More than a few times, I have encountered Medium articles about how a viable third party can improve democracy in the USA. Dick Dowdell’s article is the most recent:
What if American Had a Third Political Party
The above link likely won't work unless you are a member of Medium
I can’t argue with Mr. Dowdell’s logic that a third party would give voters another option. And with that option, the other two parties just might reform themselves to be more relevant to the people they govern.
While I agree that democracy will improve, this change will still not bring the results many of us are looking for.
Third parties in recent USA presidential elections:
1) Ross Perot in 1992, siphoning 19% of voters from George Bush 1; i.e. GB1 would have won.
2) Ross Perot in 1996, siphoning 8% of voters from Bob Dole, i.e. a coin-flip election, and Bill Clinton won the toss.
3) Green Party in 2000, siphoning 2% of votes from Al Gore. With 2% more, Gore would have won Florida and probably another state or two.
4) Libertarian Party in 2016, 2020, 2024 siphoning 1%, 3%, and 1% of voters respectively from Donald Trump
5) Green Party in 2016, 2020, 2024 siphoning 1% of voters from the Democrats
There have been more fringe party tallies. But only the above tallies could have changed the final result — had the fringe party not been on the ballot.
“Siphoning off votes” assumes that the people voting for these fringe parties would have cast their vote to the mainstream party closer to the fringe party’s political alignment had not the fringe party been on the ballot; i.e. Greens going Democrat, and Libertarians going Republican. While we can’t be sure about this, I think it is safe to assume many of the fringe party votes would have gone these ways.
Strategic voting
Countries that inherited the first-past-the-post system from Britain (like USA and Canada) have some voters voting strategically. These voters prefer the fringe party, but casting a vote in this direction would mean a vote not going for the party of the lesser evil, which then means the party of the greater evil has a better chance of winning the election. The more-evil party will take society in a direction further away from the goals of the fringe party.
So the strategic voters are often choosing between their hearts and practicality. They cast their vote to the lesser evil. So society never learns the true support for the fringe party. Maybe Ross Perot had more than 19% support in 1992. Think about that!
As an aside, the mainstream parties could surreptitiously support the formation of fringe parties that siphon off votes from their rival.
Two possible solutions
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) and proportional representation (PR) can induce the formation of new parties. With these changes, the new parties can become viable contenders within a decade.
But the two main parties in FPTP systems have a self-interest to ensure any new parties do not go far. In the American case, D’s and R’s know they will govern 50% of the time, which is much better than having five or so viable parties sharing power. So, for a long time, the D’s and R’s have had a gentlemen’s agreement to not change the rules in favor of fringe parties.
These days, the Republicans seem to be going for a one-party rule these days. Whether by an out-right oligarchy or rigged elections, they want to rule 100% of the time. So that 50/50 gentleman’s agreement is no longer working.
And I believe the Democrats still believe that they can keep Republicans as a weak foil. A decade or more of Democratic rule is on their long-term agenda — if the two-party hegemony is maintained.
The obstacle
As the previous section alluded, the Democratic Party is internally not interested in this kind of electoral change. So how do the wiser Americans find this change?
Conventional wisdom says sustained public pressure is the key. If Mr. Dowdell and other political writers keep up with their writing, the idea will grow and grow. Let’s imagine the USA still has credible elections in 2028. By that time, the public pressure must be handled somehow. Imagine this conversation on the campaign trail:
Protesters: We want ranked-choice ballots! We want proportional representation.
Democratic Party: OK, we will set up the new electoral rules after we win the election. Vote for us!
Protestors: Yay!
The D’s win. Then a year later, here is the new conversation:
Protesters: You have not moved one inch in regard to RCV and PR.
Democrat Party: Well, we had some first-year administration issues, like, you know, where the bathrooms are in the White House and getting the new pecking order sorted out. And we are busy trying to repair the damage from the previous administration. So much to fix. So much to fix. And the Republicans are still being jerks, making it difficult to govern.
Protesters: Too bad. Make those changes! . . . . Or else we won’t vote for you in 2032!
Democratic Party: We hear you loud and clear.
I think most readers will realize how the Democratic Party has the advantage in this relationship. The two-party hegemony is still in effect. The Party knows that these protesters have no choice but to cast their 2032 votes in a D way. Why should the Democratic Party move in a direction that will reduce their power base?
It is naïve to believe that this change can be made within the next decade.
Next, let’s look at history
The 1880s USA were called the age of the “robber barons.” Railway companies, steel companies, and more than a few politicians were openly corrupt in taking federal money to build railroads and not really building all the railroads they said they were going to build. The newspapers were all over these stories, yet nothing seemed to stop the robber barons from robbing more.
From those stories, a solution came forth: Let the people elect the senators rather than the state legislators. This was a popular political topic in 1885, maybe even earlier than that.
Continued public pressure eventually effected the change — about 30 years later. It was called the 17th Amendment.
We should expect a similar time frame for ranked-choice ballots and proportional representation. And that assumes the public pressure can be sustained for that time. That’s a lot of writing for people like Mr. Dowdell.
The Overton Window
Now I digress to the Overton Window. In brief, the Overton Window has six stages for a good idea has to became public policy. The six stages are: unthinkable →radical→acceptable →sensible →popular →policy.
Two states — Alaska and Maine — are experimenting with ranked choice ballots. RCV might be on the sensible stage of its Overton Window. As of now, no third party has been a credible contender in an RCV election. And there are forces trying to squash this way of voting.
My understanding of the US Constitution is that the states can elect their state and national representatives in a PR way anytime they want. They need not get permission from the federal government or other states. But the tradition of electoral districts is still very strong, more so in our polarized time which would mean the majority party would give an advantage to the minority party. PR in the USA is in the radical stage of its Overton Window.
Like the 17th Amendment, The Overton Window also suggests RCV and/or PR are not projects that have a chance of short-term implementation.
And sustained public pressure is required — from now to whenever.
Tiered Democratic Governance
I have been offering the USA and the rest of the world another solution. Let’s build a new democracy!
I am under no illusions that we can build Tiered Democratic Governance (TDG) for tomorrow. There are new skills in governance that we must learn. And learning those skills will take practice and time. I estimate it will take about 20 years to build the TDG — after 1% of Americans (or citizens of another nation) start building it.
But in our culture of instant gratification, 20 years is too long. When articles about RCV and PR suggest a five-year process, the TDG loses out in getting public attention.
Yet the realistic implementation of RCV and PR is also about 20 years.
Your next 20 years of political energy
Let’s assume that we have a limited amount of political energy to move the world forward in the next 20 years. Where should we spend it?
We could put all that energy into RCV and PR. After all, these ideas have already somewhat moved through their Overton Window.
But start and finishing are two different things. There are strong forces against making these changes, so success is not guaranteed. For example, replacing the Electoral College with popular vote (for the election of the American president) became “acceptable” 25 years ago — and has not moved any further.
Even if we are successful with RCV and PR, we are still left with a similar democracy as we have today. In Chapter 2 of my book, I list 12 Limitations of Western Democracy, which are inherent attributes of governance by political parties. RCV and PR are still about political parties. The 12 limitations will still be there even if we make these two changes.
Or we could put our 20 years of political energy into building the TDG: a democracy without political parties. But its main disadvantage is its position in the Overton Window: it is currently “unthinkable.”
So where do we put our political energy? Toward ideas that are more “acceptable” but will not provide the results we really want? Or toward an idea that is “unthinkable,” yet can free us from the psychological bondage of the political parties?
Both paths will take 20 years.
One path is talk and talk and talk and talk.
The other path is talk and do and do and do.
Which path will you choose?
Published on Medium 2025
They Say You Want a Revolution
