Every political season I am confronted with well-intentioned friends who believe that voting for the Libertarian Party (or some other third party) is the high-minded, principled choice. They imagine that if only their preferred party could win, everything would change for the better. In the process, they ignore both the history of third parties and the practical reality of political alliances. In short, it is a wishful fantasy of a better world under their particular framework. In practice, it is political death.
My Libertarian-minded friends want reforms such as abolishing the income tax and creating a less intrusive government. Both goals already fit within the conservative wing of the Republican Party. Others want to see sex work decriminalized and the broad legalization of currently illegal drugs. The Libertarian Party would deliver those outcomes, but so would the Democratic Party. Republicans generally oppose legalized sex work and remain cautious about drug decriminalization. The Libertarian Party tries to appeal to elements on both the right and the left in order to attract voters. For this reason, I have labeled it the “Half-and-Half” party: it is neither consistently conservative nor consistently liberal. It is not even a true middle-ground party; instead, it tends to combine the extremes of both major parties.
Has the strategy of growing by attracting disaffected members of the two major parties worked? No. Not at all. It remains a fledgling party still searching for any real relevance.
Failings
Chase Oliver, the 2024 Libertarian presidential candidate, received 0.4 percent of the vote. Since the party’s founding in 1972, only three of its presidential candidates have exceeded 1 percent: Ed Clark in 1980 with 1.08 percent, Gary Johnson in 2016 with 3.28 percent, and Jo Jorgensen in 2020 with 1.18 percent.
The most successful third-party candidates in American history were Theodore Roosevelt and Ross Perot. Perot received 18.9 percent of the popular vote in 1992 as an independent. In 1996 he ran again as the Reform Party candidate and received 8.4 percent. Roosevelt, running as the Progressive (“Bull Moose”) Party candidate in 1912, won 27.4 percent of the popular vote and finished second behind Woodrow Wilson (42 percent). Incumbent Republican William Howard Taft came in third with 23 percent. Wilson, of course, later signed the federal income tax into law. Had Roosevelt conceded defeat and supported Taft, Libertarian-minded voters might never have had an income tax to complain about.
Roosevelt had already served two terms. In 1908 he declined a third term, following George Washington’s example of self-limitation, and helped secure the nomination for his hand-picked successor, Taft. When he concluded that Taft had abandoned progressive policies, Roosevelt challenged him for the 1912 nomination. After losing at the convention—conducted differently than today’s primaries—he decided the process had been unfair and ran as a third-party candidate. This episode illustrates the self-defeating nature of many third-party efforts: “You didn’t give me what I want, and I can’t win inside the two-party system, so I’ll divide the vote further.” Roosevelt clearly disliked Taft’s direction, but he appears to have given little weight to the policies Wilson would pursue. Splitting the Republican vote and electing Wilson was, from a limited-government perspective, the worst available outcome.
A similar charge of shortsightedness can be leveled at Ross Perot in 1992. Motivated by a personal grievance against George H. W. Bush over POW/MIA issues as well as policy differences, Perot ran as an independent. Early polls briefly showed him near 39 percent before he dropped into the low 20s, temporarily withdrew, then reentered and finished with nearly 19 percent. That was not enough to win, but it was enough to help elect Bill Clinton with 43 percent of the vote; Bush received 37 percent and might well have won without Perot in the race. From a limited-government standpoint, electing Clinton carried lasting costs. It also elevated Hillary Clinton, whose failed push for “Hillarycare” raised her profile, helped her win a Senate seat, and later placed her in the Obama administration, where she oversaw the Benghazi disaster and other foreign-policy failures. She later sought the presidency in 2016. Had she won, many limited-government observers would have regarded it as another setback. In 1992 I viewed the Clintons as fundamentally untrustworthy and immoral; subsequent events only reinforced that judgment. Voting for either was never an option for me.
Third-party presidential candidates have never won in the United States, so their platforms remain untested in office. The only practical way a third-party run can “succeed” is by siphoning enough votes from one major party to tip the election to the other. That does not appear to have been Roosevelt’s intention, though it was the result. Whether it was Perot’s goal is unknowable, but his polling never projected a realistic path to victory. It was almost certainly not Ralph Nader’s goal either. In 2000 Nader ran as the Green Party candidate and received about 2.7 percent nationally, including roughly 97,000 votes in Florida. George W. Bush won Florida by 537 votes. Most analyses of Nader voters’ second preferences show a clear majority preferred Al Gore, so even a modest shift would likely have changed the outcome—yet Nader never had a realistic chance of winning. Pat Buchanan (Reform Party) received 17,484 votes and Harry Browne (Libertarian) 16,415 votes in Florida, numbers that may also have mattered in a contest decided by a few hundred votes.
Across American history, third-party presidential campaigns have a perfect record of failure. Victory remains a utopian fantasy for the third-party voter, who often concludes, “If only we could win, things would improve—but since we can’t, a pox on both your houses.” Common refrains include “there’s not a dime’s worth of difference between the two parties” or “the left wing and the right wing are just parts of the same bird.” Yet treating the two major parties as interchangeable is difficult to sustain. Pro-life and pro-choice positions are diametrically opposed. Raising taxes versus cutting them is not the same policy. A strong military posture versus a weak military posture or maintaining American dominance as the world’s only superpower verses a restrained doctrine of multipolarity are opposite strategic worldviews. In recent decades the Democratic Party has moved toward policies many limited-government observers regard as socialist, communist, fascist, or otherwise illiberal—positions not mirrored in the Republican Party. The partisan divide may be as deep as it has been since the Civil War era.
More is Better, Right?
Another part of the third-party fantasy is the claim that the United States would be better off with more political parties, as other countries have. “If only we had more parties, things would improve!” What is the evidence for this? Multiple parties typically produce something closer to a parliamentary system. In those systems, the left often unites to form a governing coalition. A conservative plurality does not automatically produce a conservative government if it falls short of 50 percent or lacks a reliable coalition partner.
The United Kingdom has 378 registered parties, Canada has 14, and Israel has 170. In each case, only a handful hold seats, and two parties usually dominate. In the UK only about 16 parties have parliamentary representation; in Israel roughly a dozen parties hold seats; Canada has five. Even with more parties on the ballot, governing still requires alliances, and the smallest parties often have little practical influence. Libertarians, many of whom prioritize fiscal restraint, would likely find such arrangements unsatisfying, because governing demands compromise.
In the United States, competing factions are largely contained inside the two major parties. Party affiliation can help advance difficult items because they form part of the platform on which the party or president was elected. Compromise is still almost always required to satisfy the various wings of the party. President Trump, for example, wanted to eliminate taxes on tips and overtime pay, yet Congress imposed caps in order to pass the legislation. That is simply how the process works.
Presently only three members of Congress are neither Republican or Democrat: Kevin Kiley (California’s 3rd District), Angus King (Maine), Bernie Sanders (Vermont). These people are all “Independents”. In all, 152 Independents ran for Congress in 2024 and 71 Libertarians ran as well. Kiley was elected as a Republican and later switched to Independent so only Sanders and King were elected as Independents. King and Sanders caucus with the Democrats while Kiley caucuses with the Republicans otherwise they would have no power at all. In the 2024 cycle, dozens of Independents and Libertarians ran for Congress, yet the few who serve as Independents still caucus with one of the major parties in order to have any influence. There is little evidence, and little reason to believe, that adding more parties would meaningfully change the realities of governing.
Just to indulge the fantasy, imagine the Libertarian Party somehow controls one-third of Congress, with Democrats and Republicans each holding one-third as well. How does the Libertarian Party repeal the income-tax amendment, legalize all drugs, or substantially shrink the government? It cannot do so alone. It would need alliances with Republicans or Democrats. Would Libertarians compromise on full drug legalization if they could achieve partial legalization? Most likely. Would they accept incomplete budget reforms if they could secure some spending restraint? Most likely. At that point they become like every other party: if they deliver no visible wins, voters will hold them accountable. Rep. Thomas Massie opposed the Trump agenda and he was booted out of office by his voters. Senator John Cornyn rebelled against the President’s agenda and his voters rejected him for Ken Paxton. Political realities don’t change but in the fantasy world of third-party utopians, there and only there do political realities not exist. “If only we good people were elected then everything could get fixed.” Maybe – if you had a benevolent dictatorship. Otherwise things will never be fixed because government is always an ongoing process with fierce opposition. No matter how long we fight or how tired of the fight we are it is a fight that never ends. Government takes constant vigilance. The Pro-Life movement finally ended Roe v. Wade but it took nearly 50 years to do so. Change usually comes slowly.
Compromising Principles
Beyond the shortsightedness already discussed, third-party advocacy often involves a measure of arrogance and moral superiority. I am frequently told that voting for one of the two major parties means compromising my principles. The implication is that the third party alone occupies the moral high ground and refuses all compromise. “Voting for one of those parties is the ‘lesser of two evils’ and I am sick of voting for the lesser of two evils. They are both evils”, so we are told. The unspoken premise is that the third party would somehow be free of evil, unlike those flawed Republicans and Democrats. This is the height of naiveté. As the earlier examples show, even in a two-party system compromises are required to accomplish anything. No third party is immune to that reality. The choice would simply become the “lesser of three evils” not the elimination of “evil”, yet the third-party person can’t imagine that because he is wrapped up in the utopian fantasy.
I am also told that, as a Christian, the compromise is even worse if I vote for a major-party candidate. “The party is not pure enough,” or “the candidate is not pure enough on [my preferred issue].” But would a Libertarian candidate or the Libertarian Party be pure once in office? Almost certainly not. Such claims are self-justifying fiction. No political party will ever embody all of my Christian convictions. That would require a theocracy, which we do not have and do not want in this country. Participating in a party or supporting a candidate does not force me to abandon my personal principles. Whether I fully approve of a platform or a candidate has no bearing on what I continue to believe and say. The party and I are not synonymous; the candidate and I are not the synonymous. I will have to tolerate outcomes that I dislike. That is the American system. Government is participatory. More than 155 million people voted in the 2024 presidential election. None of us gets everything we want. If I vote for a major-party candidate who wins, I can advance some of what I want. If I vote Libertarian or for another third party, I get nothing. The major parties do not revise their platforms in response to third-party grievances; third parties simply lack the power to compel them.
To vote for the Libertarian candidate I would have to accept the legalization of sex work, same-sex marriage, and even polyamorous arrangements as acceptable. Libertarians generally favor a laissez-faire approach to personal behavior. Chase Oliver summarized the stance as “your body is your body” and argued that government should stay out of it. As both a Christian and someone who considers the evidence, I regard this as both immoral and imprudent. It reduces human sexuality to an animalistic level, undermines marriage, and is not psychologically healthy for the participants. The experience of the pornography industry suggests that unrestrained sex often drives participants, particularly women, toward alcohol and drugs to cope with the shame and mental distress of what they have done.
The Democratic Party is the home of sexual laxity and perversions. People there would be fine with this platform plank. Kamala Harris, Tulsi Gabbard, Corey Booker, Mike Gravel, Elizabeth Warren, and Bernie Sanders all ran presidential campaigns where they spoke about decriminalizing sex work. The Libertarian Party cannot compete with the Democratic Party on this issue in terms of political power, and the issue itself rarely ranks high among voters. It is a losing issue from the start.
Conclusion
The overarching reality is that we are Americans living in a system in which people of every religious and political background participate, and they do not all vote from the same premises or for the same reasons. As a result, the candidates who emerge reflect the will of a broad electorate rather than any single-issue faction or exclusive religious order.
As a Christian and a minister, I want to have as much positive influence as possible on this country. God has granted citizens of the most powerful nation in history a real measure of control over their government. Stewardship of that responsibility is, I believe, a Christian duty. The practical fact is that Christians currently have more opportunity to shape outcomes inside the Republican Party than anywhere else on the political map. I have argued that the Democratic Party has become more godless and evil over time to the point that it is irredeemable. I stand by that assessment. Many others have reached the same conclusion, which is why evangelical Christians, pro-life voters, and fiscal conservatives have largely aligned with the Republican Party. None of them obtain everything they want. That is still preferable to getting nothing while supporting the evils of the Democratic Party or the evils of the Libertarian Party. Third-party voting, in practice, is political death. To borrow from Ecclesiastes, it is vanity of vanities, a chasing after the wind. It gains nothing. That is the hard conclusion the evidence supports.
Discover more from Darris Brock
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
