SALT LAKE CITY -- It doesn’t take an overly observant person to tell you there’s an apparent lack of options in terms of political parties in the United States. In fact, there seems to be only two, and it’s been that way for a while: The past century and a half has been dominated by the Republican and Democratic parties.

In actuality, there is no lack of options; there’s a veritable buffet of political parties to choose from — parties with snazzy names like “The Know Nothing Party.” Parties with the words “America,” “Freedom” and “Liberty” sprinkled liberally about their titles. And yet, year after year, the Republicans and Democrats are the only ones left vying for control of our governmental policies.

What about a third party? What about a viable party for those that think Republicans are not conservative enough, or one for those who think Democrats are not liberal enough? Or one for the 25 percent of Americans who claim no association to either party yet each presidential cycle are forced to more than likely turn to a Republican or Democrat?

Third parties and the "spoiler effect"

Unfortunately, third parties don’t have the greatest track record. You see, the United States essentially runs on a “winner take all” system. This is vastly different from the proportional representation system used in many European countries, where a party gets seats in government based on the percent of votes they receive. For example, if the New Flemish Alliance party of Belgium gets 7 percent of the vote, it gets 7 percent of the say in government. In the United States, a candidate from a party would have to beat every other party running in order to get that seat in congress or president.

#poll

The practical side of this is that the major parties can’t afford to have third parties taking their votes. Even though 25 percent of Americans have labeled themselves as independents, presidential elections often come down to a few percentage points from 50 percent. If a third party does well in a presidential election, it often simply has a spoiling effect.

Take the presidential election of 1912, for example. In both elections you had third-party candidates running with a message that appealed to large amount of people. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt appealed to Republican progressives feeling their party was becoming too conservative. Roosevelt, by stealing half of the Republican Party votes in his so-called “Bull Moose Party,” decided the race right then and there as the Democratic candidate Woodrow Wilson had no problem defeating a Republican vote split 27.4 percent for Roosevelt and 23.2 percent for President Taft with a simple 41.8 percent.

A more recent example is Ross Perot receiving nearly 19 percent of the vote in the 1992 presidential election. Although he took votes from across the political spectrum, the overwhelming amount of people who voted for him were “moderate” independents. The result was a vote closely resembling party lines. With Clinton getting 43 percent and Bush 37.5 percent, the lack of moderates at a time of economic uncertainty seems to have cost President George H.W. Bush a second term.

Duverger's law and the most likely winner

French Sociologist Maurice Duverger observed the tendency for two-party systems to develop in political systems such as the U.S. He proposed that multiple parties with similar goals would form alliances and fusions in order to gain strength and votes, and that voters would eventually weed out the parties they saw as having no hope of winning. This has come to be called “Duverger’s Law.”

For example, the law states that if you take 100,000 moderate voters and 80,000 radical voters voting for one radical candidate, a moderate candidate would have to get 80,001 moderate voters to vote for him in order to defeat the radical candidate. Not wanting the radical candidate to win, the moderates would vote for the person most likely to beat them.

Related:

Popular Vote Compact: the abolition of the Electoral College?

A new bill could mean the end of the Electoral College as Americans know it.

To ensure victory, either the moderate voters must agree to merge into one voting bloc, or the minority party of moderates has to fail. When voters gravitate toward the two strongest parties, this is called polarization. In the United States, the strongest parties have remained the same for so long that naturally people gravitate toward them.

That's not to say that the two parties are set in stone. The Republican Party was at one time a third party until the years immediately preceding the Civil War, when intense regional rivalry began to fracture the unity of the Whig Party. Seeing the apparent collapse of the Whigs, voters and politicians alike abandoned it in favor of parties they saw as viable options on the national stage. The southern Whigs joined with the Democratic Party and the northerners choose to throw their lot in with the new Republican Party. As Duverger hypothesized, the voters had, at the expense of one party, naturally gone with the party they saw as having the best chance to win.

Party marginalization and messages

Another blockage to third parties ever gaining strength is major party marginalization. A third party often brings up points that lure voters away. In 1992, Perot’s demand for a balanced budget was appealing to many voters. Seeing the way the message resonated with voters, in the 1996 elections both parties incorporated calls for a balanced budget, effectively nullifying the point of Ross Perot running again that year. Likewise, after the 1912 election, Republican progressives, displeased with the increasing conservative nature of the Republicans, were lured into the increasingly more liberal Democratic Party. Even Nixon sought the support of southern Democrats in the Civil Rights era.

Third parties can be used to bring attention to an issue, especially if they come to prominence. But major parties — in order to avoid losing support or possibly seeking to steal some moderate voters who have historically voted for the other party — have come to incorporate third-party messages and talk as if the issues were always their own. With more resources at their disposal and an already established bureaucracy, the supporters of the issue (following Duveger’s Law) throw their support behind the party they see as most likely to be able to have success tackling the issue.

Change can be affected

So the tough news is, if you ever expect to see a powerful third party arrive on the national scene, you're out of luck with our current system. It’s not inconceivable to see a new party emerge and take over one camp or the other, especially in this time of extreme congressional disapproval. But a strong two-party system is a natural occurrence, and unless you seek to change the system itself, you’re almost guaranteed to be stuck with it.

But don’t let the unlikeliness of a new party showing up discourage you. If you can’t make a new party, try to change the current ones. Many groups have been able to use the practice of major party marginalization to their advantage, forcing the party to accept their arguments in order to keep their votes. Take the Tea Party: Love it or hate it, its political takeover of the Republican Party is one of the most brilliantly effective political movements in recent time.

Even Senator Ron Paul (R-Texas), though he runs as a Republican for the stable platform it provides, runs on Libertarian ideals that are often at odds with what mainstream Republicans believe. And while the media seems to be doing its best to marginalize him, the Libertarian Party is currently the third-largest and fastest-growing party in America. In order to avoid losing Libertarian voters, the Republican Party could find itself forced to conform more to their views, or at least hear them out.

Vote for candidates you agree with, or run on the local level where it is slightly easier for third parties to get a say in smaller local government. In its November newsletter, the Utah Education Association urged its members to attend local caucus meetings and get themselves elected as delegates (the people who decide the candidates that get put on the ballot). Seemingly desperate to have people in the Utah government that will seek not to cut 12th grade in order to save money, the UEA is calling upon members not to “wait until the candidates have already been chosen before you become involved.” It urges members to attend both Republican or Democratic caucuses to ensure that the field of candidates available to choose from are friendly to pro public education.

Remember, 120 years ago, Republicans were decrying capitalism and Democrats were against bigger government. Politics is an everchanging spectrum. With enough effort put into it, maybe you don't have to create a whole new party to get your voice heard on issues important to you.

Freeman Stevenson is currently attending college in pursuit of a degree in journalism.

Related topics