President Roseanna Barr? Implications of Third Party Candidacy

Earlier this week, Roseanne Barr announced via twitter that she would be running for President of the United States on the Green Party ticket. Seriously. She did. Now, get past the theatrics of the announcement and understand the greater implications of a Third Party candidate (which by the way, we have every year, but they don't usually get enough votes to gain notoriety).

Now, let's be honest. Third party candidates do not win U.S. Presidential elections. To be honest, they typically do not win on a national stage at all. Through some metamorphosis of American politics, or perhaps sheer dumb luck, the American system of government is generally run by two parties. Most people agree that this limits the possibilities. Many advocate that we have a multiple party system, or a no party system. The truth of the matter is, in a world ruled by majorities, it is incredibly impossible for a multiple party system to work. 

The result of such an election would usually lead to either a series of run off elections, or someone becoming president who did not get the majority of the vote (happens all the time anyway because of the electoral college, but that's another post on another day). This makes it incredibly unfeasible and unlikely.

So, why have third party candidates at all?

Here's what third party candidates can do: set the tone for the election. Outside of the hooting and hollering of a campaign debate, third party candidates can respond to the front runners and are even in position to ask questions, or make statements forcing the front runner candidates to take a stance on a particular issue. This often becomes crucial. Not because the third party candidate will some how overpower the campaign trail, but because in many instances the answers will change the dynamics of the campaign and maybe even sway some voters.

In addition, if the third party candidate gains any level of traction, they will likely steal votes away from one of the front runners. Now, I know it's a bit far back for any of you to have voted in the election, but the election of 1860 gives us a prime example of how this can happen. In the election of 1860, Abraham Lincoln (R) won the election with just 40% of the vote, beating out Stephen Douglas (D) who had about 30% of the vote. Do the math: that's only 70% of the vote!! What happened to the other 30%? The Southern Democrat and Constitutional Union Parties took the rest of the vote. Southern Dems made up 18% of the vote, which when combined with Douglas' would have been 48% of the vote and a loss for Abraham Lincoln. This would have changed the course of American History entirely.

While it is clear that having third party candidates can allow for the free flow of discourse and perhaps for argument's sake an interesting level of candidness among the candidates. It becomes put up or shut up, which can make the race refreshing. On the other hand, it can have an adverse effect. We know that a party divided will implode and will certainly fail. While this will likely be a good thing for the incumbent, it's bad for the idea of politics and of the best candidate always prevailing (not referring to Obama, Romney, or Gingrich being the best candidate here, just speaking in general about all elections). This becomes a dangerous game to play. My recommendation? When the third candidate gets to a point in the election (and can admit to themselves that defeat is imminent), they should concede the election and throw their support behind the candidate that most resembles their views and will likely provide their supporters with the proper guidance and leadership.

While I will not be voting for Roseanne Barr, I do applaud her for her bold effort to change the dialogue and shake up the game.