Research Paper Interview: Future of Third Parties and Electoral Success
Miles R Andres, April 19, 2024
My name is Miles Andres and I am a current Master's student at the University of Texas at Austin researching the future of independent and third-party candidates in Texas. I am reaching out to invite you to participate in an interview as part of my research process.
A non-major party candidate has not been elected to any office in Texas since 1883. But today, more Texans are identifying as Independent than at any time in history. The findings from this research aim to contribute to a better understanding of the benefits and challenges associated with third-party candidacy. I believe that your perspective as a candidate would enrich the depth and breadth of this research significantly. Your participation would be greatly appreciated, and I am confident that your insights will add valuable insights to the study.
Below are the questions for the interview:
1. George Washington warned against political parties in his farewell address yet since 1797 we have had a total of five political parties ever elected to the presidency and the last non-major party to win an election was Millard Fillmore in 1850. Do you believe the two-party system is broken? If so, how can it be dismantled to improve opportunities for non-major candidates?
2. The 2016 presidential election saw the highest percentage of votes for non-major party candidates since Ross Perot's 8.4% in 1996. The last non-major party candidate to exceed 20% of the vote count was Theodore Roosevelt in 1912 running as a member of the Progressive Party. Do you see a day when a third-party or independent candidate could run for President of the United States and win?
Not only do I believe it possible, I believe that it's highly probable within the next few political cycles. We have already seen evidence of this possibility in the 2016 presidential election with [Democrat-leaning independent] Bernie Sanders' remarkable showing leading into the 2016 Democratic National Convention. At that point, young voters had not been as politically active since the early 1970s. In my assessment, these younger voters were eager to vote for someone - anyone - who believed in and promoted the issues that they had determined were important to them. But when Sanders was stripped of his nomination in favor of Clinton, many of these voters simply vanished - poof - because they felt that Clinton did not have the same conviction toward their issues that Sanders had. In the same campaign cycle, both the Libertarian's Gary Johnson and the Green Party's Jill Stein posted very respectable numbers given their handicap as alternate party candidates. As a statistician (by profession), I look at the past to gauge possibilities for the future, and as more of the American electorate starts to become more disenfranchised with the Old Parties' platforms and stated directions, I believe we will start seeing more political plurality in election results.
3. Throughout your campaign, what have you seen to be the biggest obstacles as a third-party/independent candidate?
The first obstacle I had to overcome, at least as a Texas candidate, was to pay a filing fee at the time that I registered with the Secretary of State's office in December to become a candidate. These fees are anything but nominal (e.g., mine, for a state office, was $750, and my friend's, for a federal office, was $5,000), but are only required for candidates "who are not nominated in a primary election". This covers everyone who is NOT a Democrat or Republican. Additionally, this non-refundable fee must be paid BEFORE any nominating convention, and so is lost to the candidate if they fail to secure their party's nomination.
The most pernicious obstacle to any alternate party or independent candidate, however, is campaign funding. No one questions that Old Party candidates have virtually bottomless campaign coffers from which to advertise their campaigns. As the idiom suggests, "he who has the loudest bullhorn is easiest heard", and their near-infinite funding allows advertising expenses to simply become a necessary evil instead of an insurmountable barrier. As a result, unless a candidate has the charisma and wealth of His Orangeness or the financial backing of His Blandness, the ability of alternate party or independent candidates to tell voters about their campaign platform and issues reaches a very narrow audience.
The final obstacle that alternative party and independent candidates have to deal with is the conditioned response of the American electorate to view any non-establishment candidate with suspicion and mistrust. For this, I'll use music as an analogy. When I was growing up, I initially listened to the same music to which my parents listened; what is now called "classic rock". As I grew up and branched out in my musical tastes, I stereotypically viewed people who listened to other to other formats as "hicks" (country music), as "nerds" (classical music), or as "simpletons" (popular music), and I viewed anyone who did not listen to rock music as "inferior" until I started to talk to them and realized that I was so very wrong. I see the current political climate as being similar to that music ideology. We usually grow up with the same political beliefs that our parents or respected elders had. Some people find other beliefs that they subsequently follow but continue to look on anyone outside of their "tribe" as inherently suspicious and unworthy of their consideration. This is probably the most difficult obstacle that any alternate party or independent candidate must overcome if they are to even have a small chance of success.
4. What do you believe is the path for a third-party or independent candidate to win in Texas?
I don't believe that there is a single path to success in Texas politics, just as I don't believe that there's a single path to travel between Dallas and Houston. Granted that some paths are more difficult to navigate than others, but I do not believe that any single path is absolute.
As Marines, we are taught that the path to any goal depends largely on one's resources and individual determination to travel that path. We are also taught that 'when (not "if") we succeed, understand that others may follow our path' and that 'obstacles are simply challenges to overcome with adaptation and improvisation'.
My current campaign is focused on the use of social media to reach my target audience; in this case, disenfranchised Old Party voters. Some of my companion candidates are following other paths. Collectively, we are trying every path that we can conceive and, at some point, ONE of us will succeed in being elected to their seat, and thus give the rest of us a likely path to follow. As Frost so eloquently stated, "And that has made all the difference."
5. In your opinion, what steps could be taken to level the playing field for third-party candidates and enhance political pluralism in the electoral system?
In construction, there are two predominant methods to creating a level space on uneven ground. The first is to measure the highest point and fill in the area surrounding that highest point until the ground becomes level. This typically involves the use of retaining walls or other supportive structures to hold the filled earth in place. The second method is to reduce the higher ground to the level of the surrounding field, thus achieving a more stable level space.
In politics, the first method would be difficult to achieve, especially when the higher ground actively resists your leveling efforts. But the second method would be easier to achieve. More to the point, the single, most equalizing idea I have is to remove the Old Parties' system of primary elections and require them to nominate their candidates in a convention, just like the rest of us are required to do. I believe that this single action, if enabled, will create the largest step toward leveling the playing field for all party or independent candidates.
6. Campaign contributions have become increasingly critical in building the infrastructure to win elections. Do you believe the sheer cost of running campaigns has become one of the biggest barriers to non-major candidates winning? If so, what would you propose as a solution?
I do believe that the exorbitant costs associated with executing a political campaign have been a key factor in preventing candidates from running, much less winning an election. This belief is reinforced by the media which, until Election Day and lacking any other prognostication methods, use sample polling data and publicly available campaign funding reports to suggest who may or may not achieve electoral success.
My suggestion: just as alternative party and independent candidates are required to pay a specified filing fee tied directly to the level of office, they are seeking simply to appear on the general election ballot, campaign funding (which is monitored by the Texas Elections Commission) should be capped at a specific amount that is also wholly dependent upon the level of office being sought. In addition to "leveling the playing field", this would also require at least some accountability toward where these funds are being spent. This limitation cap should also apply to political action committees (PACs) and political parties.
Please feel free to respond to as many or as few questions as you would like as well as add any information you would be willing to share.