Those unfamiliar with American electoral politics must be puzzled by America’s presidential elections. I mean, even a look at an electoral United States map would be enough to make your head spin.
Recently, most elections have resulted in two largely unpopular candidates winning their party’s nomination, with no viable third option. While the United States does allow candidates to run as independents or under third-party banners, these candidates rarely make an impact at the national level.
Why we lack (competitive) third parties
The reasons are largely found in the Constitution, but other reasons exist as well. For example, the Electoral College has made it difficult for some voters to vote for a candidate with no shot of winning their state’s electoral college votes. The U.S. is unique in that voters do not vote for their desired party or candidate but for a certain slate of electors who are nominated by each candidate or party. These electors are bound by convention to cast their vote for their party’s candidate.
The United States was formed as a confederation of states with only a loose overarching federal authority. Although the Federalists largely won at the Constitutional Convention, the anti-federalists managed to ensure that the Constitution gave the states certain powers and methods of representation. These powers and methods have largely been eroded throughout the years, but the Electoral College has stuck around.
The purpose of the Electoral College was to ensure that each state in the Union had its interests valued, even if some states had much larger populations. When America was a true confederation, this made sense, as that system of representation is similar to how each member of the United Nations has an equal vote; i.e., permanent members of the security council are “more equal” than others.
This method was important to many of the American Founding Fathers, as the Union was not in itself a coercive organization but a method for states to voluntarily cooperate with each other, as long as each state felt equally represented. With this intent in mind, one can see the potential value of the Electoral College.
Winner takes all
Unfortunately, as most states switched to a winner-take-all method of awarding electoral votes, this method has meant that many people will refuse to vote for candidates who do not have a chance to win their state’s popular vote.
Many states in the Union used to operate on a proportionally awarded method: A candidate would win electoral votes based on how many congressional districts they won, as well as two electoral votes if they won the state-wide vote.
Currently, most states award their electoral votes on a winner-take-all basis, with only Maine and Nebraska sticking to the proportional method. Winner-take-all is unfavorable to candidates who represent certain regions/ethnic groups, or third-party and independent candidates. In fact, a non-Democrat or Republican has not won an electoral vote since 1968.
Even independent candidates who perform reasonably well (Ross Perot comes to mind) are unlikely to earn electoral votes, other than via faithless electors. As an example, Perot, an independent candidate, won almost 19% of the popular vote in 1992 but failed to earn a single electoral vote.
Since the U.S. is not a parliamentary or proportional system, parties and candidates do not need to seek coalition governments. This makes not only third-party and independent candidates non-viable, but also candidates representing certain policies that are less popular. With this in mind, the Democratic and Republican parties usually strive to pick big-tent candidates for federal elections. This usually leaves out candidates representing less popular ideas.
What this means for libertarians
Libertarians rarely fall into the big-tent ideology that Republicans and Democrats stick to.
While libertarians who seek a major party nomination have a chance to persuade the electorate via their party’s primary debate stage, candidates who run as members of the Libertarian Party face even larger problems. Not only do most states have an electoral system that strongly favors a two-party dynamic, but most states also have hurdles to make it onto their presidential ballots.
Some states require a certain percentage of the electorate to sign a petition allowing a candidate on the ballot. Other states look at how a party does in a state-wide election, or how many people are registered with that party at the state level. We could think of these as gerrymandering — by another name.
These hurdles are often costly to overcome, leading to many candidates’ absence on the ballot across the US. The presidential debates also have high requirements for allowing non-Democratic or Republican candidates to participate.
Polls usually show that a majority of the population wants more parties or viable independent candidates, but this is rarely obvious on Election Day (although on Election Day 2024, it might be).
With a distaste for one of the main candidates, many voters are unwilling to cast their votes for a less electorally viable candidate; instead, they opt for “the lesser of two evils.” Even in states that are not traditionally competitive, many voters are simply unwilling to vote for a non-Republican or Democrat. The exact reasons are debated, but there are possible solutions which can result in a more diverse offering for Americans on Election Day. (For more on that Election Day offering, see my recent article Who’s Running for President in 2024?)
Ranked-choice voting: What it means
The easiest solution would probably be to institute ranked-choice voting in as many states as possible. (Here’s Cato’s Reasons To Like Ranked‐Choice Voting.)
Currently a few states use this method, and it is very new to the American electorate. This method would allow voters to rank their candidates in order of preference, with the most viable candidate taking the vote after several automatic run-off rounds. This would essentially mean that a voter could give their highest preference to their ideal candidate, while still ranking a more viable candidate above their least favorite candidates. Other ways could include states returning to a proportional method, allowing for candidates to compete for congressional districts as well as states.
Alternatively, electoral votes could be awarded proportionally across the state, with each candidate winning the percentage of electoral college votes corresponding to their share of the popular vote. The United States could also switch to a method which mirrors some aspects of a parliamentary government. The president could be elected by the U.S. Congress, rather than by an electoral college. Many parliamentary systems include safeguards to ensure that minority parties and candidates receive a proportional number of seats in their chamber. This option may undermine some protections of state sovereignty, but one could argue that those protections are already gone.
Summing up
Let’s be honest: Even considering the unfairness of the Electoral College, I don’t think libertarians can blame it entirely. Nor would libertarians be likely to win under a fairer system, like ranked-choice voting.
However, there’s reason for optimism: Changes in electoral methods are not actually that difficult in many states, and states regularly change their requirements for ballot access. Moreover, several states, such as Maine, switched to a form of ranked-choice voting recently, and as Learn Liberty explored in a recent video, there’s momentum in New York for major election reform:
How to Bring Politicians Back to Reality
But the two-party system is likely to be the norm in America until many more states change their electoral systems in a meaningful way.
Are you a student interested in getting involved in pro-liberty activism? By applying to join Students For Liberty’s Local Coordinator Program, you can be supported in promoting the ideas of liberty while also developing your skills and meeting many like-minded students from across the world. Click on the button below to find out more and get involved!
This piece solely expresses the opinion of the author and not necessarily the organization as a whole. Students For Liberty is committed to facilitating a broad dialogue for liberty, representing a variety of opinions.
