Chicago Columnist Illinois Leader Entrepreneur Political Analyst Business Advisor Illinois Review

Scott Bludorn is running for Illinois House in the 53rd district representing the Libertarian Party.

Thursday, June 24, 2004

By Ralf Seiffe

Americans are right to think of our political environment as a two-party system. Over the years however, third, forth and even fifth parties have participated in nearly every U.S. presidential election since the Tertium Quids Party (literally the “Third Thing”) materialized to challenge Thomas Jefferson’s run for a second term.

Typically, alternative political parties blossom when voters come to think that the dominant political organizations are ignoring important issues or that they are not capable of solving them. That’s often the case with political parties so there have been many of these offshoots, both inspiring and preposterous.

Third parties ranged from the Green and Greenback parties; the Free Soil and Anti-renter parties, a smorgasbord of Socialist and Communist parties and even the Prohibition Party. The gravity of their ideas and candidates arrays from mass-less to serious; Lyndon LaRouche of the U.S. Labor Party ran one of his eight campaigns from a jail cell while Teddy Roosevelt served nearly two terms as president before running as a Bull Moose.

Only one third party candidate has ever actually won the presidency but their presence is a force that confounds the established parties more often than not. That’s because third parties create two major electoral results and are often responsible for unintended policy outcomes.

The most evident third party effect is to change the results of close elections even if they generate few votes themselves. Ralph Nader’s appearance on the 2000 Florida ballot didn’t attract many votes for the Green Party but Democrats blame him for George Bush’s victory. Mr. Nader may be a factor again in 2004.

Third parties also move the Electoral College to give pluralities the appearance of landslides. In 1912, Teddy Roosevelt and Republican incumbent William Howard Taft split 7.6 million votes or 55% of the popular vote while Wilson won only 45 percent or 6.3 million votes. Even though Wilson wasn’t able to win a majority of the popular vote, the Electoral College served its purpose by magnifying Wilson’s victory, awarding him 435 or 82 percent of real votes for president.

The other electoral effect third parties engender is a consequence of the first. By changing election results, even though they do not win, third parties are dangerous to the dominant political parties’ electoral prospects. To avoid losing voters to the insurgent parties, established political organizations tend to subsume the upstart’s platforms and thereby sabotage the reason for the new party’s existence.

This allows the followers of the new party to “return” to the fold, and when they do, they have new-found influence and this can lead to rapid change in the political landscape. In this way, third parties act as the “farm team” for ideas or politicians who may not be ready for major office but who will develop appeal as they mature.

Third parties also create unintended policy outcomes. This can happen when a third party splits with one of the dominant parties then fails to win because it often drives the politicians in the jilted party to adopt a position opposite of that the third party advocates.

In 1948, the segregationists left the Democrat party and lost; Harry Truman carried the south anyway and decided that civil rights was a winning issue for Democrats---exactly the opposite of what the Dixiecrats wanted.

In 1992, Ross Perot campaigned against NAFTA but lost; Bill Clinton then bucked the protectionist wing of his own party and became a tireless advocate for free trade. In 2000, Ralph Nader tried to move the party left and his interference ensured George Bush’s victory.

Instead of the muddled, one world thinking both Nader and Gore stand for, we now enjoy the protection of the Bush doctrine of preemption, probably not Nader’s nor the Green’s preference.

Given these dangers, the dominant parties caution that voting for a third party is “throwing away” one’s vote. The evidence is on their side, especially in close elections but, for many conservative Illinois Republicans, their party’s current condition exactly describes the reason third parties are a permanent feature of American politics.

Republican conservatives believe party insiders have traded core Republican standards for permanent public careers. Legislative leaders appear to be consorting with the other side to attenuate public debate as they support metastasizing taxes and regulations. Grass roots Republicans are sickened by a whole cell block’s worth of former office holders and their retinue of sycophants.

Perhaps it’s time for conservative Republicans to take a new tactic that will catch the party’s attention but that will not cause the damage most third parties wreak.

R. Scott Bludorn is a candidate for state representative in District 53 which encompasses Arlington Heights, Prospect Heights and Buffalo Grove. Bludorn’s campaign arranged a fund-raiser last week which managed to attract a mixed crowd of supporters, the curious and at least three political “names you must know”.

This district is very heavily Republican and Bludorn’s speech to the crowd was an attractive blend of liberty and practical, policy proposals. His issues are property taxes, school choice and governmental abuse.

He spoke at length about the problems of the Democrat and Republican leadership in the statehouse and in the often empty governor’s mansion as he laid out an attractive case for limiting government, fostering family values and improving education. The governing philosophy he advocates makes sense to Reagan Republicans.

Mr. Bludorn is not a Republican but a Libertarian. He will be on the November ballot in the 53rd district because his workers had collected the required number of signatures, more than nine times the number required by candidates fielded by either of the two dominant parties. Because there is only token Democrat resistance,

Bludorn and his campaign manager, Greg Sekowski, believe they can convert enough disappointed Republicans to overcome Republican incumbent Sid Mathias’s natural advantage and win the district.

It is almost always better to work for change from within the party. However, many party leaders have shown us they are not interested in upholding basic Republican principles and will not welcome positive change. In the short term, they have put us in the minority. Over the long term, theirs is a recipe for extinction. It is time to send a shot over their bow for the same reason the Navy does---to get their attention without sinking the ship.

The 53rd District contest provides the opportunity to send a message as clear as one from a five-inch gun. Since there is no real danger from the Democrats, voting for a Libertarian, this once, won’t sink the ship. Sending Scott Bludorn to the General Assembly might just be the wake-up report our party leaders need to remember the grass roots.

By the way, in 1860, the two established political parties were the Whig and the Democrat parties. They nominated and John Bell and Illinois senator Stephen A. Douglas, respectively. The insurgent Republican Party which had been organized just six years before nominated Abraham Lincoln.

Honest Abe captured only 39.9% of the 4.7 million votes cast but won election with 59% of the 303 electoral votes. By 1864, Lincoln’s version of the Republican Party had consolidated the anti-slavery forces and had completely vanquished the detritus of the Whigs. The party of John Quincy Adams, Henry Clay and Millard Filmore then disappeared.

© 2005 IllinoisLeader.com -- all rights reserved

Ralf Seiffe advises business start-ups and product launches from Chicago, Illinois and is a political analyst and columnist for the Illinois Leader.