With election fever soaring and speculation swirling over New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg quitting the Republican party and considering a run at the 2008 presidency, those same voices that have infiltrated every election since Ross Perot’s spectacular run in 1992 can be heard. “A vote for a third party is a vote thrown away.”
While of course this argument has merit, as it has been decades (actually over a century) since a third party won a presidential election, it must also be taken with a grain of salt, as only considering the major parties as options serves to weaken the most important function of third parties – spreading new ideas.
Take, for instance, an example that some university students might remember – Perot’s 1992 presidential campaign. Though Perot had little chance of winning and ended up capturing just short of 19 percent of the total vote for the election (and no electoral votes), his work in the election unquestionably altered politics in America. Perot put a strong focus on the rising deficit in America, pointing to the dangers that this deficit posed for all Americans. Even though Perot was not elected, the publicity afforded to his views by his third-party run spurred political action on the deficit issue, pushing president Clinton to completely erase the budget deficit and to establish a surplus that extended into the Bush administration.
Another prominent historical example of how voting for a third party increases attention to issues can be found in the 1892 election, when the Populist Party candidate James Weaver won just short of 10 percent of the vote and 22 votes in the electoral college. Though Weaver did not come close to winning the election, the Democratic Party eventually absorbed many of the views of the Populist Party into their platform, proving that voting for third parties really can make a difference on a national scale.
In today’s political climate, the importance of third parties is all too clear. With global warming becoming an increasingly relevant issue with increased public attention, the fact that the Green Party is strong puts the burden on the Democrats to take a strong stand on environmental issues. If Democrats don’t take a strong enough stand, many voters who would have voted Democratic will instead vote for the third party. Without the existence of a strong Green Party, however, the effect would have been lessened and there would have been less pressure on lawmakers to be proactive on the environmental issue.
Likewise, with the Patriot Act in place and increasing evidence of unconstitutional warrentless wiretapping carried out by the government, civil liberties have gained a lot of attention in recent years. Because of the strength of the Libertarian Party, a group that stands as the champions of civil liberties and upholding the constitution, political candidates are forced to address the civil liberties question lest a vote that would have been cast for them instead go toward the Libertarian candidate.
Even at a university situated in a non-swing state where a vote for a third party candidate is unlikely to change the candidate receiving the state’s electoral vote, it is essential that university students consider all candidates in the 2008 elections and vote for the one who most closely supports the views they care about the most. Falling prey to the major-party ploy that a third party vote is a wasted vote only serves to weaken the political process in America.
John Silberholz is the opinion editor. He can be reached at josilber@umd.edu.
