In crisis or thinking about suicide? Suicide & Crisis Lifeline: 988 (call or text) · Crisis Text Line: HOME → 741741 (text) · In immediate danger, call 911. More countries: findahelpline.com

Dissident Blog

Dissident Blog

What I'm Learning About Third Parties

By Hoto · · What I'm learning

Most Americans say they want a third major party. Almost none of them vote for one. I wanted to understand why, so I went and read. This is what I found, with the sources at the bottom and the uncertain bits marked.

My point is that third parties in the United States lose for structural reasons, not because their ideas are bad or their voters are foolish. Those structures can be changed, a few states have already changed them, and until they change, the most useful thing a third party can do is make the big two steal from it.

Why this matters to me is simple. Gallup has found for years that more Americans call themselves independents than Democrats or Republicans, and in 2023 a record 63 percent said the two parties do such a poor job that a third is needed, the highest since Gallup started asking in 2003. That is a lot of people who feel unrepresented by the only two doors they are allowed to walk through. Feeling unrepresented is bad for a country and, in my experience, bad for the people in it.

The wall, brick by brick

Here is what the evidence supports. Third parties in America run into at least five separate obstacles, and any one of them would be enough.

  • Winner takes all. Almost every US election gives the seat to whoever gets the most votes in a single district. A party that wins 20 percent everywhere wins nothing anywhere. In 1992 Ross Perot took nearly 19 percent of the national vote, the best independent showing in eighty years, and received zero electoral votes. A French political scientist, Maurice Duverger, noticed in the 1950s that this kind of system almost always settles into two parties, because voters learn not to waste a ballot. People call it Duverger's law. It is less a law than a very strong habit, but the habit holds.
  • Getting on the ballot. Democrats and Republicans are usually on the ballot automatically. Everyone else has to petition, state by state, under fifty different sets of rules about signatures, deadlines, and fees. Ballotpedia tracks the requirements, and they run from a few thousand signatures to well over a hundred thousand in the biggest states. A new party can spend most of its money and volunteers just earning the right to lose.
  • Sore-loser laws. In most states, if you lose a party primary you cannot run as an independent in the general election. That closes the most obvious path for a popular figure who falls out with their party.
  • The debate stage. From 2000 on, the Commission on Presidential Debates required 15 percent in national polls to get on stage. Perot got in during 1992 and was kept out in 1996. Nobody outside the two parties has cleared the bar since. In 2024 the campaigns bypassed the commission and set up debates with television networks directly, on similar terms, so the door stayed shut.
  • Money and the spoiler fear. Federal matching funds for the general election go to parties that got at least 5 percent last time, which almost none do. And donors and voters alike worry that a vote for a third candidate helps the major candidate they like least. Whether that fear is justified in any given race is a real question, which brings me to Florida.

About the spoiler argument

In 2000, Ralph Nader won around 97,000 votes in Florida, and George W. Bush carried the state, and with it the presidency, by 537. Democrats have not forgiven him. But here is the uncertain part: nobody knows how Nader's voters would have behaved without him. Studies of exit polls suggest a chunk would have stayed home and the rest would have split unevenly toward Gore, which probably still flips Florida, but "probably" is doing some work there. The honest version is that spoiling is real and rarer than the fear of it, and the fear does most of the damage on its own, by scaring people out of voting for what they actually want.

What third parties have done anyway

The historian Richard Hofstadter wrote that third parties are like bees: once they have stung, they die. The sting is the point. The Populists of the 1890s demanded a graduated income tax and the direct election of senators. Both are now in the Constitution, and the Populists are gone. Eugene Debs ran as a Socialist five times, peaking at 6 percent in 1912, and lived to see the big parties adopt pieces of his platform. Theodore Roosevelt's Progressives took 27 percent that same year and pushed both parties leftward for a generation. The Republican Party itself began as a third party in 1854, replaced the Whigs within six years, and is the only one ever to pull that off.

Closer to now, the wins are smaller and more local. Jesse Ventura was governor of Minnesota on the Reform Party line. Angus King and Bill Walker were independent governors of Maine and Alaska. In Nebraska in 2024, an independent mechanic named Dan Osborn ran for Senate with no party and lost by about seven points in a state Trump won by twenty. He is running again this year, and this time the Democrats stood down to clear his path. So did Democrats in Idaho and South Dakota. You can see all of it on the 2026 candidates page. That is a new pattern, and I do not know yet whether it is a fluke or a strategy.

The structures that are already changing

Three reforms get most of the attention, and each one already exists somewhere in the country.

  • Ranked-choice voting. You rank candidates instead of picking one. If your first choice is eliminated, your vote moves to your second. The spoiler problem mostly disappears. Maine uses it for federal elections, and Alaska uses a top-four primary with a ranked general election. Voters in Alaska narrowly kept the system in a 2024 repeal vote. On the other side, more than ten states have banned it outright, mostly on the argument that it confuses voters and slows counting.
  • Fusion voting. A small party nominates the same candidate as a major party, and the votes on both lines add together. The candidate sees exactly how many votes the small party delivered, and owes it something. New York and Connecticut have used it for a century, and Oregon allows it too. Look at this year's ballots: Jeff Merkley and Ned Lamont both appear on the Working Families line. It was legal almost everywhere until the 1890s, when the major parties banned it, which tells you they thought it worked.
  • Proportional representation. Multi-member districts where a party with 20 percent of the vote gets about 20 percent of the seats. This is how most democracies elect their legislatures. A 1967 federal law requires single-member House districts, so it would take an act of Congress, which is why it is the least likely of the three. A bill to do it, the Fair Representation Act, has been introduced and has not moved.

Who could be affected, and what might I be missing

The strongest counterpoint I found is that the two big parties are already coalitions. The Democratic Party contains people who would be three parties in Europe, and so does the Republican Party. Primaries are where the factions fight, and a motivated faction can capture a whole party, as Donald Trump showed in 2016 and Bernie Sanders nearly showed twice. On that view, a third party is a worse tool for change than a primary challenge, and the energy would be better spent inside.

There is also a fair warning from countries with proportional systems: more parties can mean coalitions that take months to form and fall apart in a year. Israel, Belgium, and the Netherlands have all had long stretches without a functioning government. Two parties is a crude system, but it usually produces a winner by morning.

And the people who bear the cost of a badly designed reform are not the reformers. Confusing ballots fall hardest on first-time voters, older voters, and voters working in a second language. Any change has to be measured by how it treats them, not by how clever it looks on paper.

One step I want to take

Mine is to find out, before November 3, whether my state allows fusion or ranked-choice voting, and if there is a ballot measure or a bill on either one, to learn who is behind it and who is against it. Yours could be the same. Or it could be smaller: look at the "also on the ballot" column for your state on the candidates page, pick one name you have never heard of, and spend ten minutes finding out what they want. Most of them will never win. A few of them are the bees.

Third parties do not lose because nobody agrees with them. They lose because the rules were written by the people they are running against.

For a fair summary of what the two big parties themselves stand for, there is a separate explainer that tries hard not to take a side. This post is not voting advice. It is me reading up, out loud.

Where the facts come from

Sources