What's REALLY Holding Back a Third Party in the US? | Explained

Why are there no alternative options in US politics? The majority of Americans believe both the Democrats and Republicans are doing such a bad job at representing them that a third major party is needed. But despite this, Americans that go to vote for someone else are often accused of throwing their vote away.

The voting system in the US puts minor parties at such a disadvantage that most presidential polling projections don’t even bother including them.

The last time the US had a President that wasn’t a Democrat or Republican was the 1850s. The US is pretty much the only major democracy in the world that is exclusively represented by just two political parties on a national level.

So, why is it so hard for a third party to succeed in the US? One major factor is the US pretty much exclusively decides its national elections by First Past the Post voting. In this system, whoever gets the most votes wins, which sounds about as democratic as you can get. But according to Duverger’s Law, almost always ends up leading to a two-party system, largely because of vote splitting.

The way that the US elects its President is a bit different to how it elects people to Congress, but it’s still pretty much First Past the Post with a twist: the Electoral College.

Instead of the winner needing the most votes, they need the most electoral votes and you get electoral votes by winning a state. Pretty much every state is decided by First Past the Post, and the result is ‘winner takes all’. So, it doesn’t matter if you win California by 4 percent or 40 percent, you get every single one of its 54 Electoral College votes.

To get an idea of how much harder this makes it for anyone that isn’t a Democrat or Republican, look no further than the most popular outsider candidate of the past 100 years, a guy called Ross Perot. In 1992, he managed to convince almost 20 million Americans to vote for him as an independent.

But winning almost 20 percent of the popular vote still translated to zero electoral college votes because he didn’t manage to win any states.

The more direct impact third-party candidates have in presidential elections is actually taking votes away from one side or the other, which is why third-party voters will sometimes get criticised during a close election. The most extreme example of this happened in 2000.

Both candidates needed Florida’s 25 electoral votes to win the Presidency and Republican George W Bush ended up winning the state by just 537 votes, 0.009 percent of the vote. Meanwhile 100-thousand people voted for the left-wing Greens candidate, Ralph Nader. If just a fraction of those votes had gone to the centre-left Democrat Al Gore, he would have become the President.

So, why does all of this matter and what’s the actual impact of living in a system where there's pretty much only 2 parties. Firstly, it limits representation. If you’re someone that doesn’t identify with either party, it’s easy to feel like your voice doesn’t matter. It also makes it more difficult for voters to respond to decisions made by their party. For example, if a number of Democrat voters aren’t happy with their party’s policies on the Middle East, they don’t really have many options, particularly if they disagree with the Republican party’s policies even more.

In comparison, let’s take a look at how a similar situation played out in Australia in 2022. Traditional liberal voters who weren’t happy with their party’s direction on issues like climate change but would never consider supporting Labor, decided to instead back a number of ‘teal’ independents who more closely lined up with their values.

The voters ended up with politicians that represented them without having to compromise. Another big side effect of an exclusively two-party system is that it can contribute to a more polarised and toxic political environment. If there’s no option C, parties only need to be the lesser of two evils. This doesn’t just lower the bar of expectations, it also incentivises parties to be negative because you just need to make your opponent look worse than you are.

Constant negativity makes things toxic, which makes compromise harder and the polarisation can begin to spiral. In a multi-party system, if all you do is attack, you might be successful at making another party look bad, but it doesn’t guarantee voters are going to vote for you instead. - Explainer by Nicholas Maher
__________________________________________

For the past 55 years, Behind the News has been helping to break down current issues and events for young people all around the world. The program is a high-energy, fun way for people to learn about the stories we see in the news while providing background information that isn’t usually given by other news bulletins. #ABCbtn

[nahommerk]

I think that's what should happen. Imagine have 3, 5 or even 10 parties competing for the people's votes. It will be less of the blame-game and name-calling and more of 'here's why you should vote for me!' I think that's a better path for everyone.

[souporwormgaming]

I will die on the hill that America needs more parties, and thus a voting system reform.

[thing]

I think that the people criticizing third-party voters are putting the blame on the wrong people. Instead of exerting their energy to make third-party voters vote for one of the two big parties, they should focus that energy on pressuring both parties to reform how our elections work so that the kind of situation that happened in 2000 never happens again.

[CasieAnn-qb]

The green and independent parties were not even on my ballot. Not even an option. Our voting system is so messed up.

[Smash_ter]

The focus is solely on the executive and that is the major issue. If a third party wants to succeed and gain more political clout they have to ditch the concept of running for presidency. Their main focus should be focused heavily on areas where the main opposition party fails to appeal or win votes. The senate races in Utah and Nebraska are two primary examples of where a third party does better than the other major party. When a Dem runs in Nebraska the votes are 2 Rs for 1 D, but for the Fischr and Osborn race every 11 Rs for 9 Is.

[nspencer]

Something that perpetuates the problem is that 3rd party candidate info is suffocated so hard. It's difficult to find information on the candidates, they get zero media coverage, and they aren't all on every state ballot but kind of sprinkled throughout. It almost feels like they are being hushed intentionally.

The 2 main candidates on the other hand - they are being thrown in your face so hard it makes you want to go off grid just to get away from the noise.

[fantasybaystore]

2:05 That is brilliant! I always hated our voting system. I find it ridiculous that a candidate can win most of the votes but still lose because they didn't get the right states. The idea of a whole state going to one color just because the majority picked it, never made sense to me. clearly America needs an update

[JumpingJiraffe]

In the case of Al Gores loss being credited towards the Green Party, I say it’s his fault for not appealing to the greens. Voters don’t owe anyone their vote, it needs to be earned

[MH-stvk]

Everyday I am more convinced that we in the USA don’t really have a choice. Democracy has ended a long time ago

[MeJustMe]

The more I saw the perspective of both the Republicans and Democrats, the more I saw why George Washington hated the 2 party system and was an Independent. Thanks ancestors.

[johnlisten]

How is this channel not more popular? Amazing video

[Freshgrxsses]

If there were a 3rd major party, a 28th amendment would have to be passed to allow the vote requirement to drop (to 180 instead of 270) i’m still very invested in altered views in politics and i honestly think its so fun thinking of how to country would be different if they were popular enough

[RedSixDown]

I voted 3rd party first time this year yeah as a US Citizen I want it change

[ericneering]

I wish everybody would watch this video so they can understand how their mind in America has been worked

[CommunistNo.]

The biggest issues are the 58% of we need a third party to not vote party one and two

[jasonzhao]

I totally agree the current system would motivate the candidates to attack on each other, however, I believe this also motivate the parties to have "less bad" candidate.

[Evapronouncedasver]

BTN always explains things so well, I wish we could watch this in class like we did in primary school ….. Ig I’ll ask my teachers if we can during homeroom

[carmi]

The two party system is the direct result of the electoral college (presidential elections), and more broadly the first past the post (Congress elections) A potential third party voter would rather vote the candidate they hate the least than seeing said vote wasted

[kash]

How can you classify a party as a third party?

[Idutuedmumdmjdrjmd]

I wish we had more options our choices suck