Paraphrasing an old joke, how is a small fortune made in the United States? It begins with great fortune and finances a third political party. The political history of the United States is full of rivals remains that thought they could break the bipartisan system and failed.
This makes Elon Musk’s joke that he could launch his own new political party as an act of challenge after his fight with Donald Trump is even more intriguing.
But what do we mean with a bipartisan system? Since the 1860s, Democrats and Republicans have dominated the political landscape of the United States, occupying the presidency, Congress and the vast majority of elected positions. Thirdly, third -party attempts have generally failed at the polls.
Some have lasted only a few electoral cycles, such as the progressive party in the 1910s and the citizens’ party in the 1980s, while others such as the Libertarian Party and the Green Party have lasted decades and, in some cases, have achieved some electoral success at the local level.
But this is where you have to make an important distinction between the third parties and the candidates of third parties. Because the American system is so driven by personality instead of focusing on the party compared to Europe, very often third parties have been built around a single person.
A good example is the aforementioned progressive party. It was founded in 1912 by former president Theodore Roosevelt after he separated from the Republicans. Without him, he faded quickly.
The reformist party was created by billionaire Ross Perot in 1995 after he managed to obtain 18.9% of the votes in the 1992 presidential elections. Although he continued without him for some years, it was a peel of what he was. Other parties, such as the socialist, the libertarian and the green, have emerged from more organic movements and, therefore, have been more successful at the local or state level.
However, when recent surveys are observed, it seems strange that the two games continue to dominate. Public dissatisfaction with politics, as usual, seems to be at its highest point. In a recent PEW Research survey, when asked if “I would often wish there were more political parties to choose from” describes their views, 37% of respondents replied: “Very good” and 31% replied: “something good.”
In another survey, 25% of respondents said that neither of the two main parties represented their interests.
So, if there is an appetite for some rate of exchange, why have they succeeded so few rivals? The two main games seem to be entrenched to the point of resembling a cartel.
The probabilities are against the insurgency of third parties
The first reason, and possibly the most important, is the electoral system. The simple majority system does not guarantee a bipartisan system (let’s look at Britain, for example). But political scientist Maurice Duverger argued that this means that the two main games have a significant advantage. There are prizes for the first and second place, nothing for third place.
Similarly, many of the great prizes of American policy, such as the presidency and state governorates, are indivisible and cannot be shared. Therefore, it has become wisdom received to vote for anyone who is not a democrat or republican is a wasted vote.
In these cases, people vote for what they perceive as the minor of two ills or stay at home, instead of voting for a candidate who has no possibility or that may not support.
You may be interested: Trump’s commercial truce: 90 days of failed negotiations, threats and an extension
The other billionaire elephant in the room is money. The enormous cost of presenting to the elections in recent years means that it is unlikely that a third game can raise the funds to be truly competitive. In the last elections, the Democrats and the Republicans spent hundreds of millions of dollars (which does not even tell all the money of the super pac spent in their name).
Every time multimillionaires such as Perot have tried to self -finance a party, they have been exposed to the accusation that it is a vanity project, or that it lacks a real attraction for the masses.
There is also the fact that to work successfully you must have media coverage. The media tend to focus almost exclusively on the two main parties. This creates a situation of “egg and chicken” in which success is needed to help raise money and media coverage, but it is difficult to succeed without first having money and media coverage.
The final reasons are those of the open primaries and the ideological flexibility of the main parties. Donald Trump briefly considered to run as president for the reformist party in 2000. In 2016, the open primary system used by the two main parties meant that it could be imposed in the Republican Party despite the fact that the majority of the party’s elite despised him.
Why bother to start your own game when you can run for one that already exists? It could now argue that Republicans have effectively become the Trump or Maga party, although this will survive its presidency is open to debate.
Money, money, money
Elon Musk has, for the moment, money to burn. It remains to be seen if you are willing to invest in the long term to make this more than a vanity project.
He also has charisma and a national platform to amplify his voice as few. But, having been born outside the United States, he cannot apply for the presidency.
If electoral success is taken seriously, I would have to find someone to run, and that would indeed mean that they would lead their party. Musk’s public personality suggests that he does not get along with others.
Founding a third party is not impossible, but unless there is a political earthquake seems difficult to see how you could succeed.
*Matthew Mokhefi -ashton is a professor of policy and international relations at the University of Nottingham Trent.
This article was originally published in The Conversation/Reuters
Subscribe to our YouTube channel and do not miss our content
