In my recent article about third-party politics, I emphasized that there are policies that could be useful on a national level — minor political perspectives can nonetheless shape major nationwide issues, such as the economy, foreign policy, human rights and climate, and provide alternatives to the existing mainstream positions. However, it is equally important to be realistic about the prospects of these parties as well, since realistically there is no possibility of the existing duopoly between Democrats and Republicans to change in the near future. Third-party candidates, even in the case of headline-makers such as Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Ross Perot, suffer from the same mistake of making Hail Mary attempts at challenging the two-party status quo head-on, which is an impossible strategy to accomplish.
The political system in the United States rests on a complex balance between the people who vote and the districts they are represented by. Ideally, the electoral system must accurately — or at the very least to a reasonable degree — represent what the people are in favor of. In countries with systems of proportional representation, such as Germany or Israel, that is precisely what parties benefit from — if they can secure a certain percentage of the national votes, they are also guaranteed to have a voice in their respective national assemblies. However, in the United States, the political process rests on the principle of “first-past-the-post,” meaning whoever gets the most votes numerically wins the entire district altogether.
It has been proven time and again through statistics and history that such a system stifles any alternative party that is not powerful enough right away to challenge the mainstream. That is why a third candidate powerful enough to make headlines appears only once per generation in the United States. If you are a small party with grand ambitions, there is no way to participate in electoral democracy under such a system. The greater philosophical and ethical problem here can only be resolved through concrete, comprehensive electoral reform. Until then, there is a longer way by which alternative candidates can become relevant — focusing not on national but on local matters can bring attention as well as legitimacy to third-party causes.
At this moment, a Green, Libertarian, Socialist or otherwise nonmainstream candidate realistically has no chance of winning a state right away because larger campaigns are tied directly to the politics of presidential candidates in Washington. However, local candidates in city and county elections bear the responsibility of not just their inner party politics but the management of their community as well. In such elections, the arguments winning the debate at the end of the day aren’t necessarily big questions about trade deals or foreign aid, but regional matters about employment, infrastructure, local environment and education. Providing an alternative to such small but fundamental issues is vital to garner support for a candidate in local politics — the changes that are made in these community matters create a more direct and more immediate effect among any given local group of voters.
Focusing on local elections and building a grassroots support base helps create an image of legitimacy beyond just a single name that comes up in the news. Defining the nature of such a movement is crucial too — a grassroots movement should, at its core, be beyond taking pictures with locals or visiting farms and schools for a photo op. A true grassroots movement must actively listen to local demands, provide meaningful solutions and form connections with local communities to amplify their concerns.
People like Perot or Ralph Nader may come and go, but the parties they represent remain without any impact or gravity in politics. Beginning from the bottom and establishing support in counties can change that and having just one or a few counties painted in a color other than red or blue can start the debate on why people have begun changing their minds. A movement starting from the smallest of circles can later expand in size to more counties and influence state politics as well, where it would be only a matter of time before enough attention would be gathered around the party to challenge state seats for the House or Senate, opening the door for a concrete representation directly in Congress. The downside of such a strategy is that this is, by its very own nature, all about playing the long game — no single party leader can reasonably oversee a process of growth and expansion over the course of 15 to 20 years. Creating a party collective of hive-minded individuals is necessary to maintain connections across many electoral cycles and preserve the momentum necessary to gain county and city districts.
Hoping for a single good stance, a single good campaign slogan or one charismatic party leader cannot provide success to parties outside the mainstream, and this mentality needs to be abandoned to escape the stigma of irrelevancy. Focusing on local matters, continuously building support and representing the day-to-day concerns of the ordinary citizen is the proper way of establishing a party as a true alternative.
Deniz Gulay is a sophomore majoring in history.
Views expressed in the opinions pages represent the opinions of the columnists. The only piece that represents the view of the Pipe Dream Editorial Board is the staff editorial.