An Untitled Nonfiction Piece, by David Haseltine

In 1848, the Free Soil Party nominated former President Martin Van Buren as
its presidential candidate. He lost that election, receiving a mere 10
percent of the popular vote and no Electoral College votes. But his position
against slavery increased national attention to the abolitionist movement.

In 1912, former president Theodore Roosevelt lost the nomination of the
Republican party and ran for president on the Bull Moose ticket. He won a
greater percentage of the popular vote, 27 percent, and more electoral
votes, 88, than the Republican party that year, but the election went to the
Democrats.

In 1920, Eugene Debs won more than 3 percent of the popular vote (no
electoral votes) as the Socialist Party candidate despite being imprisoned
for his opposition to America’s involvement in World War I. In 1924, Richard
M. La Follette was the Progressive Party candidate, winning 16 percent of
the vote and 13 Electoral College votes — all from Wisconsin. He split the
Democratic vote, and the election went to Republican incumbent Calvin
Coolidge.

In 1992, Ross Perot ran as an independent, receiving a proportionate amount
of national media attention relative to the Democratic and Republican
candidates. He participated in televised debates, and received 18.9 percent
of the popular vote, more than 19 million, though no Electoral College
votes. Perot outperformed every third party candidate since Theodore
Roosevelt.

*Lessons learned*
There are three conclusions that I draw from these examples.

First, our system of assigning electors to the Electoral College is
designed, perhaps deliberately, in such a way as to favor a two-party
system.

Second, that Perot’s ability to garner national attention through television
greatly improved his ability to campaign directly to the American people. He
spoke to ordinary Americans in their living rooms, and helped them realize
that it was realistic to opt-out of the two-party system.

Third, the two dominant parties stand to gain nothing, and lose everything,
by allowing third-party candidates to participate in televised debates. It’s
in their interest to perpetuate the dualist narrative of American politics:
left, right; blue, red; liberal, conservative and pro-this, anti-that.

But when people are given access to a choice that falls outside this
narrative, they jump at the chance to shake loose the tyranny of the
two-party system, and the Republicans and Democrats lose hold of their grip
on our nation. Third-party exposure creates the same risk to both parties.

It is with these beliefs in mind that I insist that the Commission on
Presidential Debates (a private entity headed by two men — one a former
Democratic National Committee chairman and the other a former Republican
National Committee chairman — open the debates and let the third parties in.

Plurality of choice only can enrich our democracy further. It is contrary to
our national interest and the founding principles of our great nation that
the ruling parties are guaranteed national television exposure for their
debates while the third parties are denied inclusion. The commission’s
practices do not reflect the American ideals of equality, liberty and
justice. They must take it upon themselves to abolish their practice of
political discrimination and exclusion.