Third-party political candidates are a joke.
But it’s not entirely their fault. I recently attended a set of candidate forums at the 150th annual Missouri Press Association convention in Branson. The debate for Missouri’s junior U.S. Senate seat was particularly illuminating.
At center stage stood two heavyweights – Democrat Jason Kander and Republican Roy Blunt. They were flanked by three candidates I’d wager most readers wouldn’t even recognize: Libertarian Jonathan Dine, Constitution Party candidate Fred Ryman and the Green Party’s Johnathan McFarland.
Before the event started, a fellow reporter hailing from St. Louis leaned over and questioned why the MPA even invited third-party candidates.
“They are just taking valuable time from the real candidates,” he said.
Clearly, not everyone on stage was created equal and things went downhill from there.
To their credit, Dine and Ryman were eloquent and prepared; the same couldn’t be said for McFarland. The phrase “um, like yeah, you know” shouldn’t be uttered by a debating candidate – and it was said more than once.
I cringed each time.
In comparison with the polished, vetted and polled statements of the others, I agreed with my colleague; it did feel like a waste of time. Though they’d never admit it, Kander and Blunt gave the sense they felt it, too. Blunt looked like he could roll his eyes at any moment.
So there stands a valid question: Why have a third party if they can’t win?
Because we desperately need it. The most common sentiment I hear about the current presidential election is, “I don’t like either of them.”
We need a third option – a viable third option. It’s not Gary Johnson’s fault. The system is against him.
The last viable third-party candidate was elected in 1860 with just 40 percent of the vote.
It was a small, upstart party formed just six years’ prior. The man was President Abraham Lincoln and the party was the Republicans.
Lincoln defeated Southern Democrat John Breckinridge, Constitutional Union candidate John Bell and Northern Democrat Stephen Douglas. Since that day, every president has been from one of the two major parties.
Third-party candidates don’t have to be a joke. We just have to be willing to let them participate. If our collective mindset is red vs. blue as the only race that counts, the system will never change.
The media play a role in that. We tout Democrats and Republicans as the major parties as if they are the only parties. We limit debates, show coverage of just two conventions and our narrow scope presents a picture to the American public that these are the only options.
Equal coverage of third-party candidates would not only begin the process of elevating them in the public eye, but also force those candidates to step up their game. Viability is a two-way street: We must support them, but they must earn it.
Right now, third-party candidates are nice in theory, but until the candidates actually are qualified, they will stay in theory.
Looking like the least-prepared person at the table won’t win my vote in November.
Springfield Business Journal Features Editor and Audience Development Director Emily Letterman can be reached at eletterman@sbj.net.
