A Comparison of the 1964 & 2016 Presidential Elections

Dillon Dalton

Parties and Elections

Professor Schlozman

12/15/2016

Final Exam

Part I.A.

        There has never been a third party candidate that has won a Presidential election in the history if the United States. According to Reichley in The Life of the Parties, “It is no accident that no enduring new major party has emerged in American Politics for 130 years. The…major parties have proven adept at picking up issues attracting support to new parties, as the Democrats did with the Populists in the 1890s…various labor and socialist minor parties, and the Republicans with various states’ rights parties.”^[1] While a third party has never attained the office of the President, their role in elections cannot be overlooked. While these parties have never come close to gaining a plurality of the popular or electoral vote (highest being Perot for the Reform Party, who gained 19% of the popular vote but no electoral votes), they can impact the overall voting breakdown by taking votes from one or both major parties. They generally mobilize around a specific issue that is not a big part in either of the major parties’ platforms, which can cause voters who are passionate about that subject to vote for the third party rather than one of the two major parties.

One of the more prominent examples of this strategy was George Wallace’s American Independent party, which picked up the issue of segregation in the 1968 election, which was won by Richard Nixon. While Wallace did not affect the electoral vote, which Nixon won by a margin of 301-191, he did affect the popular vote, which Nixon only won by 0.7%. This difference could be explained by the 13.5% of the popular vote that Wallace took because of his pro-segregation policies that were rejected by the Democratic Party. This caused him to win the electoral votes of several Deep South states, which had traditionally voted Democrat before Goldwater in 1964, who voted against the Civil Rights Act of 1964. These two candidates were the first to cause Southern States to vote away from the Democratic Party, a trend that has been maintained to this day. Wallace made a poignant connection between segregation and states’ rights, which has always been a major, if not the major issue for the South. This was the true beginning of what became known as the “Southern Strategy” for the Republican Party, which appealed to racially charged white southerners who were strong advocates for states rights and, in particular, maintaining segregation. This was the beginning of the GOP’s dominance of the southern vote in presidential elections.

When examining third parties taking votes away from one particular party and possibly determining the outcome of an election, one would be remiss in failing to discuss the Green Party Candidate Ralph Nader’s effect on the controversial 2000 Presidential Election between Democrat Al Gore and Republican George W. Bush. The key issue upon which Nader ran was reforming the presidential campaign system, stressing the problems with things like campaign finance, the two party system, and more. He won less than three percent of the popular vote, and no electoral votes. Gore won the popular vote by a margin of just over 500,000 votes, but Bush narrowly won the electoral vote by a count of 271-266. The biggest source of controversy was from Florida, whose 25 electoral votes was the final determinant of the victor. Bush narrowly won Florida by 537 votes, winning him the election. Although Gore demanded a recount, his efforts were eventually voted down by a 5-4 vote in the Supreme Court, declaring a recount unconstitutional. Florida’s incredibly close contest is where the effect of Ralph Nader played the biggest role. Nader won over 97,000 votes in Florida, which, according to Voter News Service’s exit polls, cost Gore Florida and, subsequently, the election. In a piece he wrote for Political Science Quarterly, Professor Gerald M. Pomper wrote, “…in the VNS exit poll, approximately…47 percent of the Nader voters said they would choose Gore in a two-man race…21 percent would choose Bush, and… 32 percent would not vote. Applying these figures to the actual vote, Gore would have achieved a net gain of 26,000 votes in Florida, far more than needed to carry the state easily…”^[2] It is clear that while of course many factors went into Bush’s 2000 Presidential victory, Nader’s campaign had a direct tangible effect on the outcome.

It is true that a third party candidate has never come close to winning a United States Presidential election. That being said, millions of people have felt compelled to vote for a third party because of their strong beliefs on certain topics like segregation, campaign reform, etc. Although they rarely win even one state’s electoral votes, they can have a significant effect on the overall outcome of an election, as shown in the example of Ralph Nader’s candidacy in the 2000 election. Many people blame Nader’s run for Bush’s eventual victory, especially because of the close contest in Florida. While the effect of third parties can be argued to be either positive or negative, one thing cannot be denied: third parties can and have played a major role in the United States electoral system.

Part I. B

        Since the Ford administration in the 1970s, the partisan construct of the American political system has changed drastically. This does not just mean with the actual politicians, mind you. While party polarization over the last 40 years can be argued to be the biggest change to our political system in the time period, there are other factors too. Political Action Committees, for example, have seen their role and effect on the political system change in incredible fashion. The same can be said for the way elections are covered. The way people obtain knowledge about the political goings on of their time has evolved so considerably that people in the 1970s would find some of our news sources impossible to believe. These three factors have experienced and catalyzed some of the most dramatic transformations that American Politics has ever seen.

        Party polarization is widely argued to be the most significant change in the American political system in the last several decades. If the two parties were to be represented by bell-shaped curves, their interaction since the 1970s can be simplified into one word: separation. In the ‘70s, a portion of the left side of the Republican bell curve would overlap with a portion of the right side of the Democratic bell curve. The overlap would by no means be extreme, but it would be enough to qualify as noteworthy. To translate this picture into words, liberal Republicans and conservative Democrats had common ideas that linked the parties together and, although they most definitely did not agree on everything, it made working together possible.