“It’s a two party system, you have to vote for one of us!” are the wise words of Kang and Kodos in The Simpsons 1996 episode ‘Treehouse of Horror VII’. The two aliens are running as Democratic and Republican candidates, but are unmasked at the last moment. Still, despite the fact they’re aliens, the people must vote - it’s a two party system after all. The scene is great, but even funnier is the moment someone in the crowd pipes up, declaring “I believe I’ll vote for a third party candidate”. The aliens boldly reply, “go ahead, throw your vote away!” as they erupt into laughter.
The conventional wisdom in American politics is that of the two-party system. We focus on candidates exclusively from the Democratic and Republican parties, but there’s been an unknown element looming over American elections for many years. They haunt the failed campaigns of Democrats, seemingly with extreme prejudice - the dreaded third party candidate.
Most who are clued into American politics will know this name - Ross Perot. He was the founder and nominee for the Reform Party of the United States, boasting the largest third-party showing in the popular vote - that of 19%. He also appeared in the aforementioned Simpsons gag, destroying his hat in rage. However, he was less a thorn in the two-party system than others have been. Perot’s centrism had little to no effect on Clinton’s victory over Bush. Two other campaigns, however, have been secretly ruined by third parties - 2016 and 2000. With the presence of independent candidate Robert F Kennedy Jr. in the 2024 election campaign, it’s worth looking at these elections.
Son of Robert (Bobby) Kennedy, who previously ran against the incumbent Democrat Lyndon B. Johnson, the apple falls very far from the tree. RFK's views on vaccines and conspiracy theories have been controversial to say the least, and political pundits have struggled to determine which main party he primarily takes votes from. But first, how are previous elections shaped by third parties?
In the 2016 election, with Hillary Clinton for the Democrats pitted against Donald Trump for the Republicans, the campaign was grazed by the presence of Green Party candidate Jill Stein. Stein had previously run as the party’s nominee in 2012, to little success, but due to widespread disillusionment in 2016, she saw more success. Stein’s campaign focused on the ‘Green New Deal’ and raising taxes on the wealthy. As she rallied younger voters who might have otherwise voted Democrat, Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania could have gone to Hillary if it weren’t for Stein. These three areas were the ‘battleground states’ in 2016 - the states most likely to decide the outcome of the election; and they did. Hillary lost all three, but when considering the closeness of the popular vote in each state, we can see the influence of Stein. Take Michigan, with the closest vote share of the three, seeing Trump at 47.50% and Clinton at 47.27%. Stein won 1.07%, meaning that even if a fraction of her supporters went to Clinton, Democrats would have won the state. This does assume that Green Party supporters would mostly move to the Democrats, but this is a safe assumption given the broadly centre-left politics of the Clinton campaign, as opposed to the right-wing rhetoric of Trump’s. In a sense, Clinton lost Michigan because of Stein’s presence, and the same can be said for Wisconsin and Pennsylvania. Stein won 1.04% in Wisconsin, and 0.81% in Pennsylvania - a share of which would have allowed Hillary to win each respective state.
To be fair to Stein, there’s no guarantee that her group of left-wing voters would have voted en-mass for Clinton - particularly in Wisconsin and Pennsylvania where the Democrats were further from coming to victory. The presence of the Libertarian Party candidate, Gary Johnson, lessens the influence of Stein. Johnson won roughly 3% in each of the aforementioned states, but these voters were less likely to flock to the Republicans in his absence. The Cato Institute points out that Trump’s term was incredibly anti-libertarian, with an increase in debt by $8.4 trillion and protective measures against free trade. That said, it is safe to assume that in the absence of the Libertarian Party, some of their voters would move to Trump, potentially nullifying Clinton’s boost from left-wing Stein supporters.
For a clearer example, take the 2000 election. In an unprecedented result, the ballots in Florida were deemed too close to call, which instigated a series of recounts between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. This time, the Green Party nominated Ralph Nader, running on a platform of campaign finance reform and an anti-corporation agenda. Nader received 1.64% of the vote in Florida, the key state which would determine the outcome of the election, translating to 97,488 votes. The Supreme Court became involved with the outcome, ruling in favour of Bush based on a difference of 537 votes. Given Gore’s surprisingly left-wing platform (a strong pro-choice, pro-LGBT stance), the likelihood of a larger proportion of votes moving from Nader to the Democrats was high. Unlike the 2016 campaign, another third party did not pose a threat to this outcome; the Reform Party’s candidate, Pat Buchanan, only won 0.4% of the vote share.
Ultimately, Gore’s victory was decimated by the presence of Nader in Florida, and without his involvement, the 2000 election would have undoubtedly gone in favour of the Democrats, affecting the history of the country in unthinkable ways. With a different president in office during 9/11 and Afghanistan, what would the ramifications be? Given that Gore opposed war in Iraq, would conflict even have happened? These questions will never be answered definitively, in part due to Nader’s result in Florida.
Now take the 2024 election campaigns - a seniors’ rematch between Joe Biden and Donald Trump, muddled by the presence of RFK. He occupies the position Trump did in 2016 as the Washington outsider candidate, and challenges both parties from the left and right. Due to varying positions on issues, the real question is whether RFK takes more votes from Biden or Trump. On the left hand, his policies support ending corporate control and tackling climate change. On the right, his conspiratorial approach has brought his anti-lockdown, anti-vaccination views to the forefront. Ultimately, with Kennedy polling at around 9%, his support could draw from the left and right alike. However, there lies a bigger challenge for Democrats. Trump has publicly stated that he thinks RFK’s campaign is great for MAGA, and would draw votes from Biden, not to mention the fact that Kennedy originally contemplated running as a Democrat. His New York campaign director, Rita Palmer, also stated that the primary goal of the campaign is to unseat President Biden - and his candidacy is funded in part by Republican donors.
With Biden behind in the polls, if Kennedy manages to draw 2-3% of voters in key swing-states, his greater left-wing appeal could see Biden suffering defeat. In this scenario, Biden joins the ranks of Clinton and Gore, subdued by third party involvement. As with Stein and Nader, Kennedy’s attempt to challenge the two-party system may end up hindering only one of America’s two primary parties, and leading to a second term for President Trump. Should this happen - with the future of American democracy on the ballot - this Kennedy might unexpectedly go down as history’s most consequential.