This history is well done, but leaves out one crucial change that had a huge impact in the viability of smaller and newer parties: the elimination of fusion or cross-endorsement voting that state legislatures adopted starting in the 1890s. Before then, the obstacles for a smaller party were much lower--they had to agree on who they wanted to nominate and then circulate ballots with their candidates names on them. Parties printed their own ballots--then candidates won elections based on the total number of votes they received. Fusion is how the Populist Party grew after the Civic War, and it declined as soon as state legislatures--controlled by either Ds or Rs--decided to move to the Australian ballot, which we now refer to as the secret ballot, and they determined how who would get on the ballot, creating severe barriers to smaller parties and favoring the bigger ones. Without fusion (or proportional representation or other vote counting systems like IRV), smaller parties tend to have brief periods of popularity (and that's only when they are elevating a neglected issue that the major parties are ignoring) followed by being seen as spoilers, followed by turning into ballot lines controlled by a mix of ideologues and grifters.
Thanks for the feedback! I read a bit about this but hadn't seen the significance of it at the time. Will do some more research into it. I think that could, however, promote the idea voting reform as an important step in breaking the hold of the two legacy parties, given the impact it had in the past.
I admire the effort and detail put into this article. Third parties have long existed in the United States, but frankly I find this statement:
"History suggests that the Forward Party will be impactful in the short term"
To be just plain wrong. History suggests the Forward Party will have little to no impact on modern politics. Most 3rd party movements stem from single issues, or from a major party splitting. To use some of your examples:
The American Independence Party in 1968 ran on the issue of "States Rights" (nobody said the issue had to be good). The Party focused on the South, with the intent of capitalizing on regional dissatisfaction with the Civil Rights movement. The same could be said of the Dixiecrat rebellions in years past (where Southern Democrats attempted to prove to their Northern cousins that they needed the South to win: the ultimately proved that the South was unnecessary for the Democratic Party to win).
The Progressive Party in 1912 stemmed from a Progressive Republican (Theodore Roosevelt) challenging his Conservative fellow Republican. Future Progressive Parties (like Robert M La Follette) followed the same pattern: the GOP was a big tent party with many factions. The Progressives consistently felt underappreciated in their own party, and attempted to exert influence by breaking off from the Republican Party, and they had some success! They won some congressional elections, that's not nothing.
Other parties from the 19th century follow a similar pattern. The Republican Party originally formed via a combination of disaffected Whigs (who opposed slavery), Northern Democrats (who also opposed slavery), and Free Soilers. At the end of the day: the GOP absorbed the other minor parties, because the minor parties weren't viable unless they banned together.
The reality is the problem is not the two parties. The problem is the system which governs our elections. The US House operates under a "First Past the Post" Single member district system, the Senate is basically the same thing, and the President is elected separately. In this scenario: the two party system is a natural coping strategy for parties to exert power. Since a party with only 10-20% support is unlikely to gain much power in Congress (or win the Presidency) it makes more sense for those parties to band together in big tents. Unless the Forward Party is proposing to change the underlying structure: it's not offering a solution, it's just a placebo.
I agree that first past the post voting is the greatest obstacle to third parties right now.
The reason that I believe Forward Party’s strategy is different, and will be impactful, is because the party is pursuing voting reform instead of just running candidates.
To your first point about Forward being impactful, history does suggest that the party will have an impact in the short term. My point is more that if Forward uses this opportunity to pass voting reform rather than rise and fall with a presidential campaign like other movements, the party is likely to have a tremendous impact on American politics going forwards.
Why does history suggest Forward Party will be impactful? The most successful 3rd Parties typically follow some kind of single issue. The Free Soilers was a single issue party focused on combating slavery. Progressives were more than "single issue" but were quite ideological, and branched off the GOP. The American Independents were similar (in that they were a single issue branch off of the Democratic Party).
The Forward Party appears to be ground up, which I have no opinion on, and no base. They consistently emphasize that "Americans don't like having just two options" which is true, and I like their marketing. But the grassroots movement is...a movement to have a third option, with no specific idea on how to fix the system beyond its own existence. I just don't see it as compelling.
The reason I think that history suggests the party will be impactful - in the short term - is that a third party has emerged and made a brief impact every 20-30 years. So at the very least, I expect FWD to be very relevant for the next couple of years.
I find their strategy to be more compelling than other third parties because if they use this opportunity, which only comes every 25 years or so, to pass ranked-choice voting and open primaries rather than run a presidential campaign like every other party did, they could seize this chance to make permanent changes to our system that allow new parties to compete fairly.
FWD seems less about electoral success for themselves than they are about changing the system to allow new and other parties to break down our two party system.
I guess I don't agree. Just because historically third parties arise from time to time (about every 20-30 years) doesn't mean Forward will be said party. It's not like the successful parties you mentioned above were the only parties who ever arose. Most third parties fail.
I do think Forward is taking an interesting strategy, but just because a third party winds up being impactful every 20-30 years does not mean it will succeed.
I think that history suggests that Forward will have a degree of success comparable to other third parties of the past, meaning they will make an impact in the next few years. This does not necessarily suggest that they will be successful in establishing a new party, just that they will have a notable impact.
The reason I think they will succeed is because they are using this once every 20-30 year opportunity to pass voting reform, not win a presidential race.
If that momentum that comes every 30 years is used towards voting reform instead of a presidential run, I think this party has a much higher chance of success than other third parties of the past.
I just think your logic is circular. Even if it’s an iron clad law that third parties have disruptive opportunities every 30 years to change American politics: there’s no reason it has to be the Forward Party. In 1860 the Constitution Party ran and died soon after. The Free Soil Party folded in the GOP a decade earlier.
And Andrew Yang isn’t offering a solution to the 2 party system; he’s offering a circular third choice, but offering nothing to voters besides offering a third choice. I’d love to read an actual plan to fix our system beyond “vote for me!” but he has not offered one yet.
This history is well done, but leaves out one crucial change that had a huge impact in the viability of smaller and newer parties: the elimination of fusion or cross-endorsement voting that state legislatures adopted starting in the 1890s. Before then, the obstacles for a smaller party were much lower--they had to agree on who they wanted to nominate and then circulate ballots with their candidates names on them. Parties printed their own ballots--then candidates won elections based on the total number of votes they received. Fusion is how the Populist Party grew after the Civic War, and it declined as soon as state legislatures--controlled by either Ds or Rs--decided to move to the Australian ballot, which we now refer to as the secret ballot, and they determined how who would get on the ballot, creating severe barriers to smaller parties and favoring the bigger ones. Without fusion (or proportional representation or other vote counting systems like IRV), smaller parties tend to have brief periods of popularity (and that's only when they are elevating a neglected issue that the major parties are ignoring) followed by being seen as spoilers, followed by turning into ballot lines controlled by a mix of ideologues and grifters.
Thanks for the feedback! I read a bit about this but hadn't seen the significance of it at the time. Will do some more research into it. I think that could, however, promote the idea voting reform as an important step in breaking the hold of the two legacy parties, given the impact it had in the past.
I admire the effort and detail put into this article. Third parties have long existed in the United States, but frankly I find this statement:
"History suggests that the Forward Party will be impactful in the short term"
To be just plain wrong. History suggests the Forward Party will have little to no impact on modern politics. Most 3rd party movements stem from single issues, or from a major party splitting. To use some of your examples:
The American Independence Party in 1968 ran on the issue of "States Rights" (nobody said the issue had to be good). The Party focused on the South, with the intent of capitalizing on regional dissatisfaction with the Civil Rights movement. The same could be said of the Dixiecrat rebellions in years past (where Southern Democrats attempted to prove to their Northern cousins that they needed the South to win: the ultimately proved that the South was unnecessary for the Democratic Party to win).
The Progressive Party in 1912 stemmed from a Progressive Republican (Theodore Roosevelt) challenging his Conservative fellow Republican. Future Progressive Parties (like Robert M La Follette) followed the same pattern: the GOP was a big tent party with many factions. The Progressives consistently felt underappreciated in their own party, and attempted to exert influence by breaking off from the Republican Party, and they had some success! They won some congressional elections, that's not nothing.
Other parties from the 19th century follow a similar pattern. The Republican Party originally formed via a combination of disaffected Whigs (who opposed slavery), Northern Democrats (who also opposed slavery), and Free Soilers. At the end of the day: the GOP absorbed the other minor parties, because the minor parties weren't viable unless they banned together.
The reality is the problem is not the two parties. The problem is the system which governs our elections. The US House operates under a "First Past the Post" Single member district system, the Senate is basically the same thing, and the President is elected separately. In this scenario: the two party system is a natural coping strategy for parties to exert power. Since a party with only 10-20% support is unlikely to gain much power in Congress (or win the Presidency) it makes more sense for those parties to band together in big tents. Unless the Forward Party is proposing to change the underlying structure: it's not offering a solution, it's just a placebo.
I agree that first past the post voting is the greatest obstacle to third parties right now.
The reason that I believe Forward Party’s strategy is different, and will be impactful, is because the party is pursuing voting reform instead of just running candidates.
To your first point about Forward being impactful, history does suggest that the party will have an impact in the short term. My point is more that if Forward uses this opportunity to pass voting reform rather than rise and fall with a presidential campaign like other movements, the party is likely to have a tremendous impact on American politics going forwards.
Why does history suggest Forward Party will be impactful? The most successful 3rd Parties typically follow some kind of single issue. The Free Soilers was a single issue party focused on combating slavery. Progressives were more than "single issue" but were quite ideological, and branched off the GOP. The American Independents were similar (in that they were a single issue branch off of the Democratic Party).
The Forward Party appears to be ground up, which I have no opinion on, and no base. They consistently emphasize that "Americans don't like having just two options" which is true, and I like their marketing. But the grassroots movement is...a movement to have a third option, with no specific idea on how to fix the system beyond its own existence. I just don't see it as compelling.
The reason I think that history suggests the party will be impactful - in the short term - is that a third party has emerged and made a brief impact every 20-30 years. So at the very least, I expect FWD to be very relevant for the next couple of years.
I find their strategy to be more compelling than other third parties because if they use this opportunity, which only comes every 25 years or so, to pass ranked-choice voting and open primaries rather than run a presidential campaign like every other party did, they could seize this chance to make permanent changes to our system that allow new parties to compete fairly.
FWD seems less about electoral success for themselves than they are about changing the system to allow new and other parties to break down our two party system.
I guess I don't agree. Just because historically third parties arise from time to time (about every 20-30 years) doesn't mean Forward will be said party. It's not like the successful parties you mentioned above were the only parties who ever arose. Most third parties fail.
I do think Forward is taking an interesting strategy, but just because a third party winds up being impactful every 20-30 years does not mean it will succeed.
Let me try and rephrase my thinking a bit.
I think that history suggests that Forward will have a degree of success comparable to other third parties of the past, meaning they will make an impact in the next few years. This does not necessarily suggest that they will be successful in establishing a new party, just that they will have a notable impact.
The reason I think they will succeed is because they are using this once every 20-30 year opportunity to pass voting reform, not win a presidential race.
If that momentum that comes every 30 years is used towards voting reform instead of a presidential run, I think this party has a much higher chance of success than other third parties of the past.
I just think your logic is circular. Even if it’s an iron clad law that third parties have disruptive opportunities every 30 years to change American politics: there’s no reason it has to be the Forward Party. In 1860 the Constitution Party ran and died soon after. The Free Soil Party folded in the GOP a decade earlier.
And Andrew Yang isn’t offering a solution to the 2 party system; he’s offering a circular third choice, but offering nothing to voters besides offering a third choice. I’d love to read an actual plan to fix our system beyond “vote for me!” but he has not offered one yet.