Hier is hoe kandidate van derde partye die verkiesing verander het

Hier is hoe kandidate van derde partye die verkiesing verander het



We are searching data for your request:

Forums and discussions:
Manuals and reference books:
Data from registers:
Wait the end of the search in all databases.
Upon completion, a link will appear to access the found materials.

Amerika se twee-party politieke stelsel maak dit moeilik vir kandidate van buite die Republikeinse en Demokratiese partye om presidentsverkiesings te wen. Sedert 1920 kon slegs vier derdeparty-kandidate-Robert La Follette in 1924, Strom Thurmond in 1948, George Wallace in 1968 en John Hospers in 1972-selfs 'n enkele verkiesingsstem wen. Dit beteken egter nie dat kandidate van derde partye nie die uitkomste van presidentsverkiesings in die loop van die Amerikaanse geskiedenis verander het nie.

1912 - William Taft teen Woodrow Wilson
Theodore Roosevelt daag die sittende president uit en stig die Progressive Party.
Die titel vir die grootste stemme wat ooit deur 'n derdepartykandidaat in die Amerikaanse geskiedenis verdien is, word steeds tydens die verkiesing van 1912 deur Theodore Roosevelt gehou.

Nadat hy byna twee volle termyne in die Withuis gedien het, het president Theodore Roosevelt gekies om nie die tradisie te verbreek nie en in 1908 vir 'n derde termyn te hardloop. Roosevelt, wat sy agenda tydens sy eerste termyn was, daag die sittende president uit vir die nominasie van die Republikeinse Party in 1912.

Alhoewel Roosevelt oorweldigend die meeste stemme tydens die voorverkiesings gewen het, het die Republikeinse Nasionale Konvensie die meer konserwatiewe Taft aangewys om herkiesbaar te wees. 'N Bitter Roosevelt het met die GOP gebreek om die Progressive Party te vorm, met die bynaam' Bull Moose Party 'omdat Roosevelt homself dikwels as' fiks as 'n bulem 'verklaar het. Die party bepleit die direkte verkiesing van Amerikaanse senatore, stemreg vir vroue, tariefverlagings en sosiale hervormings.

Roosevelt en Taft het uiteindelik die Republikeinse stem verdeel, wat gelei het tot 'n maklike oorwinning deur die Demokratiese genomineerde Woodrow Wilson. Roosevelt eindig as tweede nadat hy ses state en 27 persent van die algemene stemme gewen het. Taft was 'n verre derde gevolg deur 'n ander derdepartykandidaat, Eugene V. Debs. Die genomineerde van die Sosialistiese Party het byna een miljoen stemme gekry in die vierde van sy vyf bod vir die Withuis.

1992 - George H. Bush teen Bill Clinton
Onafhanklike Ross Perot gooi sy hoed in die ring, neem dit terug en gooi dit dan weer.
Nadat ondersteuners genoeg handtekeninge versamel het om hom in elke staat op die stembrief te plaas, het die miljardêr van Texas, H. Ross Perot, in die lente van 1992 tot die top van die stembusse gestyg. voordeel trek uit lae openbare steun vir president George HW Bush.

Ondanks sy steun het Perot in Julie 1992 skielik besluit om die wedloop te verlaat en gesê dat hy nie meer glo dat hy die presidentskap kan wen met die verbeterde prestasie van die Demokratiese genomineerde Bill Clinton nie. Hy het later gesê die besluit is gebaseer op sy oortuiging dat die Bush -veldtog beplan om gerugte oor sy dogter te versprei en haar naderende troue te saboteer. Weke voor die verkiesingsdag het Perot die ewe verrassende aankondiging gemaak dat hy sy veldtog hervat. Die peilingsgetalle van die onafhanklike kandidaat bly hoog genoeg om sy insluiting by die presidensiële debatte met Bush en Clinton moontlik te maak.

Met sy volksvreemde manier en 'n halfuur se inligting op uitsaaienetwerke, het Perot 19 persent van die stemme gekry, vergeleke met 43 persent vir Clinton en 37 persent vir Bush. Sommige amptenare in die Bush-veldtog het geglo Perot het Bush se herverkiesing bederf deur meer stemme van die Republikeine as die Demokrate te trek. In 'n een-tot-een-wedstryd het Clinton egter vanaf die somer van 1992 konsekwent Bush in die openbare stembus gelei. Volgens 'n ontleding van die tweede keuses van Perot-ondersteuners wat deur Voter Research & Surveys vir groot nuusorganisasies gedoen is, het Perot se derdeparty-uitloop nie die uitslag van die verkiesing verander nie. Een nasionale uitgangspeiling het bevind dat Clinton Bush met 'n halfmiljoen meer stemme sou geklop het as Perot nie op die stembrief was nie.

In 1996 het Perot 'n herhaalde bod vir die Withuis gemaak as kandidaat vir die Reform Party, wat hy 'n jaar tevore gestig het. In die verkiesing teen Clinton en die Republikeinse Bob Dole het Perot net meer as 8 persent van die gewilde stemme behaal.

2000 — Al Gore vs George W. Bush
Ralph Nader en die Groen party verdien stemme, maar dit kom alles neer op Florida.
Die verkiesing was so streng dat dit 'n regstryd van 36 dae en 'n omstrede 5-4-hooggeregshof geneem het voordat Al Gore toegegee het, hoewel hy die nasionale volksstem met meer as 'n halfmiljoen stemme gewen het.

Die wedloop was nie net gesentreer op die kandidate van die Demokratiese en Republikeinse partye, Al Gore en George W. Bush nie, maar op die derde keer presidentskandidaat Ralph Nader. 'N Amerikaanse advokaat, politieke aktivis en verbruikersadvokaat Nader was kandidaat vir die Groen Party.

Nader het gehoop om 5 persent van die algemene stemme te verdien, wat sy party in die daaropvolgende presidentsverkiesing toegang tot federale bypassende fondse sou gegee het. Nader het sy doel bereik, en het 2,9 miljoen stemme gekry en minder as 3 persent van die gewilde stemme. Sommige meen egter dat Nader se derdeparty-kandidatuur genoeg stemme van die Demokratiese genomineerde, vise-president Al Gore, gevee het om die oorwinning aan die Republikein George W. Bush te gee.

Die verskil was Florida, wat Bush met minder as 600 stemme gewen het om hom 'n voorsprong van 271 tot 266 kieskollege te gee. As selfs 'n klein persentasie van die byna 100 000 stemme wat Nader in Florida gekry het, na Gore verskuif het, sou die Demokratiese kandidaat die verkiesing gewen het. Boonop was die 22 000 stemme wat Nader in New Hampshire gewen het, drie keer die grootte van Bush se oorwinningsmarge in die staat. As New Hampshire na Gore gegaan het, sou dit hom ook die oorwinning besorg het.

2016 - Hillary Clinton vs Donald Trump
Toe buitestanders die presidensiële veldtog oorheers het.
Van Donald Trump tot Bernie Sanders tot Gary Johnson tot Jill Stein, politieke buitestanders het die presidensiële veldtog van 2016 van meet af aan oorheers. Maar hulle het nie net op derdepartykaartjies gewerk nie.

Die sakeman en politieke beginner Donald Trump het nie net die Republikeinse benoeming bereik nie, maar Vermont se Bernie Sanders, 'n selfbeskrywe demokratiese sosialis wat as onafhanklike in die Senaat gedien het, het 46 persent van die beloofde afgevaardigdes ontvang tydens die primêre veldtog vir die Demokratiese benoeming.

Aangesien Trump en die Demokratiese genomineerde Hillary Clinton albei lae goedkeuringsgetalle gehad het, het derdepartykandidate gedurende die hele veldtog aansienlike aandag gekry. Met die Libertarian -kaartjie vir die tweede opeenvolgende veldtog, het die voormalige goewerneur van New Mexico, Gary Johnson, byna 4,5 miljoen stemme gekry, wat net meer as 3 persent van die gewilde stemme uitgemaak het. Dit was die beste prestasie van derde partye sedert Perot. Die genomineerde van die Groen Party en die geneesheer van Massachusetts, Jill Stein, wat ook in haar tweede opeenvolgende presidentsverkiesing deelgeneem het, het 'n beroep op Sanders se ontevrede ondersteuners gedoen en net minder as 1,5 miljoen stemme verdien. Boonop het die onafhanklike Evan McMullin in 11 state op die stembrief verskyn en meer as 700 000 stemme gekry, waaronder meer as 20 persent van die stemme in sy geboortestaat Utah.

Volgens sommige politieke ontleders het kandidate van derde partye Trump se verkiesing gehelp. Hulle wys op die resultate in Michigan, Pennsylvania en Wisconsin, waar die totale stem van Stein die oorwinningsmarge van Trump oorskry. As Stein se stemme in die drie state na Clinton oorgedra het, sou sy die kieskollege benewens haar gewilde meerderheid gewen het. Volgens Politico het Stein egter die bewering verwerp deur te wys op meningspeilings wat nie net toon dat die meerderheid van haar kiesers tuis sou gebly het in plaas daarvan om vir Clinton te stem nie, maar dat 'n groot aantal van haar ondersteuners Trump as 'n tweede keuse verkies het.


Die uitwerking van kandidate van derde partye by presidentsverkiesings

Alhoewel burgers van die Verenigde State die geleentheid het om vir baie verskillende ampte op nasionale, staats- en plaaslike vlak te stem, is die verkiesing van die president van die Verenigde State elke vier jaar die fokuspunt van die Amerikaanse politieke proses. Die Amerikaanse politieke stelsel het sedert sy ontstaan ​​'n tweepartstelsel gehandhaaf. Politieke wetenskaplikes beweer dat 'n tweeparty-stelsel die stabielste en doeltreffendste manier is om 'n demokratiese nasie te bestuur, aangesien 'n monoparty-stelsel tirannie lei, en 'n meerparty-stelsel veroorsaak oor-diversifikasie en rommel (Mazmanian 6). Die Grondwet van die Verenigde State beperk die struktuur van die politieke stelsel geensins tot twee partye nie. Trouens, daar was geen presidentsverkiesing waar daar slegs twee kandidate was nie, maar kandidate van derde partye word selde in 'n meerderheid van die state verteenwoordig, en diegene wat in 'n meerderheid van die state gestem het, was nog nooit suksesvol nie. By 'n paar geleenthede kon kandidate van derde partye egter 'n beduidende impak op die presidentsverkiesingsproses hê, soos George Wallace in 1968 en H. Ross Perot in 1992. Deur die negentiende eeu was daar min afwyking van die tradisionele tweeparty stelsel. Tot dan was politieke kandidate heeltemal afhanklik

die politieke infrastruktuur van 'n gevestigde party vir hul veldtogte. Tot die ontwikkeling van massamedia -tegnologieë, insluitend radio en televisie, het politieke kandidate geen direkte manier gehad om met die publiek te kommunikeer nie en was hulle dus afhanklik

oor die kommunikasiestelsels van die belangrikste partye. Dus,
derdepartybewegings het nie die vermoë gehad om 'n effektiewe veldtog teen die groot partye te voer nie.
Massamedia het egter die omvang van die verkiesingsproses verander en die afsterwe van die groot politieke partye tot gevolg gehad (Robinson 147). Kandidate wat 'n veldtog voer wat deur televisie bestuur word, het hul partye op verskeie maniere benadeel. Die mediaspesialiste wat sulke veldtogte bestuur, is geneig om lojaal te wees aan 'n kandidaat eerder as aan die kandidaat se party, daarom ondersteun die veldtog 'n enkele kandidaat en nie die hele kaartjie van die party nie. Boonop stel die groot vertroue in televisie 'n kandidaat in staat om kiesers direk te bereik, waardeur die tradisionele funksie van die party as 'n inligtings- en kommunikasie -liggaam wat as tussenganger tussen die kandidaat en die kiesers optree, verswak word.

Ander ontwikkelings het die rol van die party in die presidensiële veldtog verswak. Die groei van gerekenariseerde "tegnieke vir direkte insameling van fondse" en "gerekenariseerde e-pos" het ingebring op aktiwiteite wat tradisioneel deur die politieke party uitgevoer is (Robinson 150). Onlangse hervormings op die gebied van veldtogfinansiering en delegering van keuring na die benoemingskonvensies het die party minder betekenisvol gemaak ten opsigte van fondsinsameling en kandidaatkeuring (Robinson 151). Die afnemende rol van die politieke party in die presidensiële veldtog en die toenemende vermoë van die kandidate self om hul eie publisiteit te bied, het die begin van 'n nuwe politieke era veroorsaak waarin die oorheersing van die groot partye twyfelagtig is, en die potensiaal vir 'n 'n nie-geaffilieerde kandidaat vir 'n mededingende veldtog is baie realisties.

In teorie is dit moontlik dat 'n heeltemal onafhanklike kandidaat tot die presidentskap verkies kan word, mits die kandidaat hoogs bekwaam, charismaties, welsprekend en fotogenies is, en die kandidaat teen relatief swak kandidate van die groot partye (Mazmanian 21). Op die oomblik bepaal politieke ontleders egter dat die kans klein is dat 'n meerderheid Amerikaners xenofobies genoeg is om versigtig te wees vir die onbekende kandidaat.

'N Onafhanklike kandidaat kan egter 'n dramatiese impak hê op die uitslag van die verkiesing sonder dat dit werklik is.


Aangehaal: Brown, Gene. H. Ross Perot: Texas Billionaire. Vero Beach: Rourke Enterprises,
Inc, 1993.
Goldman, Peter en Tom Mathews. "Die Manhattan -projek". Newsweek (Spesiaal
Verkiesingsuitgawe) November/Desember, 1992
Jackson, David. "Derde party se kanse word bepaal" Dallas Morning News. 5 November 1992.
Mazmanian, Daniel A. Derde partye tydens presidentsverkiesings. New York: Franklin
Watts, 1974.
Murr, Andrew. "Superheld". Newsweek (spesiale verkiesingsuitgawe) November/Desember,
1992
Robinson, James W., red. Ross Perot praat uit. Rocklin: Prima Publishing, 1992.


'N Geskiedenis van derde partye en onafhanklike presidentskandidate

Terwyl presidensiële kandidate van derde partye gewoonlik slegs klein gedeeltes van die algemene stemme wen, word hulle dikwels die skuld gegee dat hulle die uitslag van die verkiesing verander het. Hierdie persepsie kan baie maklik opgelos word met 'n gekose keuse -stemming (RCV), hetsy in state vandag volgens statuut of vir die nasionale volksstem deur nasionale optrede.

Selfs voor die vaste stigting van die moderne Demokratiese en Republikeinse partye, was daar baie derdepartykandidate wat buite die tipiese partystruktuur deelgeneem het. Hierdie derde party -kandidate ontvang gewoonlik 'n klein deel van die algemene stemme en geen stemme van die kieskollege nie, alhoewel daar talle uitsonderings is.

In Julie van die presidentsverkiesingsjare vergader die Demokratiese Nasionale Konvensie en die Republikeinse Nasionale Konvensie om hul genomineerdes te kies. Baie minder bekende partye ontmoet egter ook en benoem 'n kandidaat. Vandag is die Libertariese en Groen partye die bekendste om dit te doen, maar histories het 'n handjievol ander partye, waaronder die Grondwet, Verbod, Staatsregte, Populistiese en Sosialistiese partye, byeenkomste gehou om 'n presidensiële en vise-presidensiële genomineerde te stuur na die stembrief.

Aangesien die oorheersende tweepartstelsel versterk het, het geen derdepartykandidate 'n presidentsverkiesing gewen nie. Tog het hulle histories 'n kritieke rol gespeel om groot partye te dwing om aandag te gee aan die kwessies waaroor mense die meeste omgee. As ons tydens ons vorige 58 Amerikaanse presidentsverkiesings 'n keuse gemaak het, sou ons geskiedenis van presidente waarskynlik anders lyk. Ons sal ons uiteenlopende geskiedenis van kandidate van derde partye ondersoek wat, hoewel hulle nie die presidentskap gewen het nie, die uitkoms dikwels beïnvloed het.

In die laaste presidentsverkiesing het maar liefst 32 kandidate om die presidentskap meegeding, waarvan die minste mededingend landwyd slegs 332 stemme gekry het.

Libertarian Gary Johnson, voormalige goewerneur van New Mexico, het 3,3 persent van die stemme gekry. Alhoewel dit dalk nie belangrik lyk nie, het hy bykans 4,4 miljoen stemme gekry, meer as 'n miljoen meer as die totaal waarmee Hillary Clinton die gewilde stem gewen het. Net so het Jill Stein van die Groen Party 1,1 persent van die stemme gekry, wat haar die eerste plek in die vierde plek gemaak het wat die punt van een miljoen stemme sedert 1948 oortree het.

14 state is gewen met minder as die helfte van die stemme, met die helfte van die state wat Clinton gewen het en die helfte deur Trump - insluitend slagvelde soos Arizona, Florida, Michigan, Pennsylvnia en Wisconsin. Alhoewel dit met die eerste oogopslag lyk asof sy die president van Johnson en Stein was, sou sy president wees, maar ons moet onthou dat nie alle sulke kiesers almal vir Clinton sou gestem het nie. Baie Johnson -kiesers het moontlik eerder vir Donald Trump gestem, gegewe die ideologiese nabyheid van libertarianisme en konserwatiewe ekonomiese standpunte en Johnson se twee termyne as 'n Republikeinse goewerneur van New Mexico.

'N Meer waarskynlike scenario sou 'n kombinasie van die kiesers van Stein en Johnson vir Clinton gestem het, alhoewel ons nooit 'n definitiewe gevolgtrekking kan maak oor die moontlike uitkoms nie omdat RCV nie bestaan ​​het nie. Wat ons kan sê, is dat die verkiesingsuitslae moontlik anders sou kon gewees het, aangesien nie een van die kandidate 50 persent van die stemme bereik het nie.

Net soos die 2016 -verkiesing, het die kandidaat wat die gewilde stem gewen het, nie die verkiesing gewen nie. Omdat die Republikein George W. Bush in die kieskollege met slegs vier stemme gewen het en die belangrikste slagveld van Florida met slegs 537 stemme gewen het, speel derde partye wel 'n rol in die uitslag. In totaal het kandidate van derde partye 138,063 stemme in Florida gekry, terwyl die Groen Party se Ralph Nader meer as 97,488 van die stemme gekry het. As kiesers in Florida die geleentheid gehad het om hul stemme te rangskik, het die finale uitslae in die staat heel anders gelyk.

Bill Clinton het die verkiesings van 1996 en 1992 gewen met minder as vyftig persent van die stemme, wat RCV bedoel is om te voorkom. In hierdie verkiesingsjare het Ross Perot van die Hervormingsparty suksesvolle veldtogte gevoer, met onderskeidelik 18,7 persent en 9,2 persent. Alhoewel die idees van die Hervormingsparty nouer aansluit by die Republikeinse platform, dui onafhanklike ontledings aan dat Perot ewe veel van Republikeine en Demokrate getrek het. Daarom kan ons nie beslis sê dat die verkiesingsuitslae anders sou gewees het as RCV geïmplementeer was nie - maar ons kan sê dat in 1992 slegs 'n enkele staat (Clinton se tuisstaat Arkansas) met meer as die helfte van die stemme gewen is.

Perot is op Dinsdag 9 Julie oorlede en is die suksesvolste derdepartykandidaat in die moderne Amerikaanse geskiedenis.

John B. Anderson, medestigter van FairVote, het die jaar begin as 'n Republikeinse kandidaat wat 20 jaar lank in die kongres gedien het. Nadat Ronald Reagan die oorhand in die benoeming gekry het, het Anderson die party verlaat om as onafhanklike kandidaat te wees om sy tradisie as 'Rockefeller Republikein' te handhaaf. Hy het vroeg meer as 20 persent ondervra en 'n rol in een debat gekry, maar uiteindelik 6,6 persent gewen - meer as ses keer die totaal vir die Libertarian Party -kaartjie wat David Koch insluit, een van die twee Koch -broers wat 'n groot rol gespeel het in Republikeinse politiek die afgelope jare. Reagan het meer as 50 persent op nasionale vlak gewen, maar slegs 26 state is gewen met meer as die helfte van die stemme.

Hierdie verkiesing was anders as wat voorheen in die land gesien is. George Wallace, algemeen bekend vir sy aanhaling, "Segregasie nou, segregasie môre, segregasie vir ewig", het met die Amerikaanse Onafhanklike Party gehardloop omdat sy voor-segregasiebeleid deur die hoofstroom van die Demokratiese Party verwerp is.

Wallace, met 12,9 persent van die algemene stemme, het uiteindelik vyf suidelike state gewen en 46 kieskollege -stemme gekry. Republikein Richard Nixon het 43,2 persent van die algemene stemme gewen, maar 56,1 persent van die kieskollege, demokraat Hubert Humphrey, het 42,6 persent van die gewilde stemme gekry, maar slegs 35,5 persent van die kieskollege.

Daar moet op gelet word dat Wallace nie verwag het om die verkiesing te wen nie, maar sy strategie was om te verhoed dat een van die groot partykandidate 'n voorlopige meerderheid in die kieskollege sou wen. Hy het sy kiesers belowe om nie noodwendig vir hom te stem nie, maar vir wie hy hulle ook al moes ondersteun. Sy doel was nie om die verkiesing in die Amerikaanse Huis van Verteenwoordigers in te skuif nie, maar eerder om homself die bedingingsmag te gee om die wenner te bepaal. Hoewel hy uiteindelik onsuksesvol was, het hy daarin geslaag om te keer dat geen van die partye 'n gewilde meerderheid van die stemme behaal nie. 'N Verandering van slegs 1,55 persent in Kalifornië sou Wallace die krag gegee het in die kieskollege wat hy gesoek het.

Na die verkiesing het die Republikeinse president Richard Nixon die kongres gedwing om die kieskollege af te skaf-met die steun van Hubert Humphrey-omdat Wallace probeer het om iets te doen wat die stigters nie sou verwag het nie.

Republikein Theodore Roosevelt het van 1901 tot 1909 as president gedien, en William Howard Taft het die Republikeinse presidensiële nominasie van 1908 gewen met steun van Roosevelt. Ontevrede oor Taft se optrede as president, daag Roosevelt Taft in 1912 uit.

Nadat hy die Republikeinse benoeming geweier is in 'n era voor die presidentsverkiesings, het Roosevelt sy progressiewe ondersteuners byeengekom en 'n derdeparty -bod geloods. Roosevelt's Progressive Party, met die bynaam die 'Bull Moose Party', het die verkiesing verloor, maar was die suksesvolste derdeparty -bod in die geskiedenis en het 27,4 persent van die stemme gewen. Taft, die huidige president, presteer nie so goed nie en wen 23,7 persent. Die Sosialistiese Party het ook vanjaar 'n suksesvolle wedloop behaal, aangesien die sosialistiese genomineerde Eugene V. Debs 6 persent behaal het.

Vier kandidate het beduidende golwe gemaak tydens hierdie verkiesing. In een moontlike scenario met RCV sou Debs uitgeskakel gewees het en sy tweede keuse stemme sou aan Roosevelt of Wilson gegaan het. Dan sou Taft uitgeskakel word, en sy tweede keuse stemme sou waarskynlik nie na Woodrow Wilson (wat uiteindelik gewen het) gegaan het nie, maar eerder na Roosevelt. Die resultate kon klaarblyklik drasties anders gewees het.

Dit is veral opmerklik dat die praatjies oor die keuse van 'n tweede keuse na hierdie verkiesing aansienlik gegroei het, terwyl die Nebraska Bull Moose Party dit eintlik op sy amptelike platform onderskryf het (sien bladsy 139 van die skakel).

In 1891 vergader die American Farmers 'Alliances met afgevaardigdes van arbeids- en hervormingsgroepe in Cincinnati, Ohio, om die stigting van 'n nuwe politieke party te bespreek. Hulle stig die People's Party, algemeen bekend as die populiste. James B. Weaver van die Populistiese Party het vyf state gehad, wat 8,5 persent van die stemme gekry het, terwyl wenner Grover Cleveland 46 persent verdien het. As RCV geïmplementeer is, sou hierdie verkiesing 'n wenner met meerderheidsondersteuning gehad het.

In die verkiesing van 1860 het geen kandidaat 40 persent van die stemme bereik nie. In 'n tyd toe die land so verdeeld was, stem die stem ooreen met die politieke klimaat. Die Republikein Abraham Lincoln het die verkiesing gewen, maar die demokratiese kiesers was verdeel tussen die Noord -demokraat Stephen A. Douglas en die Suid -demokraat John C. Breckinridge. Saam het hulle 47,6 persent van die stemme gekry, aansienlik meer as Lincoln. John Bell van die Constitution Union het 12,6 persent gekry. Terwyl Lincoln slegs 39,7 persent van die nasionale algemene stemme gewen het, het hy wel meer as die helfte van die stemme in die noordelike state wat saam meer as die helfte van die kieskollege gehad het, gewen.

Alhoewel die keuse van stemgeregtigdes in die kieskollege -stelsel nie Lincoln se oorwinning en die gevolglike burgeroorlog sou verhinder het nie, kon dit 'n duideliker beeld gegee het van die foutlyne wat die land verdeel.

Die voormalige president van Whig, Millard Fillmore, wat op die platform van die Amerikaanse party was, het 21.5 persent van die stemme in hierdie verkiesing gewen en slegs Maryland gewen. Tweede keuse stemme kon óf die wenner, James Buchanan wat 45,3 persent verdien het, óf die naaswenner John Fremont, wat 33,11 persent gewen het, oor die meerderheidsmarge van 50 persent gedruk het.

Demokraat Martin Van Buren was president van 1837-1841. Nadat hy uit sy amp ontslaan is, het hy in 1848 'n mislukte veldtog as kandidaat vir die anti-slawerny Free Soil Party gevoer. Van Buren het meer as tien persent van die stemme gewen, wat die Whig -kandidaat (uiteindelike wenner Zachary Taylor) of die Demokratiese kandidaat Lewis Cass verhinder het om steun van die helfte van die kiesers in die land te verdien.

In 1844 het kandidaat vir slawerny James K. Polk geklop teen die sagte afskaffer Henry Clay en die harde afskaffing James Birney. Terwyl Polk uiteindelik die verkiesing gewen het, het Clay en Birney wel stemme verdeel. Dit het veral gebeur in New York, waar Birney 15,812 stemme gekry het, maar Polk het Clay met slegs 5,106 stemme geklop. As 'n gekose kiesstem in hierdie verkiesing geïmplementeer is, is dit heel moontlik dat die land 'n ander president sou verkies het, en die belangrikste, 'n ander benadering sou volg ten opsigte van slawerny. Hierdie stuk, deur professor Lawrence Lessig, lewer 'n uitstekende taak om hierdie verkiesing en ander te beskryf in die konteks van 'n gekose kiesstem. Polk het Clay in New York met 5 106 stemme geklop, maar Birney het 15 812 stemme gekry.

Nege en sestig Verkiesingskollege stem eenparig tot George Washington as president van die Verenigde State in 1788. Sedertdien het kandidate, politieke partye, kiesers en die weefsel van ons land aansienlik ontwikkel. Reeds in 1824 is John Quincy Adams deur die Huis van Verteenwoordigers as president gekies nadat hy slegs 31 persent van die algemene stemme verdien het, vergeleke met Andrew Jackson se 41 persent.


Inhoud

Sedert die begin van die heropbou het die blanke kiesers in die suide die Demokratiese Party ondersteun met oorweldigende marges in beide plaaslike en nasionale verkiesings (die enkele uitsonderings sluit in klein sakke van Republikeinse kieskrag in veral Appalachia, veral Oos -Tennessee, Gillespie en Kendall County in Sentraal -Texas) vorm die sogenaamde "Solid South". Selfs gedurende die afgelope jare van heropbou het die Demokrate paramilitêre opstandelinge en ander aktiviste gebruik om die Republikeinse vryman -kiesers te ontwrig en te intimideer, insluitend bedrog by die stembusse en aanvalle op hul leiers. Die verkiesingsgeweld het uitgeloop op die feit dat die Demokrate weer beheer oor die staatswetgewers gekry het en nuwe grondwette en wette van 1890 tot 1908 aangeneem het om die meeste swartes en baie arm blankes uit die stryd te bring. Hulle het ook Jim Crow opgelê, 'n kombinasie van wettige en informele segregasiehandelinge wat swartes van tweederangse burgers gemaak het, wat hul gebrek aan politieke mag in die grootste deel van die suide van die Verenigde State bevestig. Die sosiale en ekonomiese stelsels van die vaste suide was gebaseer op hierdie struktuur, alhoewel die blanke demokrate al die sitplekke van die kongres behou het wat vir die totale bevolking van hul state toegedeel is. [5]

Drie keer die presidensiële kandidaat van die Demokratiese Party, William Jennings Bryan, het gekant teen 'n hoogs omstrede resolusie tydens die Demokratiese Nasionale Konvensie van 1924 waarin die Ku Klux Klan veroordeel word, en verwag dat die organisasie binnekort sou verdwyn. Bryan hou nie van die Klan nie, maar het dit nooit in die openbaar aangeval nie. [6]

In die dertigerjare het 'n politieke herskikking grootliks plaasgevind as gevolg van die New Deal -beleid van president Franklin D. Roosevelt. Terwyl baie Demokrate in die Suide beweeg het na die bevordering van ekonomiese ingryping, [ aanhaling nodig ] burgerregte vir Afro -Amerikaners is nie spesifiek opgeneem in die New Deal -agenda nie, deels as gevolg van suidelike beheer oor baie belangrike magsposisies binne die Amerikaanse kongres.

Met die toetrede van die Verenigde State tot die Tweede Wêreldoorlog, is Jim Crow indirek uitgedaag. Twee miljoen swart Amerikaners sou tydens die Tweede Wêreldoorlog in die Amerikaanse weermag dien [ aanhaling nodig ], waar hulle gelyke loon ontvang het terwyl hulle binne gesegregeerde eenhede diens gedoen het, en net so geregtig was om veteraanvoordele na die oorlog te ontvang. Tienduisende swart burgerlikes by die huis is gewerf in die arbeidshonger oorlogsbedrywe in baie stedelike sentra in die land, hoofsaaklik as gevolg van die bevordering van Uitvoerende Orde 8802, wat vereis dat verdedigingsbedrywe nie diskrimineer op grond van etnisiteit of ras nie.

Lede van die Republikeinse Party (wat die goewerneur van New York Thomas E. Dewey in 1944 en 1948 benoem het), saam met baie demokrate uit die noordelike en westelike state, ondersteun burgerregte -wetgewing wat die Deep South Democrats in die kongres byna eenparig teëgestaan ​​het. [7] [8]

Nadat Roosevelt gesterf het, het die nuwe president, Harry S. Truman, 'n baie sigbare presidentskomitee vir burgerregte gestig en uitvoerende bevel 9981 uitgevaardig om diskriminasie in die weermag in 1948 te beëindig. 'N Groep suidelike goewerneurs, waaronder Strom Thurmond van South Carolina en Fielding L. Wright van Mississippi, vergader om die plek van Suid -Afrikaners binne die Demokratiese Party te oorweeg. Na 'n gespanne ontmoeting met die voorsitter van die Demokratiese Nasionale Komitee (DNC) en Truman -vertroueling J. Howard McGrath, het die suidelike goewerneurs ingestem om hul eie konvensie in Birmingham byeen te roep as Truman en burgerregte -ondersteuners die 1948 Demokratiese Nasionale Konvensie sou wen. [9] In Julie het die konvensie Truman genomineer om vir 'n volle termyn te staan ​​en 'n plank aangeneem wat deur Noordelike liberale voorgestel is onder leiding van Hubert Humphrey waarin burgerregte gevra is, waar 35 suidelike afgevaardigdes uitstap. Die stap was om Truman se naam uit die stembrief in die suide van die Verenigde State te verwyder. Hierdie politieke maneuver het die organisasie van 'n nuwe en duidelike politieke party vereis, wat die suidelike afvalliges van die Demokratiese Party gekies het om te noem as die Demokratiese Party van die State se Regte.

Slegs dae na die Demokratiese Nasionale Konvensie van 1948 het die State's Rights Democrats op 17 Julie hul eie byeenkoms by die Municipal Auditorium in Birmingham, Alabama, gehou. [10] Terwyl verskeie leiers uit die diep suide soos Strom Thurmond en James Eastland dit bygewoon het, het die meeste groot Suid -Demokrate het nie die konferensie bygewoon nie. [11] Onder die afwesiges was die senator van Georgia, Richard Russell Jr., wat met die tweede afgevaardigdes in die Demokratiese presidensiële stembrief klaar was. [11]

Voor die konvensie van hul Demokratiese Party in die Verenigde State se regte was dit nie duidelik of die Dixiecrats hul eie kandidaat sou wou aanbied of net wou keer dat Suidelike kiesers vir Truman stem nie. [11] Baie pers het voorspel dat as die Dixiecrats 'n kaartjie sou benoem, die goewerneur van Arkansas, Benjamin Travis Laney, die presidentskandidaat sou wees, en die goewerneur van Suid -Carolina Strom Thurmond of goewerneur Mississippi Fielding L. Wright die vise -benoemde. [11] Laney het tydens die byeenkoms na Birmingham gereis, maar hy het uiteindelik besluit dat hy nie by 'n derde party wou aansluit nie en het tydens die byeenkoms in sy hotel gebly. [11] Thurmond het self twyfel oor 'n derdeparty-bod, maar partyorganiseerders het hom oortuig om die nominasie van die party te aanvaar, met Fielding Wright as sy hardloopmaat. [11] Wright se ondersteuners het gehoop dat Wright die kaartjie sou lei, maar Wright het uitgestel na Thurmond, wat 'n groter nasionale gestalte gehad het. [11] Die keuse van Thurmond het taamlik positiewe resensies van die nasionale pers gekry, aangesien Thurmond 'n relatief matige beleid oor burgerregte gevolg het en nie die vurige retoriek gebruik wat ander segregasie -leiers gebruik het nie. [12]

Die State's Rights Democrats het hulself nie formeel verklaar as 'n nuwe derde party nie, maar het eerder gesê dat hulle slegs 'aanbeveel' dat staatsdemokratiese partye vir die Thurmond-Wright-kaartjie stem. [11] Die doel van die party was om die 127 verkiesingsstemme van die Solid South te wen, in die hoop om Truman of Dewey 'n algehele meerderheid van die stemme te weier, en sodoende die verkiesing na die Amerikaanse Huis van Verteenwoordigers te gooi. [11] Toe hulle in die huis was, het die Dixiecrats gehoop om hul steun te gee aan watter party ook al sou saamstem met hul segregasie -eise. [11] Selfs as die Republikeinse kaartjie 'n volstrekte meerderheid van die stemme sou behaal (soos baie in 1948 verwag het), het die Dixiecrats gehoop dat hul derdeparty-ren die Suide sou help om sy dominante posisie in die Demokratiese Party te herwin. [11] By die implementering van hul strategie het die State's Rights Democrats 'n ingewikkelde stel staatsverkiesingswette in die gesig gestaar, met verskillende state wat verskillende prosesse gehad het vir die keuse van presidentskiesers. [11] Die Verenigde State se regte-demokrate het uiteindelik daarin geslaag om die Thurmond-Wright-kaartjie die amptelike Demokratiese kaartjie in Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi en Suid-Carolina te maak. [13] In ander state moes hulle as 'n derdepartykaartjie hardloop. [13]

In numbers greater than the 6,000 that attended the first, the States' Rights Democrats held a boisterous second convention in Oklahoma City, on August 14, 1948, [14] where they adopted their party platform which stated: [15]

We stand for the segregation of the races and the racial integrity of each race the constitutional right to choose one's associates to accept private employment without governmental interference, and to earn one's living in any lawful way. We oppose the elimination of segregation, the repeal of miscegenation statutes, the control of private employment by Federal bureaucrats called for by the misnamed civil rights program. We favor home-rule, local self-government and a minimum interference with individual rights.

The platform went on to say: [15]

We call upon all Democrats and upon all other loyal Americans who are opposed to totalitarianism at home and abroad to unite with us in ignominiously defeating Harry S. Truman, Thomas E. Dewey and every other candidate for public office who would establish a Police Nation in the United States of America.

In Arkansas, Democratic gubernatorial nominee Sid McMath vigorously supported Truman in speeches across the state, much to the consternation of the sitting governor, Benjamin Travis Laney, an ardent Thurmond supporter. Laney later used McMath's pro-Truman stance against him in the 1950 gubernatorial election, but McMath won re-election handily.

Efforts by States' Rights Democrats to paint other Truman loyalists as turncoats generally failed, although the seeds of discontent were planted which in years to come took their toll on Southern moderates.

On election day in 1948, the Thurmond-Wright ticket carried the previously solidly Democratic states of Alabama, Louisiana, Mississippi, and South Carolina, receiving 1,169,021 popular votes and 39 electoral votes. Progressive Party nominee Henry A. Wallace drew off a nearly equal number of popular votes (1,157,172) from the Democrats' left wing, although he did not carry any states. The splits in the Democratic Party in the 1948 election had been expected to produce a victory by GOP nominee Dewey, but Truman defeated Dewey in an upset victory.

The States' Rights Democratic Party dissolved after the 1948 election, as Truman, the Democratic National Committee, and the New Deal Southern Democrats acted to ensure that the Dixiecrat movement would not return in the 1952 presidential election. Some Southern diehards, such as Leander Perez of Louisiana, attempted to keep it in existence in their districts. [16] Former Dixiecrats received some backlash at the 1952 Democratic National Convention, but all Southern delegations were seated after agreeing to a party loyalty pledge. [17] Moderate Alabama Senator John Sparkman was selected as the Democratic vice presidential nominee in 1952, helping to boost party loyalty in the South. [17]

Regardless of the power struggle within the Democratic Party concerning segregation policy, the South remained a strongly Democratic voting bloc for local, state, and federal Congressional elections, but increasingly not in presidential elections. Republican Dwight D. Eisenhower won several Southern states in the 1952 and 1956 presidential elections. In the 1956 election, former Commissioner of Internal Revenue T. Coleman Andrews received just under 0.2 percent of the popular vote running as the candidate of the States' Rights Party. [18] In the 1960 presidential election, Republican Richard Nixon won several Southern states, and Senator Harry F. Byrd of Virginia received the votes of several unpledged electors from Alabama and Mississippi. In the 1964 presidential election, Republican Barry Goldwater won all four states that Thurmond had carried in 1948. In the 1968 presidential election, Republican Richard Nixon or third party candidate George Wallace won every former Confederate state except Texas.


Inhoud

Different electoral systems have different levels of vulnerability to vote splitting.

Plurality voting Edit

Vote splitting most easily occurs in plurality voting because the ballots gather only the least bad preference of the voter. [7] In the United States vote splitting commonly occurs in primary elections. [6] The purpose of primary elections is to eliminate vote splitting among candidates in the same party before the general election. If primary elections or party nominations are not used to identify a single candidate from each party, the party that has more candidates is more likely to lose because of vote splitting among the candidates from the same party. Primary elections occur only within each party and so vote splitting can still occur between parties in the secondary election. In open primaries, vote splitting occurs between all candidates.

In addition to applying to single-winner voting systems (such as used in the United Kingdom, the United States and Canada), a split vote can occur in proportional representation methods that use election thresholds, such as in Germany, New Zealand and Turkey. In those cases, "fringe" parties that do not meet the threshold can take away votes from larger [ verduideliking nodig ] parties with similar ideologies.

Ordinal voting methods Edit

When ranked ballots are used, voters can vote for a minor party candidate as their first choice and indicate their order of preference for the remaining candidates, without regard to whether a candidate is in a major political party. For example, voters who support a very conservative candidate can select a somewhat-conservative candidate as their second choice, thus minimizing the chance that their vote will result in the election of a non liberal candidate.

Runoff voting is less vulnerable to vote splitting than is plurality voting, but vote splitting can occur in any round of runoff voting.

Vote splitting rarely occurs when the chosen electoral system uses ranked ballots and a pairwise-counting method, such as a Condorcet method. [6] Pairwise counting methods do not involve distributing each voter's vote between the candidates. Instead, pairwise counting methods separately consider each possible pair of candidates for all possible pairs. For each pair of candidates, there is a count for how many voters prefer the first candidate (in the pair) to the second candidate and how many voters have the opposite preference. The resulting table of pairwise counts eliminates the step-by-step distribution of votes, which facilitates vote splitting in other voting methods.

Voting methods that are vulnerable to strategic nomination, especially those that fail independence of clones, are vulnerable to vote splitting. Vote splitting also can occur in situations that do not involve strategic nomination, such as talent contests (such as Amerikaanse Idol) in which earlier rounds of voting determine the current contestants.

Cardinal voting methods Edit

Cardinal voting methods require an independent score to be given to candidates, as opposed to a ranking. The three primary methods are approval voting, with a range between 0–1, score voting with an arbitrary range, and STAR voting.

All cardinal voting methods are immune to vote splitting, as each candidate is evaluated independently of each other candidate.

  • When the cities of Fort William and Port Arthur merged and (in 1969) voted on a name for the new town, the vote was split between the popular choices of "Lakehead" and "The Lakehead", allowing the third option to win, creating the town of Thunder Bay, Ontario. [8]
  • In 1987, Roh Tae-woo won the South Korean presidential election with just under 36% of the popular vote because his two main rivals split the vote.
  • In the 1992 and 1996 United States presidential elections the conservative vote was split by Ross Perot, allowing Democratic candidate Bill Clinton to win with a minority of the popular vote.
  • In the 2000 United States presidential election, spoiler candidate Ralph Nader is believed to have split votes away from Democratic candidate Al Gore, contributing to the victory of Republican candidate George W. Bush. [9]
  • In the 2000 presidential election in Taiwan, James Soong left Kuomintang (KMT) party and ran as an independent against KMT's candidate Lien Chan. This caused vote-splitting among KMT voters and resulted in victory for Democratic Progressive Party's candidate, Chen Shui-bian. It is the first time in Taiwan history that the KMT did not win a presidential election, and it became the opposition party.
  • In the 2002 presidential election in France, the left-wing vote was fragmented among the Socialist Party and several smaller parties, relegating the most successful left-wing candidate, Lionel Jospin, to third place, and precipitating a runoff between two right-wing candidates, incumbent president and RPR candidate Jacques Chirac, and FN candidate Jean-Marie Le Pen. The total vote for the two candidates advancing to the runoff totaled less than forty percent of the votes cast in the first round.
  • In the special 2003 California gubernatorial race won by Republican Arnold Schwarzenegger, which did not involve a primary election and which listed 135 candidates on the ballot, concerns about vote splitting caused the Democrats to withdraw all but one of their major candidates and the Republicans to withdraw most of their candidates. Likewise, many supporters of Republican Tom McClintock changed their mind at the last minute and voted for Schwarzenegger for fear of the Democratic candidate, Cruz Bustamante, winning.
  • From 1993 to 2004, the conservative vote in Canada was split between the Progressive Conservatives and the Reform (later the Alliance) Party. That allowed the Liberal Party to win almost all seats in Ontario and to win three successive majority governments.
  • Similarly, in Quebec, it is argued that the success of the Bloc Québécois in elections from 1993 to 2008 was because of the federalist vote being split between the Liberals and the Conservatives.
  • In the 2004 Philippine presidential election, those who were opposed to Gloria Macapagal Arroyo's presidency had their vote split into the four candidates, thereby allowing Arroyo to win. The opposition had film actor Fernando Poe, Jr. as its candidate, but Panfilo Lacson refused to give way and ran as a candidate of a breakaway faction of the Laban ng Demokratikong Pilipino. Arroyo was later accused of vote-rigging.
  • In the 2010 special election for the 1st congressional district of Hawaii, the Republican Charles Djou won against Democrats Colleen Hanabusa and Ed Case.
  • In the 2012 Egyptian presidential election, the two candidates who qualified for the runoff election, Freedom and Justice Party candidate Mohamed Morsi (24.8%) and the independent candidate Ahmed Shafik (23.7%), each received more votes than any other candidate, but they failed to get enough votes to prove that each winning candidate was actually more popular than the Dignity Party candidate Hamdeen Sabahi (20.7%), the independent candidate Abdel Moneim Aboul Fotouh (17.5%), or the independent candidate Amr Moussa (11.1%).
  • In the 1994 European Elections, Richard Huggett stood as a "Literal Democrat" candidate for the Devon and East Plymouth seat, with the name playing on that of the much larger Liberal Democrats. Huggett took over 10,000 votes, and the Liberal Democrats lost by 700 votes to the Conservative Party. The Registration of Political Parties Act 1998, brought in after the election, introduced a register of political parties and ended the practice of deliberately confusing party descriptions. [10]
  • In Australia, the 1918 Swan by-election saw the conservative vote split between the Country Party and Nationalist Party, which allowed the Australian Labor Party to win the seat. That led the Nationalist government to implement preferential voting in federal elections to allow Country and Nationalist voters to transfer preferences to the other party and to avoid vote splitting. [11] Today, the Liberal Party and National Party rarely run candidates in the same seats, which are known as three-cornered contests.

When three-cornered contests do occur the Labor Party would usually direct preferences to the Liberals ahead of the Nationals as they considered the Liberal Party to be less conservative than the Nationals. The 1996 Southern Highlands state by-election in New South Wales is an example of this when the Nationals candidate Katrina Hodgkinson won the primary vote but was defeated after preferences to Liberal candidate Peta Seaton when Seaton received Labor Party preferences. [12] [13] [14]

Die spoiler effect is the effect of vote splitting between candidates or ballot questions [n 1] who often have similar ideologies. One spoiler candidate's presence in the election draws votes from a major candidate with similar politics, thereby causing a strong opponent of both or several to win. [15] [16] [17] [18] The minor candidate causing this effect is referred to as a spoiler. [n 2] However, short of any electoral fraud, this presents no grounds for a legal challenge.

The spoiler effect is a problem in plurality voting systems because they enable a candidate to win with less than half of the vote.

The problem also exists in two-round system and instant-runoff voting [17] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] though it is reduced, because weaker spoilers are eliminated, however a candidate that can win head-to-head against all rivals (Condorcet winner) can still lose from third place in a 3 way vote split. Other preferential voting or ranked ballot voting systems also suffer from variations of the spoiler effect, as they fail the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) criterion (see § Mathematical definitions).

The problem does not exist in cardinal voting methods like approval voting, score voting, or majority judgment, since the rating of each candidate is independent of the ratings of other candidates.

Relationship with other effects Edit

The spoiler candidate takes votes away from a more viable [n 3] candidate or candidates, a common effect called vote splitting. If one opposing candidate is ideologically or politically similar and therefore receives far fewer votes than other opposing candidates to the spoiler candidate, vote splitting has a spoiler effect.

In some cases, even though spoiler candidates cannot win themselves, their influence upon the voters may enable the candidate to determine deliberately the more viable candidate who wins the election, a situation known as a kingmaker scenario. With a first-past-the-post voting system, that is particularly feasible when spoiler candidates recommend tactical voting or run on a false manifesto to bolster the prospects for their secretly-preferred candidate to win.

In a preferential voting system, voters can feel more inclined to vote for a minor party or independent as their first choice and can record a preference between the remaining candidates, whether they are in a major or established party or not. For example, voters for a minor left-wing candidate might select a major left-wing candidate as their second choice, thus minimizing the probability that their vote will result in the election of a right-wing candidate, or voters for an independent candidate perceived as libertarian, or simply as the voter prefers that ideology might select a particular libertarian candidate as their second choice, thus minimizing the probability of an authoritarian candidate being elected. Approval voting and proportional representation systems can also reduce the spoiler effect.

One of the main functions of political parties is to mitigate the effect of spoiler-prone voting methods by winnowing on a local level the contenders before the election. Each party nominates at most one candidate per office since each party expects to lose if they nominate more than one. [n 4] In some cases, a party can expect to "lose" by "suffering a rival elected opponent" if they nominate more than zero, where two opponents exist and one is considered a candidate they can "work with" — a party may prefer the candidate who would win if the party nominates zero. [n 5]

Thus, empirical observations of the frequency of spoiled elections do not provide a good measure of how prone to spoiling a particular voting method is, since the observations omit the relevant information about potential candidates who did not run because of not wanting to spoil the election.

Mathematical definitions Edit

Possible mathematical definitions for the spoiler effect include failure of the independence of irrelevant alternatives (IIA) axiom, and vote splitting.

Arrow's impossibility theorem states that rank-voting systems are unable to satisfy the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion without exhibiting other undesirable properties as a consequence. However, different voting systems are affected to a greater or lesser extent by IIA failure. For example, instant runoff voting is considered to have less frequent IIA failure than First Past the Post (also known as Plurality Rule). The independence of Smith-dominated alternatives (ISDA) criterion is much weaker than IIA unlike IIA, some ranked-ballot voting methods can pass ISDA.

A possible definition of spoiling based on vote splitting is as follows: Let W denote the candidate who wins the election, and let X and S denote two other candidates. If X would have won had S not been one of the nominees, and if (most of) the voters who prefer S over W also prefer X over W (either S>X>W or X>S>W), then S is a spoiler. Here is an example to illustrate: Suppose the voters' orders of preference are as follows:

33%: S>X>W 15%: X>S>W 17%: X>W>S 35%: W>X>S

The voters who prefer S over W also prefer X over W. W is the winner under Plurality Rule, Top Two Runoff, and Instant Runoff. If S is deleted from the votes (so that the 33% who ranked S on top now rank X on top) then X would be the winner (by 65% landslide majority). Thus S is a spoiler with these three voting methods.

Spoiler effect in American elections Edit

A 2014 analysis by Philip Bump for the Washington Post found that 1.5% of general election races in the U.S. from 2006 to 2012 were spoiled by third-party candidates. [24]

Historically, the Democratic and Republican parties have benefited from the alleged spoiler effect created by the existing U.S. plurality voting system. [25] [26] This benefit is based in the theory that not voting for other parties and for independents and that third parties and independent candidates themselves declining to run, means to avoid "wasting votes" or splitting the vote causing an election result not wanted.

There are third-party candidates who have been accused of denying victory to a major nominee in U.S. Presidential Elections a notable case among these is the 1912 election, where Progressive Party candidate Theodore Roosevelt won almost 700,000 votes more than did the Republican incumbent, William Howard Taft, [27] and thus it could be said that Taft was the spoiler for Roosevelt in that election. This argument worried Republicans, who, after Woodrow Wilson won the 1912 election, became concerned that Roosevelt might return to split the Republican vote again. [28]

In 1968, George Wallace ran for president as the American Independent Party's nominee. He received numerous votes from Southern demographics that typically voted for Democratic candidates, thereby undercutting the candidacy of that election's Democratic nominee, Hubert Humphrey. [29]

Bush, Gore, and Nader (2000 U.S. presidential election) Edit

The 2000 U.S. presidential election is often cited as an example of the spoiler effect. In that election, Al Gore, the Democratic candidate, received more popular votes than George W. Bush, the Republican candidate, but lost in the electoral college. In the state of Florida, the final certified vote count showed Bush with just 537 more votes than Gore. [30] Because Bush defeated Gore in Florida, he won the state, received more votes in the electoral college, and became president of the United States.

Gore supporters argued that had candidate Ralph Nader, a progressive, not run in the election, the majority of the 97,421 votes he received in Florida would have been cast for Gore. Thus, they contend that Nader's candidacy spoiled the election for Gore by taking away enough votes from Gore in Florida to swing the election to Bush. Their argument is bolstered by a poll of Nader voters, asking them for whom they would have voted had Nader not run, which said 45 percent of Nader voters would have voted for Gore, 27 percent would have voted for Bush, and the rest would not have voted. [31]

Nader himself and many of his supporters argued that most Nader voters would either have chosen another minor party candidate or abstained from voting, had Nader not been on the ballot. All other third-party candidates on the ballot in Florida received more than the 537 vote difference between Bush and Gore. [32] Still, some observers began to refer to the spoiler effect as the "Nader effect" after the 2000 election. [33] [34] [35] A 2006 study found that at least 40% of Nader voters in Florida would have voted for Bush if Nader had not run, while the other 60% would have voted for Gore. The study concluded that this 60% "did indeed spoil the 2000 presidential election for Gore but only because of highly idiosyncratic circumstances, namely, Florida’s extreme closeness." [36]

Other US elections Edit

  • In the 1884 presidential election, the Prohibition Party's presidential nominee, former Republican Governor John St. John, took 147,482 votes, with 25,006 votes coming from New York, where Grover Cleveland defeated James G. Blaine by just 1,149 votes, allowing Cleveland to defeat Blaine in a very close contest (219-182 in the electoral college and a margin of 0.57% in the popular vote). Republicans were so angered by St. John's party switch, which caused their first presidential election defeat since 1856, that on November 27, 1884, an effigy of St. John was burned in Topeka, Kansas in front of a crowd of three thousand people. [37]
  • In the 1934 Oregon gubernatorial election, Republican Peter Zimmerman ran as an independent, receiving 31.7% of the vote compared to Democratic victor Charles Martin's 38.6% and Republican nominee Joe Dunne's 28.7%. Altogether, the Republicans received 60.4% of the vote.
  • In the 1974 United States Senate election in Vermont, Patrick Leahy won the race by 3.09% over Richard W. Mallary while future Vermont senator Bernie Sanders got 4.13% of the vote. Had Mallary won Sanders voters instead, Leahy would've lost the election.
  • A similar trend was seen in the 1990 Oregon gubernatorial election when conservative activist Al Mobley ran as an independent and received 144,062 votes for 13.0% of the vote while in the same election Democrat Barbara Roberts defeated Republican David B. Frohnmayer by 64,103 votes.
  • In the 1992 presidential electionRoss Perot ran as an independent and due to his conservative beliefs was considered to be a spoiler candidate that cost George H. W. Bush the election. However, a 1999 study in the American Journal of Political Science estimated that Perot's candidacy hurt the Clinton campaign, reducing "Clinton's margin of victory over Bush by seven percentage points." [38] , a moderate Republican, ran in 1994 for Virginia's senate seat as an independent and received 235,324 votes for 11.44% while in the same election Democratic Chuck Robb defeated Republican Oliver North by 56,163 votes.
  • In 2008, Democrat Al Franken was elected the junior senator from Minnesota, defeating Norm Coleman by only 0.1%. Independent candidate Dean Barkley received over 15% of the vote, and a 2014 analysis by Tyd found that without Barkley in the race, Franken would have lost the election to Coleman. [39]
  • In 2010, Green Party candidate Bill Scheurer ran for Illinois 8th Congressional District against Democratic incumbent Melissa Bean. Republican Joe Walsh won the election in a surprising upset with only a 291-vote (0.1%) difference with Bean, while Scheurer received 6,494 votes (3.2%).
  • As a result of the 2011 Wisconsin protests and subsequent recall elections, the Wisconsin Republican Party has encouraged spoiler candidates to run in the recall elections on the Democrat ticket in order to force the Democrats into a primary election. Republicans argued that this would even the playing field in the recalls, as incumbents facing recall did not have the time to campaign due to their work load in the state senate. [40]
  • In Maine's 2010 and 2014 gubernatorial elections Eliot Cutler ran as a left-wing independent. In the 2010 election Paul LePage narrowly defeated him with 218,065 votes to 208,270 votes with the Democratic nominee Libby Mitchell receiving 109,387 votes and possibly spoiling the election for Cutler. However, in 2014 Cutler performed worse and only received 51,518 votes, but it was still greater than the difference between LePage and Mike Michaud causing a possible spoiler effect. These elections lead to an increase support in ranked choice voting leading to Maine adopting the voting system due to LePage's unpopularity and him winning twice only with pluralities. [41][42][43][44][45]
  • Several races in the 2014 election cycle were allegedly influenced by spoiler candidates, most notably Hawaii's gubernatorial elections and the Kansas senatorial race. In the Mississippi senatorial Republican primary, a paper candidate, Thomas Carey, who received less than two percent of the vote prevented both top contenders, incumbent Thad Cochran and challenger Chris McDaniel, from avoiding a runoff. Had the Carey not run, the race between McDaniel and Cochran would have avoided a runoff.
  • In both the 2013 Virginia gubernatorial election and the 2014 Virginia US Senate Election, Libertarian Robert Sarvis received a number of votes greater than the difference between the Republican and Democratic candidates. [46][47] Given the similarity in Republican and Libertarian views, it is likely that the Republican would have won each election if not for the inclusion of Sarvis on the ballot. [aanhaling nodig]
  • In the 2016 United States presidential election, Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson won over 4 million votes, including at the crucial states of Michigan, Wisconsin, Pennsylvania, Arizona, and Florida. Donald Trump had won those states by 4% over Hillary Clinton. If the voters had not voted for Johnson and voted for Clinton instead, Clinton would've won the electoral map by 5 states.
  • In the 2016 New Hampshire Senate election, conservative independent candidate Aaron Day won about 18,000 votes. Given his political leanings, it is likely that the vast majority of his voters otherwise would have voted for incumbent Senator Kelly Ayotte, who lost to Governor Maggie Hassan by about 1,000 votes, thus costing Ayotte reelection.
  • In the 2020-21 United States Senate election in Georgia, Libertarian Shane T. Hazel received 2.32% of the vote. Republican David Perdue had won a plurality of votes (49.73%) in the general election on November 3, but did not reach the required 50% to avoid a runoff election. Democrat Jon Ossoff who had won 47.95% of the vote in the November election then won the runoff election on January 5, 2021. If the voters that had voted for Hazel had instead voted for either Ossoff or Perdue in the race, Perdue or Ossoff would have won a majority and avoided a runoff election to hold the Senate seat.

Other countries Edit

In the German presidential election of 1925, Communist Ernst Thälmann refused to withdraw his candidacy although it was extremely unlikely that he would have won, and the leadership of the Communist International urged him not to run. In the second (and final) round of balloting, Thälmann won 1,931,151 votes (6.4%). Centre Party candidate Wilhelm Marx, backed by pro-republican parties, won 13,751,605 (45.3%). The right-wing candidate Paul von Hindenburg won 14,655,641 votes (48.3%). [48] If most of Thälmann's supporters had voted for Marx, Marx would have won the election. That election had great significance because after 1930, Hindenburg increasingly favoured authoritarian means of government, and in 1933, he appointed Adolf Hitler as chancellor. Hindenburg's death the following year gave Hitler unchecked control of the German government. [49]

In New Zealand, there have been two notable cases of the spoiler effect. In the 1984 general election, the free-market New Zealand Party deliberately ran for office to weaken support former Prime Minister Robert Muldoon, the incumbent. The 1993 general election saw the New Zealand Labour Party's vote split by The Alliance, which has been attributed to the vagaries of the plurality vote. In response to these problems, New Zealand has since adopted mixed-member proportional representation.

Likewise, in France, the 2002 presidential elections have been cited as a case of the spoiler effect: the numerous left-wing candidates, such as Christiane Taubira and Jean-Pierre Chevènement, both from political parties allied to the French Socialist Party, or the three candidates from Trotskyist parties, which altogether totalled around 20%, have been charged with making Lionel Jospin, the Socialist Party candidate, lose the two-round election in the first round to the benefit of Jean-Marie Le Pen, who was separated from Jospin by only 0.68%. Some also cite the case of some districts in which the moderate right and the far right had more than half of the votes together, but the left still won the election they accuse the left of profiting from the split.

In Hong Kong, vote splitting is very common for the pro-democracy camp, which caused it to suffer greatly in many elections, including the 2016 Hong Kong legislative election and the 2015 Hong Kong local elections. Pro-democracy supporters typically have different ideologies and suffer from factional disputes that are exacerbated after the advent of localist groups. However, many have wider aggregate support fewer seats are earned than the pro-Beijing camp, an example being in Kowloon East in which pro-democracy parties got over 55% of cast ballots but won only 2 seats out of 5.

In Canada, vote splits between the two major left-wing parties assisted the Conservative Party in winning the 2006, 2008, and 2011 federal elections, despite most of the popular vote going to left-wing parties in each race.

Also in Canada, the 2015 provincial election in Alberta saw the left-wing New Democratic Party win 62% of the seats with 40.6% of the province's popular vote after a division within the right-wing Progressive Conservative Party, which left it with only 27.8% of the vote, and its breakaway movement, the Wildrose Party, with 24.2% of the vote. In 2008, the last election in which the Progressive Conservative Party had been unified, it won 52.72% of the popular vote.

In Greece, Antonis Samaras was the Minister for Foreign Affairs for the liberal conservative government of New Democracy under Prime Minister Konstantinos Mitsotakis but ended up leaving and founding the national conservative Political Spring in response to the Macedonia naming dispute, resulting in the 1993 Greek legislative election where PASOK won with its leader Andreas Papandreou making a successful political comeback, which was considered to be responsible for the Greek government debt crisis.[1][2]

In the run up to 2019 UK General Election, the Brexit Party, led by former UKIP leader Nigel Farage, initially put up candidates in 600 seats after a strong showing for the newly formed party in the 2019 European Elections, but days later, he reversed his position after Conservative British Prime Minister Boris Johnson stated that he would not consider an electoral pact with the Brexit Party. That was seen as benefiting the Conservative Party and disadvantaging the Labour Party. [50] Farage later encouraged voters not to vote for the Labour Party in areas that traditionally favoured it but voted to leave in the 2016 EU Membership Referendum but instead to vote tactically. [51] After the Conservatives' decisive victory, it was suggested by some media outlets and political analysts that Farage had acted as "kingmaker" and stalking horse and effectively won the election for the Tories, as Farage's decision avoided splitting the vote. [52] [53]


Ross Perot was the most successful third-party candidate since Teddy Roosevelt — here's how he stacked up

Ross Perot influenced American presidential politics as the most successful third-party candidate to run since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

The billionaire philanthropist, whose death at 89 was announced Tuesday, won more than 18% of the vote in the 1992 race. At one point in the campaign, he was beating both the incumbent President George Bush and future President Bill Clinton in the polls.

No other third-party candidate had ever before even come in second, The New York Times reported at the time. Perot's impressive vote share was seen by some as tipping the election to Clinton, though there is little evidence for the claim, and political scientists have rebutted it in the years since.

Perot's outsider bid, inspired by his opposition to the federal deficit and U.S. trade policy, has influenced the way those issues are discussed today, historians say.

"Ross Perot was certainly the most influential political force in the late 20th century from outside the regular party system," said Allan Lichtman, a distinguished professor of history at American University. "I think what explains it is people's dissatisfaction — this is absolutely relevant to the appeal of Donald Trump — people's dissatisfaction with business as usual in Washington."

After his historic 1992 run, Perot attempted another bid four years later, but with less success. In that cycle, he received only about 8% of the popular vote.

In 2000, another third-party candidate, Ralph Nader, had an impact on the race between George W. Bush and Al Gore. Though Nader received less than 3% of the popular vote, the closeness of the race has led political scientists and observers to suggest he may have played a role in tilting the election to Bush.

Among the other third -arty candidates who performed well were Roosevelt, Robert La Follette in 1924 and George Wallace in 1968. While Roosevelt and La Follette pushed for progressive reforms, such as limits on the power of big business, Wallace advocated for southern segregationists.


Getting on ballots

The process to appear on the presidential ballot varies by state and depends on whether a candidate is the nominee of a party with enough history of support to have a slot on the ballot. For independents like Perot, the process involves collecting millions of signatures.

Ross Perot shows off his campaign’s hard work: boxes of some 40,000 signatures to put him on the Kentucky primary ballot in 1992. (© Rob Carr/AP Images)

It’s hard. State laws adopted by one or both of the major parties control the process. “And they don’t want it to be easy,” Lieberman said, referring to the two major parties.

Similarly, winning a slot in the presidential debates — an important way to reach voters — is a hurdle. Candidates have to gain 15 percent support in polls to participate. Perot’s role in the 1992 debates is the last instance of an outsider joining.

“It’s a vicious cycle,” Brown said. “Because they don’t poll well, they don’t have access to the debate, so they have trouble attracting support.”


Founded in 1971, the Libertarian party is the third largest political party in America. Over the years, Libertarian Party candidates have been elected to many state and local offices.

Libertarians believe the federal government should play a minimal role in the day-to-day affairs of the people. They believe that the only appropriate role of government is to protect the citizens from acts of physical force or fraud. A libertarian-style government would, therefore, limit itself to a police, court, prison system and military. Members support the free market economy and are dedicated to the protection of civil liberties and individual freedom.


List of third party and independent performances in United States elections

In the United States it is rare for third party and independent candidates, other than those of the six parties which have succeeded as major parties (Federalist Party, Democratic-Republican Party, National Republican Party, Democratic Party, Whig Party,), to take large shares of the vote in elections.

In the 59 presidential elections since 1788, third party or independent candidates have won at least 5.0% of the vote or garnered electoral votes 12 times (21%) this does not count George Washington, who was elected as an independent in 1788–1789 and 1792, but who largely supported Federalist policies and was supported by Federalists. Occasionally, a third party becomes one of the two major parties through a presidential election (the last time it happened was in 1856, when the Republicans supplanted the Whigs, who had withered and endorsed the ticket of the American Party): such an election is called a realigning election, as it causes a realignment in the party system according to scholars, there have been six party systems so far.

Only once has one of the two major parties finished third in a presidential election, when not the result of a realignment: in 1912, the Progressive Party, with former president Theodore Roosevelt as their presidential candidate obtained 88 electoral votes and surpassed the Republicans. [1] In fact, Roosevelt ran one of the most successful third-party candidacies in history but was defeated by the Democrat (Woodrow Wilson) and the Progressive party quickly disappeared while the Republicans re-gained their major party status. The last third-party candidate to win one or more states was George Wallace of the American Independent Party in 1968, while the most recent third-party candidate to win more than 5.0% of the vote was Ross Perot, who ran as an independent and as the standard-bearer of the Reform Party in 1992 and 1996, respectively.

In the 369 gubernatorial elections since 1990, third party or independent candidates have won at least 5.0% of the vote 53 times (14%), while six candidates have won election (2%). The most recent third party or independent governor to win was Alaska's Bill Walker, a Republican turned independent, in 2014.

In the 441 Senate elections since 1990, third party or independent candidates have won at least 5.0% of the vote 39 times (9%) two of those candidates (0.5%) have won, both in 2012 (Bernie Sanders and Angus King, who both decided to caucus with the Democrats Sanders received Democratic support during his 2006, 2012, and 2018 electoral campaigns). In 13 of the 41 races, one or the other of the major parties failed to nominate any candidate, allowing third-party candidates to perform better than usual.


Is ranked-choice voting constitutional?

In 2018, U.S. Rep. Bruce Poliquin, R-Maine, filed a lawsuit challenging the constitutionality of Maine&rsquos ranked-choice voting system, but the suit was eventually rejected by a federal judge. According to The Portland (Maine) Press Herald, U.S. District Court Judge Lance Walker wrote in his ruling that the plaintiffs are free to &ldquocall into question the wisdom of using [ranked-choice voting],&rdquo but that the &ldquocriticism falls short of constitutional impropriety,&rdquo ruling that the Constitution allows states their autonomy in choosing how to run elections. &ldquoA majority of Maine voters have rejected that criticism and Article I does not empower this Court to second guess the considered judgment of the polity on the basis of the tautological observation that [ranked-choice voting] may suffer from problems, as all voting systems do,&rdquo wrote Walker.

The original version of this story mischaracterized some of the terms describing how ranked-choice voting is implemented. The text has been clarified.

The original version of this story misstated the type of voting New York City will adopt. It will adopt instant-runoff voting.