Joining the Parties

Along with Ralph Nader's disappointing show in the presidential election last year, the Green Party candidate lost another battle-at the hands of the state of North Carolina.

Like most states, North Carolina has certain requirements for a political party, especially new or third parties, to be recognized in elections. An organization must gather signatures from supporters and then submit them to the state and counties by a certain deadline.

But the seemingly simple obligations are not necessarily a cakewalk; in fact, Nader considered the conditions so tough that he sued to prevent their enforcement. Compared to other states' election laws, North Carolina's are indeed some of the most difficult, with candidates required to collect signatures equal in number to 2 percent of voters in the last gubernatorial election. In 2000, that number amounted to 51,324 signatures; only California, the nation's most populous state, required more.

What makes compliance especially difficult is the deadline. Signatures must be submitted to the respective counties for verification by mid-May, well before the campaign season is in full swing-and well before voters are willing to sign their support to a candidate.

Similar laws in West Virginia were ruled unconstitutional last year, as they were found to violate due process, and the Green Party argued that the deadline had been waived in previous North Carolina elections. Still, Nader lost the lawsuit, and as a result, the Tar Heel State joined only six others in not listing Nader's name on the ballot.

That ballot did include two major independents-Libertarian candidate Harry Browne and Reform candidate Pat Buchanan. And in the end, Nader's name might have been printed on the ballot had he used his resources to gather signatures instead of filing motions in court, or had he taken a page from the Libertarian Party, which begins collecting signatures immediately after the previous election.

However, Nader's decision to stick to his guns in his clash with the state signals more than just his stubborness-it speaks to the nature and future of third parties.

For the first century of American democracy, election and ballot laws posed little or no disadvantage for third parties; citizens usually voted using party-printed ballots. Government-printed ballots have only existed since the late 19th century, when the standardized forms replaced the private ballots that were simply dropped into boxes. Since the popularity of government ballots has grown, however, the two major parties have found ways to exclude their competition.

Political aspirants must hunt for signatures even to be recognized as write-in candidates. In most states, a write-in candidate must only register his or her name to be recognized-usually by an October deadline. North Carolina, however, requires 500 signatures to be submitted by July. No other state has such stringent requirements.

Once candidates do make the ballots, they are exempt from collecting signatures year after year-assuming they draw 10 percent of the vote. Nationally, states average a 2 percent minimum vote for a party to avoid having to gather signatures again. In North Carolina, third parties have had to petition for every election cycle.

"It is that three-pronged combination of high numbers of signatures, early deadlines and high percentages needed to stay on the ballot that makes North Carolina's system so hostile and so disgraceful," Winger says.

Winger is not alone in his assessment, and the political climate might be ripe to change election regulations again. A committee charged with studying North Carolina's election laws is set to release a report calling for significant changes to several aspects of the law, including ballot access.

Created by an order of the General Assembly in 1999, the Election Laws Revision Commission is the state's first in 34 years. The hope of its 17 members-including a few third party supporters-is that its recommendations will encourage the legislature to "re-write and re-codify the election laws," says Bill Gilkeson, staff attorney for the commission.

Among the changes that the commission will propose are a lowering of the signature requirement down to 1.5 percent of the last gubernatorial vote, and an easing of the deadline by two months, to mid-July. Ultimately, the decision lies with the General Assembly.

That so much effort and tradition has been invested in maintaining the two party system does not bode well for the future prospects of third parties.

"The biggest obstacle for third parties is the idea that 'a vote for the best is a vote for the worst,'" says Dan Johnson-Weinberger, field director for the Center for Voting and Democracy, a group based in Washington, D.C. "The best thing you could say about our voting system is that it makes it easy on the voter, having only two choices. It's easy to say, 'I don't like this one so I'll vote for that one.'"

However, a major shift in the U.S. voting system is far from being adopted, and for the presidency it would require a change of law in every state as long as the Electoral College exists. With states such as North Carolina and Oklahoma still hostile to allowing third parties on the ballot at all, and with third parties therefore at a disadvantage in fundraising and the debates, the winner-take-all system of voting seems likely to prevent any immediate growth of third parties.

A far less tangible obstacle for third parties is their well-established role as interest groups instead of political parties. Because most American voters identify with one of the two major parties, new groups tend to crop up only when centered around a particular ideology or candidate-for example, the States' Rights Party and various socialist parties. But when an issue falls in popularity-either because the issue no longer exists or because it has been absorbed by one of the Democrats or Republicans-new groups tend to fade away. Third parties appear to take this into account when they pinpoint what they hope to accomplish.

"The most successful party in the 20th century was the Socialist party, not because they elected candidates but because they had their issues co-opted by the major parties," says George Getz, national press secretary for the Libertarian Party. "We've already had a huge impact on the public debate without electing anyone to Congress. Through the process of having 1,500 candidates running for office, they've educated a lot more people. If they win, great. If not, at least they've educated someone."

Duke Professor of Political Science John Aldrich sees the Reform Party as a classic example of dependence on ideology or personality: "When it started in 1992 with [Ross] Perot first running for president, there was a fair amount of disenchantment with the process of politics," Aldrich explains. "There had been a number of political scandals, and term limits were in demand because we weren't getting the turnover voters wanted."

But, he says, once Congress was no longer under continuous one-party control and turnover increased, enthusiasm for reform declined.

And indeed, even in the 2000 election the most successful independent candidates-Nader and Pat Buchanan-as well as many politicians rumored to be in the running-Gov. Jesse Ventura, Reform-Minn., Sen. John McCain, R-Ariz., and others-were driven more by personality than an organization.

But, thanks to the Internet, organization may soon begin to override personality. Political parties and candidates alike have always derived their strength from grassroots support and name recognition. Although such attention can be hard to come by in the mainstream media, the Internet provides an opportunity to reach a significantly larger group of potential supporters. "Even if you're not viable, you still get a website," says Johnson-Weinberger.

Although any politician will attest to the advantages of being connected online, it is not clear whether any tangible results come from cyberspace. "I think [the Internet] is really useful for building a campaign, but it's not a substitute for television and major newspapers. You're attracting people who are looking for you," explains Aldrich. "To succeed in politics you really need to be a member of one of the two major parties. The presidential race tends to be the culmin