaders at least hear contrarian views to the "yes-men" surrounding them.

The electoral college's winner-take-all system, established by the U.S. Constitution, sharply minimizes the chances of an extremist or narrowly focused party taking power. Chances are, the Democrats and Republicans will rule America forever--only forced to significantly change by a populist centrist party that currently does not exist.

Nonetheless, third parties are threatening to both the Democrats and the Republicans when the election is perceived to be extremely close. The Libertarians earned more than 16,000 votes in Florida in 2000--in a state where the margin of victory for Bush was only 537 votes. Debates over hanging chads and double-punched ballots would have been meaningless if, say, 10,000 of those voters endorsed the Republicans, the party most sympathetic to Libertarian fiscal views.

John Kerry should be able to intellectually crush "spoiler" Ralph Nader on most issues if he deserves to be president. Yet, the Democrats don't want to bet on Kerry's brain, openly admitting an organized national effort to prevent Nader from getting on as many state ballots as possible.

In Oregon, Democrats signed phony names and addresses on ballot petitions circulated at Nader rallies. When supporters gathered enough valid signatures anyway, the Democratic secretary of state tried to disqualify Nader because his petitions were not properly numbered (an Oregon judge overturned this ruling). In Florida, the state's Democratic Party is suing to push Nader off the ballot as the nominee of the Reform Party, arguing that it is no longer a legitimate national party.

Regardless of the tactics or rationale, Kerry and the Democratic Party obviously prefer to have no competition from the left. Wouldn't it have been nice for the first President Bush if he could have forced Pat Buchanan not to run in the 1992 Republican Primary? Wouldn't it be wonderful if we all could choose the people competing with us for a job promotion?

No matter what you think of Nader or third-party candidates, if their right to run is squashed, our rights are squashed.

In countless interviews and casual conversations during the production of "Crashing the Parties," numerous third-party supporters came up to me to say thank you. Thank you for coming. Thank you for covering us.

I'd like to return the sentiment: Thank you all for running.

Darren Garnick is the producer of "Crashing the Parties 2004," a PBS election special about third-party candidates which debuts on September 29th. He also is a die-hard political junkie with a basement stuffed with election memorabilia. Favorite items include a 1964 can of Barry Goldwater soda ("The Right Drink for the Conservative Taste"), a Jesse Ventura air freshener and a"Kuwaiti-Americans for Kerry-Edwards" button. For more information on the film, visit the Award Productions Web site.

Have you ever voted for a third party candidate? Would you ever vote for a third party candidate? Do you feel your views on key issues are best represented by one of the two major parties or are you more comfortable with the views of a third party candidate?

honestpuck writes: "I am glad third parties exist because, as the author argues, they keep debate alive, and debate lets democracy thrive. I do, however, regret the effect they have on election outcomes - specifically, I regret that George Bush is President because Ralph Nader was on the Florida ballot in 2000 (and because the Supreme Court ultimately appointed him, but I digress). I wish we could vote for U.S. President the way we vote for high school class President: rank the names listed on the ballot. If Floridians could have voted 1. Nader, 2. Gore and 3. Bush, Al Gore would be President today. (The idea being that if your #1 choice doesn't get enough votes to win, your vote for your #2 choice counts instead.) ..." taralynnlilly writes: "I watched with fascination this evening the crashing parties piece. As a political junkie with a BA in Political Science, I enjoy seeing people so interested in the process and involved in Democracy. However, whenever I see any coverage of 'third parties' and the wide range of political viewpoints out there, I notice one point that is NEVER made. It is like the proverbial elephant in the room no one likes to talk about. We never allow our minds to imagine an American future where the political landscape is not dominated by two parties, but many parties representing many views. The truth is, we would hate it. As Americans we are generally obsessed with the view that our leaders must be elected by a majority (and a strong one), thus providing a 'mandate' , and the view that 'this person speaks for MOST Americans'. What would it be like if there were, say, 5-6 major parties, that all had prominent candidates, and were all on the ballot in all 50 states? If those people actually got the vote out with their people, we are looking at recognizing a president for four years that was elected by less than 20% of the population! Does anyone really think that Americans would be able to deal with that? Look at how contentious it is out there with the supposed 50-50 split we have now. ... it has been my experience having worked on several elections, that American voters are more interested in mandate than having all political viewpoints aired on the national stage. We like having a strong majority, and you can't get that when the ballot is split more than two or three ways. Outside of college courses, I can't remember this argument being a part of the discussion, certainly not by the media because they thrive on public discourse being contentious and full of conflict." dscotth writes: "As for me, the Libertarian Party holds the most logical and appealing ideals, with only a few minor points of disagreement (chiefly open borders, which defy logic and safety in our current state of world affairs). For those who do not know, the chief tenets of Libertarianism are PERSONAL FREEDOM and NATIONAL DEFENSE (required to ensure the former). ... If you already know your vote won't help elect your preferred 'major party' candidate due to assumed outcomes in your locale, please throw a bone to a 3rd party. Your vote might not help anyone in this election, but it could help create a more diverse field in 4 years. Maybe we'll actually hear a debate in 2008, and not just a string of staged sound bites!"

Deciding Votes | The Savvy Voter | Web Roundup

Election Glossary | For Kids, Parents and Teachers
About This Site | Site Credits | pbs.org Privacy Policy

Copyright © 1995 - 2005 Public Broadcasting Service (PBS). All rights reserved.