Third Parties

Many people are looking at the fiasco that the Republican Party has become and are thinking that it is likely to die.  I certainly agree that it probably should die, but the circumstances do not at all resemble the one time such a thing happened before, and I don't quite see how they can get there.

James Buchanan was the last Whig to be elected president, in 1856.  He was an ineffectual compromise leader, and he interfered with the Supreme Court in the Dred Scott case to get a decision which made just about everybody extremely angry.  The abolition vs slavery tensions were high and Buchanan and his party fanned the flames.  The Republicans, supporting abolition and union, were able to capture a lot of the liberals who had been Whigs, and there were a total of four major candidates for President in 1860.   Lincoln won the most votes, at 39.8%, and John Bell, the nominee of what was left of the Whigs, who now called themselves the "Constitutional Union Party", got 12.6% of the votes. The Democrats were split into southern and northern, who got 18.1% and 29.5% respectively.  Lincoln's famous nemesis, Stephen Douglas, represented the Northern Ds.  Had the D's remained united, their candidate would have won the election, but the issue that divided them was the central one of the campaign.

The relevant points of this history for the present election are two:  Both parties, the Whigs and the Democrats, were irredeemably divided.    This meant that it was possible to win with a plurality without having a majority.  (Demographics also meant that the second place party in votes, the Northern Democrats, received the fewest Electors, winning just one state.)  This sort of four way split is entirely possible in the 2016 election.   The second point was that the moribund party, the liberal Whigs, had a natural, popular and progressive successor, the Republicans, who effectively replaced them.  This has no parallel in the present election.  The heirs of the name (but none of the policies) of the Republican party are split into 2 groups: Trump enthusiasts and "Establishment" Republicans.  Neither group is going to move wholesale to a party or candidate that is not fundamentally whackadoodle conservative.  Trump's voters are unlikely to abandon him for anyone, and the establishment is faced with putting up a more acceptable candidate, who will be more conservative than Trump but not as hated as Cruz, or bowing to the inevitable and voting for Trump.

The more rational conservative alternative is the Libertarian candidate, Ron Johnson, who is benefiting greatly by the madness that has gripped the Republican Party. 

The real third party proposals are all coming from the left.   Bernie earned nearly as many delegates in the primaries and caucuses as Hillary and many of his fans are not quitting, saying they will vote for him or Green candidate Jill Stein.  Bernie himself seems to be signalling that he will support Hillary, saying that he will work his heart out to prevent Trump from winning, but still holding out for platform planks.

So it looks like we will have 5 "real" candidates:
Donald Trump
Hillary Clinton
Ron Johnson
Jill Stein
An Establishment Republican to be named later.

If the Rs name a credible person for this last role, that person and Trump will split about 48% of the votes, and Johnson will get 1-3%.  If they do not, Trump will get under 40% and Johnson will get 8-10%.

Many people will write in Bernie, but I don't think his name will be on any state ballots, so his votes will be well under 1%.  He'll work for Clinton, but how enthusiastic he will be and how many of his voters will vote for her depends upon what happens in the next few weeks.  The Bernie Bros are remarkably intransigent and while they may be right on the issues, it will be a disaster if they split non-wingnut vote.  If they move wholeheartedly to Stein, she'll get about 10% of the votes and Hillary will get about 40%.

So there's a scenario where it's a close race between Trump and Hillary: if the Rs stay with Trump and too many progressives go to Stein.

This is dangerous.  It is possible that the progressive agenda will survive a Trump victory, in a sort of Kropotinist way (i.e., Trump will make things so bad that the progressives win next time), but it's important to realize that Trump is an authoritarian who doesn't believe in civil discourse and the rule of law, and is likely to employ repressive measures to exterminate potential rival groups.  If he wins, the next election may be a one candidate referendum, or it may be during World War III.

So: if you live in a state which is either hard blue or hard red: California, Connecticut, Idaho, Utah, Alabama, etc., go ahead and vote your heart.  I wish I could do the same thing...I'd vote for Bernie or Jill in a flash.  The electoral college gives you that option.  But Washington is too close to being a swing state.  Even though Hillary is at best my third choice, I must vote for the candidate that is most likely to defeat Trump.

So what does this have to do with third parties?  The only way a third party can win if it is replacing an existing party all at once.  Nobody is suggesting that the Ds are moribund, and while the Rs are doing a wonderful job of snatching defeat from the jaws of victory in this election, only the Trumpsters are likely to form a new party--and they are now running the old one.  We can hope that Trump's success will split the conservatives and shine light on the complete moral and intellectual bankruptcy of today's Republican party and their corporate masters, but I won't hold my breath.