A Brief History of Third-Party Candidacy

Something is happening in the Republican party. The Tea Party has gone a bit rogue. From the very beginning of the movement, those identifying as "tea partyers" have insisted that it was a grass-roots movement independent of any political party. But their basic ideology of cutting government means they were bound to ally with the Republicans for seats in government. Now that they've been elected, true to their own feelings of independence, they don't fall in line with the party quite as much as the Republicans had hoped. Boehner had some trouble early in the session to whip his freshmen into shape, and Tea Party organizations are making clear that they plan on following their ideals and not letting Washington water-down their beliefs. Now that the 2012 cycle is -- ever so slowly -- getting under way, the question is whether the eventual Republican nominee will live up to the standards of the Tea Party and other far-right Republicans. If not, we may see a viable third-party or independent candidate get into the general race. Donald Trump has said explicitly that an independent run is a possibility for him (though I loathe to take the man seriously). Considering this possibility, I started to wonder about the history of third-party candidates and their frequency and reasons for running. What I found is a precedent that goes much farther back than Ross Perot and Ralph Nader of recent memory, and while none of the candidates actually won, many got a significant amount of votes. What follows is a brief history of the most important third-party and independent candidates in U.S. history.

The first case of a third-party candidate was not so divisive as some others. William Wirt, a former US Attorney General, was nominated by the Anti-Masonic Party to campaign against the incumbent Democrat Andrew Jackson in 1832. He did not intend to be a third party candidate, however, as he and the party had hoped that the National Republican Party would back him for a nomination. When the Republicans nominated Henry Clay, the campaign became Jackson vs. Clay, with William Wirt and the Anti-Masons left to sit back and take a loss. In the end he received 7.8% of the popular vote, equating to 7 electoral votes. Andrew Jackson won handily, receiving far more electoral votes than Clay and Wirt combined, so Wirt's candidacy had little to no effect on the outcome. 

In 1860, we see the first example of party disunity leading to a third party candidate. In the lead up to the Civil War, Abraham Lincoln campaigned as the Republican nominee against the Democrat's Stephen Douglas. But there were two others in the race: John C. Breckinridge and John Bell. It is John C. Breckinridge who is our focus. At the Democratic National Convention in 1860, there was disagreement over slavery among the delegates. Those from northern states were either against slavery or supported "popular sovereignty" in which new territories would be allowed to vote on whether or not to allow slavery (this was Stephen Douglas' position). Democrats from southern states naturally supported the legality of slavery everywhere, and became so frustrated with the proceedings at the Convention that most southern delegates walked out. They reconvened at their own convention and nominated Vice President John C. Breckinridge as the "Southern Democratic" candidate. In the end, as we know, Lincoln won, and the southern states seceded shortly after. The runner-up, however, technically was not  Stephen Douglas. Though he received the second-most popular votes, he came in last for electoral votes, behind Breckinridge in second and Bell in third. Though Breckinridge and Douglas' electoral votes combined still do not beat Lincoln, they do come close. It's not outlandish to guess that if the Democrats had unified behind a single candidate that the election, and our country, may have turned out quite differently.

Our next party-busting candidate was trust-buster Theodore Roosevelt. After serving 8 years as President, Roosevelt chose William Howard Taft to succeed him in the party, and Taft was indeed elected as a Republican in 1909. During the course of Taft's term, however, Roosevelt felt that Taft had strayed too far from the party, and that he should vie for nomination in Taft's place. Though Roosevelt had many supporters in the party, Taft now had more, and Taft won the nomination. Roosevelt, then, not one to give up, formed his own Progressive Party (or the Bull-Moose Party). However, due to lack of defections of his former allies, and the strength of the Democrats Woodrow Wilson, Roosevelt came in second to Wilson (though handily beat Taft).

In 1948, the Democrats saw another split, again between the north and the south, this time over Civil Rights. At the Democratic National Convention that nominated incumbent Harry Truman, Hubert Humphrey gave a speech in which he said that Democrats should "get out of the shadow of states' rights and walk forthrightly into the bright sunshine of human rights." This was not taken well by southern democrats who again stormed out of the convention to hold their own under the banner of the States' Rights Party, or Dixiecrats. The disgruntled southern democrats nominated Strom Thurmond, who came in a distant third behind Truman and the Republicans' Thomas E. Dewey. While Thurmond's candidacy itself had little impact in the numbers, the split in the Democratic party caused nearly every prediction to go to Dewey winning, and Truman's victory -- not realized until the morning after the election -- was a surprise.

George Wallace is famous as the desegregationist governor of Alabama, stating in his inaugural address his support for "segregation now, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever!" Nominally a Democrat, his pro-segregation views didn't mesh with the contemporary Democratic Party on a national level. So, in 1968, he ran as the candidate for the American Independent Party, on a platform of continued segregation, states' rights, and "law and order." Wallace would come in last, but received a substantial amount of southern votes and carried five states. His appeal to blue-collar workers and middle class whites would be replicated by Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush and would help shape the evolution of the modern Republican Party. Wallace would be the last candidate independent of the two major parties to receive any electoral votes (he got 46).

So you see, third party candidates are much more a part of US history than novelties like Ross Perot and Ralph Nader (though their influence can be debated). Will the Republicans split? It's impossible to tell at this point. So much can happen between now and the primaries. The Republicans and the Tea Party could drift farther apart if the Republican candidate is too moderate, or they could come together around their desire to oust President Obama. But what is clear is that the possibility is unprecedented, and you could say the country is due for another strong third-party player.