|
|
Jim Lehrer interviews Reform Party Candidate Ross Perot
Richard Lamm, former Colorado governor and possible Reform Party candidate, explains why he's running for the presidency.
Harry Browne, libertarian party candidate explains why his party is the true alternative to the Republicans and the Democrats.
Viewers respond to recent interviews with third party candidates.
Browse the Online NewsHour's election coverage.
Browse past Online NewsHour forums
Partisan bickering, government shutdowns, gridlock -- all are pushing a volatile electorate to look for a third option.
A USA Today/Gallup poll last year said 65 percent of Americans wanted a third party to challenge the Democrats and Republicans in this year's presidential election. In the press, and around dinner tables across the country, Americans are expressing dissatisfaction with the choices the two main parties have offered -- President Clinton and Bob Dole.
To satisfy this desire to for a new choice, numerous parties are trying to burst onto the national stage -- most notably the Reform Party, where Ross Perot and Richard Lamm are competing for endorsement; the Libertarian Party, which selected Harry Browne as its presidential nominee; and the Green Party, which asked Ralph Nader to be its presidential candidate.
But do any of these parties have a shot at re-shaping America's political landscape? While third parties have influenced the national agenda (e.g. The Grangers shaped economic policy in the 19th century, Teddy Roosevelt and The Bull Moose Party almost captured the White House in 1912), their platforms and constituency are usually co-opted by the two major parties.
And in the past, third parties have failed to survive after their presidential candidates have left the national stage.
Our forum asks: Will a third, or even fourth, party influence this year's presidential elections?
Your questions are answered by Curtis Gans, director of The Committee for the Study of the American Electorate
Topics covered:
- Should a third-party candidate be included in presidential debates.
- Could Harry Browne govern if elected?
- Why are alternative parties coming onto the political stage now?
- How do third parties affect presidential elections?
- Why are voters looking for a third party?
- Does the system work against third parties?
Steve Buckstein of Portland, Oregon, asks: Don't the American people deserve to see all presidential candidates (who are on enough state ballots to theoretically win the presidency) included in the Presidential Debates?Curtis Gans, director of The Committee for the Study of The American Electorate, replies:
The simple answer to the question of whether all candidates who appear on Presidential ballots should be invited to participate in Presidential debates is "No." The more complex explanation of that answer includes: 1. In many states the threshold for getting on the ballot is very low -- a few signatures -- which does not indicate a candidacy which either can actually win or which carries with him or her any serious political support, 2. Only a few of the candidates on ballots are on ballots in sufficient number of states to garner the electoral votes to win an election, 3. Even many of those who are on sufficient ballots to conceivably win the election often do not carry with them the serious public political support that indicates a candidacy which could win. Lyndon Larrouche is one such example, 4. Those candidates which do not have such serious support can seriously distort the nature of the debate -- partly because they are raising issues which do not have wide public support and partly because they can use the platform for irresponsible demagoguery.
On the other hand, there are candidacies which do provide a serious critique of politics as usual and do have the potential of serious public support, and they should be included. We have not yet devised a way to objectively provide a criteria of what candidacies should be considered serious enough to participate in these debates. For which I have an answer for the future: While it is important to keep the threshold for getting on a ballot low, it is not either important or desirable to have such a low threshold for qualifying for either public funding or debate access. Until now the criteria for public funding has been monetary -- if a candidates can get a relatively small number of contributions from a relatively small number of contributors in a large number of states, a person can qualify for public funding whether or not he or she has any real citizen support -- e.g. Lyndon Larrouche. A better method of establishing candidate seriousness for both funding and debate access would be a relatively high threshold petition which would give clear indication of citizen support.
Kevin Curran of Troy, New York, asks:
Let's say a third- or fourth-party candidate wins the Presidency, and let's say further that it's Harry Browne. What kind of resistance coming from the federal bureaucracy - never mind from Congress - would President Browne face as he tries to effect the changes in government that he has said he would do?
Is it reasonable to think that if he was elected President that he could accomplish what he wants?
Curtis Gans, director of The Committee for the Study of The American Electorate, replies:
There are essentially two questions here: 1. Whether in the abstract a third party candidate could govern? and 2. Whether Harry Browne could so govern? The answer to the first is "Yes," under certain circumstances with a respected candidate of the center who had the political skill and persuasive ability both with his peers and the public, a third party candidate of the ilk of a Colin Powell, John Anderson and perhaps even Richard Lamm could govern, in part because their advocacy falls well within the national dialogue.
I think it would be very difficult for Harry Browne to govern, in part because of resistance by the bureaucracy and the existing parties in Congress, but in a larger sense because the nature of his advocacy is to propose the dismantling of most of the governmental programs upon which a majority of American have come to depend. Browne, as a candidate, can offer a useful critique of governmental excess, As a President he probably represents a too radical departure from what the citizenry has come to expect from their politics and government.
Lynwood D. Jordan, Jr., of Cumming, Georgia, asks:
Why do we hear about dissatisfaction every four years, so many promises are made every four years (such as lower taxes), but during the other three years nothing is ever done to follow up on the dissatisfaction and or implement many of the promises. Is our collective memory that short?
Even the "Contract with America" fizzled after a time.
Curtis Gans, director of The Committee for the Study of The American Electorate, replies:
One should look not simply at the dissatisfaction but at the nature of this dissatisfaction. In 1992, people were dissatisfied with recession, with President Bush's total lack of vision in domestic affairs and with his reversal on his pledge for no new taxes. They also seemed, in their poll responses and in their votes for Perot, to want to do something about the issue of debt. There was no broader mandate for President Clinton than to end the recession, do something about the debt and have a domestic program. Clinton found, in turn, that he could not do something about the debt and lower taxes. And he profoundly mistook his mandate -- which was 43 percent of the vote -- into asserting a majority he did not have.
The 1994 election was a reaction to both Clinton the person and his policies. Beyond the issue of balancing the budget, it had no other mandate. The "Contract with America" may have given the Republicans a program outline to work on, since they pledged themselves to it, but it was not something a majority of Americans knew about much less supported. And when the Republicans began to act on it in practice, the public clearly did not support many of the details.
The largest basis of dissatisfaction for most Americans at this point is with a Republican Party which seems to extreme in its conservatism and a Democratic Party which has no clear message, And unless the parties are better aligned, promise more mainstream approaches which grapple with America's real problems and deliver on those approaches, the dissatisfaction will continue.
Harry Anderson of Milwaukee, Wisconsin, asks:
When a third party candidate does run in a presidential election, how does that affect the main two parties' election strategies? Do they attempt to discredit the third party candidate? Are the mainstream party candidates more likely to run positive, issue-orientated campaigns than they would if only two major candidates were running?
Curtis Gans, director of The Committee for the Study of The American Electorate, replies:
The impact of a third party candidacy clearly depends on the seriousness of that candidacy -- the degree to which the advocacy of that candidacy has resonance with the public. Around the turn of the century, the Progressive Party, which never won the Presidency had a profound impact on the nation particularly in areas of political reform. Norman Thomas got a small portion of the vote but help shaped President Roosevelt's advocacy towards the poor. George Wallace helped provide the fodder for what eventually became the Republican social agenda, And Ross Perot put the debt as a high priority on the national agenda, All of these describe what is the usual major party response to third party challenges -- to try, within their frameworks, to coopt the issues raised.
A serious third party candidacy can often help make the debate more substantive and less vitriolic than otherwise, but in 1996, this is not likely to happen, The peculiar dynamics of this election is that a portion of the American electorate neither likes nor trusts President Clinton and their distaste is sufficient that they are not likely to waste their vote on a third party candidate unless Bob Dole seems a landslide loser, others feel that the Dick Armey-Tom DeLay-House Freshmen version of Republicanism presents an extreme danger to the health of such things as the safety net, environmental protection, education and they are not likely to waste their vote on a third party candidate, I would be surprised if any third party candidate in 1996 received more than a single digit share of the vote and if the campaign was not dominated by attacks on Clinton's character by the GOP and appeals to fear of the "radical right" by the Democrats. We are, in short, likely to have one of our least enlightening campaigns in memory despite the fact that both major party candidates are decent men and plausible, experienced national leaders.
John Blackwell of Galena, Illinois, writes:
Why do voters look for a third party? Are they sending a message to the Republicans and Democrats, or is there something else there?
Curtis Gans, director of The Committee for the Study of The American Electorate, replies:
There are two reasons why voters look for a third party: a, there is genuine dissatisfaction with both major parties at this time -- voters see the Republicans as too extreme and they don't know where the Democrats stand on anything and don't very much believe in them; b. the voters are also impatient -- seeking positive change and not trusting the traditional parties to deliver it. The fact is that in those states with partisan registration since 1966, Democratic registration has declined by 25 percent, Republican registration has decreased by 10 percent and independent and third party registration has increased four-fold. Which is to indicate that, this election exempted, the public is ready for a serious third party, should the existing parties not clean up their act.
Peter Allen of Houston, Texas, writes:
Everybody knows that the GOP and Democrats creates election rules so that other parties can't compete. What barriers do third parties face when they field presidential and other candidates?
Curtis Gans, director of The Committee for the Study of The American Electorate, replies:
There are two great barriers to third party and independent candidacies, The first is very high signature thresholds to get on the ballots. The second is campaign finance regulations that make (for candidacies that are not billionaires) candidates abide by the very narrow contribution limits ($1,000 for individuals, $5,000 for PACs) while not providing any public moneys. So that for independent and third party candidacies, it is difficult to get on ballots and almost impossible to get sufficient moneys to get a competing message to the public.
Click here for a forum menu.
 |
        |
|
| Support the kind of journalism done by the NewsHour...Become a member of your local PBS station. | ||
| ||
| PBS Online Privacy Policy Copyright ©1996- MacNeil/Lehrer Productions. All Rights Reserved. | ||
| ||
