Common Sense Papers 46 through 52 discuss certain arguments for the right kind of independent political movement.
Big Tent Housing Multiple Unique Factions
Samuel Adams was the man of the American Revolution. Described by some as “the Machiavelli of chaos”, Adams was notorious for agitating for change. As he considered waging war with the daunting British Empire, he dreaded disunity. Among his last surviving words is a warning to Thomas Paine: “Happy is he who is cautious.” If we take a cautious approach to birthing a national independent coalition into existence in American politics, we need a specific platform. No one gets moved to action by fluff, but we need a platform that excludes almost no one from taking interest—there’s the unity!
Adams said, “Neither religion nor liberty can long subsist in the tumult of altercation, and amidst the noise and violence of faction.”1 In our immediate climate of culture wars, creating new political parties of pure faction will do little to bring workable policies to federal governance. We need something so much more effective than breaking the two-party system into “factionalism.” We need to agree to disagree on many things that don’t fall squarely within well-reasoned principles that pertain to the fundamental platform issues that will help establish a new independent coalition.
Common sense is hard to argue against—only the idiot or the arrogant intellectual runs such a daring course. Standing against threats from outside our country is necessary for national preservation. Standing against excessive federal threats from outside the state is necessary for local preservation. Embracing healthy business formation and competition is key to economic success. Removing threats to our planet and ecological sustainability is also important. Rooting out entrenched corruption from all areas of government and political interaction is a must.
Of course, taking on the two-party system (Big Politics) and the entanglements with Big Corporations and Big Media certainly would benefit from channeling a healthy dose of Samuel Adams. Avoid factions, be cautious, and grow the movement toward success.
Let’s begin this essay from a counterintuitive approach. Let’s examine why we should fail—why the odds of success are stacked against us. There is a common critique on third parties in American politics: the politics of our day suggest no successful third party option is possible. While we are not proposing to be a third party, we are effectively taking on that role—or offering a superstructure apparatus to Independents and like-minded third party candidates to consolidate into a national third party network. Let’s take a look at this argument predicting our demise.
Critique—no third party can form with sufficient size to unify Americans for change
Why do we feel helpless in society today? Is it the concentration of political power, of business, of bureaucracy, of polarized parties? Somehow the burden of freedom turns into the erosion of freedom—slipping chances to solve problems before too much damage is done.
American dissatisfaction with Congress is at key lows and interest in other political party options is near record highs, so what’s the problem with finding real change? There are many problems, but several critical problems to understand. I review three articles that examine third party politics from 2018 up to August 2022 by Voter Study Group, Gallup, and Brookings. All contain key insights that are relevant to any attempt to launch a third party movement at the national level.
First Article
The September 2018 article by Lee Drutman, William Galston, and Tod Lindberg for the Voter Study Group is titled, “Spoiler Alert—Why Americans’ Desires for a Third Party Are Unlikely to Come True”. The key findings are: 1) two-thirds of Americans want a third party, 2) but those wanting a third option don’t agree on what the third party should be, 3) partisans are not about to abandon their party—they see a distinct risk toward the other party, and 4) Americans don’t really see the functioning of a multiparty system or see those reforms taking hold.
The first major blow to third party creation is the total lack of consensus on what the third party should offer. We are sorted from liberal to conservative and have polarized ideologies. The political center is less engaged, so the moderates don’t hold a party together. So how do you group left and right together?
The second major blow to a third party offering is that partisans are afraid of the other side and risking a vote on a third party may hand a devastating win to politics of the other side. Again, totally valid point that winner-take-all voting makes third party candidates spoilers based on which side votes are taken from. How do you enter but not spoil a winner-take-all system? How do you spoil both parties at the same time? If the system is already spoiled, does entering the field with a better option really spoil anything as long you enter every field of play to win every seat in the same way? Maybe the two parties should look in the mirror and decide who is really spoiling elections?
Where should a third party land? This is dated to 2018, but probably is just as relevant for current purposes:
The 2018 VOTER Survey asked respondents where they would place a third party, should such a party exist, in relation to the existing parties on questions of economics (as defined by how much the government spends and how many services it provides) and immigration—the two most salient issues in American politics right now.2
Note, this was 2018. These are still important issues in 2024.
There is no agreement on what that third party should be. There is demand for a party that is more liberal, a party that is more centrist, and a party more conservative than the current two parties. In short, to represent this diversity of views, American democracy needs not two or three parties, but at least five parties.3
That’s the spoiler conclusion. It’s fair if you only plan to solve all your political problems through federal government.
The article also makes clear this key point: “There Is Little Support for or Understanding of Electoral Reforms That Would Help Create a True Multiparty System”.4 I partly agree. The more complicated the logic to engage millions of Americans, the higher the failure rate. The more system variables that require individual engagement to change, the higher the rate of failure. Still, major time, money, and effort has been channeled for several years into structural reforms—election reforms, voting methods, and campaign finance. In the long run, viable third parties must depend on election reforms for more conducive voting preference systems. In the short term, for our efforts, third party politics needs to solve a simple problem through a single process where possible.
Second Article
The Gallup article, “Support for Third U.S. Political Party at High Point”, published February 15, 2021 by Jeffrey M. Jones, reports that support for a third party remains high at 62%.5 A record number of Republicans say a third party is needed.
Another key finding in the article is that 50% of U.S. adults identify as political independents, the highest percentage Gallup has ever measured in a single poll. With 50% of the population not captured by partisan loyalty (although nearly all independents lean to a side because that’s the only game in town!), the chance to organize independents around a third party platform while penetrating partisan camps becomes truly feasible.
The fracturing of the GOP is highlighted by several statistics:6
41% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents both favor a third party and want Trump to be the leader of the GOP
28% favor a third party but want a new leader for the GOP
31% of Republicans and Republican-leaners either don't want a third party or don't have a preference on Trump's future role
These numbers may certainly have moved a bunch since February 2021, but the fractures and preference mixes remain. By the time you read this essay, the narrative on Trump as a candidate for office in 2024 may have dramatically changed. Who knows? Alternately, while Democrats and Democrat-leaning independents don’t have a polarizing internal problem like Trump leadership, the split of those that want a more liberal third party vs. more moderate third party is about the same. Each party is fracturing in both directions—the American people are very fractured. They want leadership. They need a vision for how to get out of this political leadership mess without dire consequences.
Third Article
Finally, the third article that supports this critique comes from William Galston of Brookings. Dated August 12, 2022, the article is titled “Are Americans finally ready for a Third Party?”. The lead paragraph states:
Andrew Yang, a former candidate for the Democratic presidential nomination, and Christine Todd Whitman, a former Republican governor of New Jersey, certainly think so. They have just founded Forward Party with the avowed aspiration of promoting more moderate politics and candidates.7
The article finds that “Democrats and Independents are much more dissatisfied with the current party system than are Republicans, and young adults are far less satisfied than are older Americans.”8 The survey finds that there is more openness for the idea among college-educated voters and that Hispanics may be in play for such ideas. An alternate survey suggests that 25% of Americans think the two-party system is good enough, 26% see a need for a third party, but 34% said multiple new parties are needed. Again, the multiparty system is easy to suggest, but very difficult to create with huge voter engagement and different political norms in our country—akin to European party structures. The article confirms that five distinct voter blocs are likely hidden under the hood of the current system—a progressive Sanders/AOC party, a center-left Biden party, a centrist/business-oriented Bloomberg party, a traditional-conservative Pence party, and a conservative populist Trump Party. A Green party might make up a sixth party, but we already have that party—it just doesn’t matter much when winner-take-all mathematics plays out.
To really get voters comfortable with voting for third party candidates, election reforms would be very helpful. The Voter Study Group article mentioned previously has lots of data on voter interest in election reform. The comprehension of the needed reforms is low. The more politically engaged (tend to be more partisan and sorted ideologically) don’t have great appetite for RCV, multi-member districts, larger house of representatives, etc. The less politically engaged care for these reforms even less. They don’t really want to think about it. In sum, human nature is showing its paradoxical side on voting reforms—people want more choices, but willingly stay ignorant and uninterested on the legislative changes needed for voting methodologies to support more choices.
Okay, so there is the critique that no third party can form to reach adequate size. Why? Because we are 5 or 6 factions hiding in 2 organized camps with a large independent bloc held hostage by the two-party system. In each camp, there are sizable splits for both more moderate and more extreme representation. It’s as if I can hear Samuel Adams shouting from 250 years ago that you must unify the factions against the greater threat within the status quo.
The Big Tent Pathway Forward?
So where does this lead us? How do we produce a big tent coalition that can house multiple unique factions? Well, having picked on Forward Party as the most recent national attempt to build third party momentum, let’s look at the Forward Party platform.
It’s really quite simple—that makes it big-tent eligible (“open platform”), but also leaves people skeptical with lots of unanswered questions. Still, it’s a smart platform for key reasons. Here are the some values from their website:
Bottom-Up, Not Top-Down: Forward empowers leaders to find solutions that work in their communities. We won’t dictate a rigid, top-down policy platform and expect it to work for all Americans.
Work Together, Not Against: Forward strives for collaborative solutions. We’ll make sure they work, and we'll try something else if they don’t.
All Are Welcome—Left, Right, or Center: Forward is creating a political home for everyone willing to work together in good faith to find practical ways to make this country better.
The values also emphasize diverse thinking, more listening, and grace & tolerance in the political sphere.
The beauty of these values is their alignment with common sense. Who is against local effectiveness, collaboration, or working together in good faith? Not me! Hopefully, not you. It’s geared toward thinking about principles that promote the common good. Translating these values into policies has meant focusing on the one thing that opens the door wide for third parties: election reform—it’s not sexy, but it’s a highly intelligent choice given the context of the political moment.
How can the Common Sense 250 platform be as smart, but more specific? First, let’s plan to focus on things where common sense would tell you not to discard it. Second, let’s make sure that our offering is all about promoting the common good, especially after careful deliberations that inform the public about the ultimate direction that actual legislative actions might take. Third, let’s enter the political combat zone with the intent to break down spoiled political machinery, not the intent to attack individuals for representing the existing machinery. Fourth, let’s agree to the idea that those factions who will feel threatened and defeated by a new independent coalition may actually deserve a policy win (or several big wins) in their favor for the sake of the common good. How about a big policy win for the left (that the right can tolerate) and a big policy win for the right (that the left can tolerate)? It’s like the awesome feeling of going to a birthday party for a friend and leaving with your own goody bag full of cool stuff! It wasn’t your special day, but you still ended up better off. Fifth, let’s build a platform that purposefully tries to reduce the level of threat that concerns those who live on the far left of the political spectrum and those who live on the far right of the political spectrum. This means trying not to be anyone’s worst nightmare while political reform takes place to win seats away from the major legacy parties. Writing that last sentence felt weird, but I hope it made sense—common sense. It’s like saying, “hey, this political eviction notice comes with love and a few months free rent at your next place!” To sum up the fifth point, we need to design the coalition to win, and should we win, we must do so with the intent to lift up everyone we can with sound policy prescriptions that solve real problems for the base 80% of American citizens. Lastly, our coalition should be focused on national issues that can positively impact all Americans—things have to be addressed at the national level of government. If it doesn’t need to be national, let’s not fight about it and spoil our own chances of building a massive, big-tent coalition.
Now is the perfect time to capitalize on voter discontent (assuming we can still convince the disillusioned to even vote in the future), but the odds against third party success are very high. The platform must be capable of stitching the fabric of American political life back together to the betterment of all (or at least most) citizens, regardless of where they sit on the spectrum. The Common Sense 250 platform needs to unify multiple factions, combat a source of outrage, and sting like a bee. And we need to do all that without expecting election voting reforms to save the day. Possible? Maybe it will depend on how cynical you feel when you read the rest of these essays. Check your cynicism before you step into the political batter’s box, and let’s keep moving toward to the final innings of this pitchbook. We’ll get to the platform in a just a few more essays.
Notes for new readers:
The Common Sense Papers are an offering by Common Sense 250, which proposes a method to realign the two-party system with the creation of a new political superstructure that circumvents the current dysfunctional duopoly. The goal is to heal political divisions and reboot the American political system for an effective federal government. If the movement can gain appeal, a call to crowdfund the project may occur in 2024 or 2025. Subscribe for free with an email to follow along.
The tabs on the top of the Substack page can bring you to earlier essays that spell out key political issues. Common Sense Paper No. 1, No. 2, No. 4, and No. 5 can help anyone get up to speed on the project.
Common Sense 250 is still working out details on launching a podcast for those who want to listen to the political strategy but don’t have time to read. Subscribe and watch for an email announcement.
Stacy Schiff, “The Noble Fury of Samuel Adams,” Smithsonian Magazine, October 2022, https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/noble-fury-samuel-adams-180980758/ (accessed April 13, 2024).
Lee Drutman, William A. Galston, Tod Lindberg, "Spoiler Alert," Voter Study Group, September 2018, https://www.voterstudygroup.org/publication/spoiler-alert#share-content (accessed April 13, 2024).
Ibid.
Ibid.
Jeffrey M. Jones, "Support for a Third Political Party at High Point," Gallup, February 15, 2021, https://news.gallup.com/poll/329639/support-third-political-party-high-point.aspx (accessed April 13, 2024).
Ibid.
William A. Galston, "Are Americans finally ready for a Third Party?," Brookings Institution, August 12, 2022, https://www.brookings.edu/articles/are-americans-finally-ready-for-a-third-party/ (accessed April 13, 2024).
Ibid.