Oct
9
The Know-Nothings and the Future of Third-Parties in America
Filed Under From the Field, Minor Party Influence | Leave a Comment
Jordan Gilman is a junior majoring in Politics and also in Economics.
This post is the fourth of this season of From the Field. If you have not yet done so, please read this brief post by the series editor introducing our focus for the season.
Third parties in America are often seen as accessories to the political order, not serving a foundational role but still making their voices heard. Voting for a third party has been seen by some as lending a hand to the opposition, taking away much-needed votes from either Republicans or Democrats. For example, Hillary Clinton mailed over a million flyers that cautioned against voting for a third-party candidate in 2016, claiming that doing so helped Donald Trump. In recent elections, these organizations made enough of an impact to garner national attention but have failed to challenge America’s two-party system. The Know-Nothing movement in the 1850s was arguably America’s first third party, campaigning on issues related to immigration. Its existence was short-lived but still impactful, showing how voters across a deeply divided country were unified by nativist ideas. Even though this party has long been dead, its role as a release valve for discontent with the two-party system echoes across time and into the present day, providing insight into viable solutions towards increasing the role of third parties.
The Know-Nothing Party began in response to the overwhelming nativist sentiment of the 1850s and took advantage of the Whigs’ poor performance in addressing Catholic immigration. University of Virginia professor Michael Holt described how despite making nativist appeals, the Whigs rarely “acted against Catholics specifically” and lost touch with their working-class voters as a result (pg. 314). Even more than the Democrats, the Whigs were led by political elites insulated from the pressures of Catholic immigration. Without a party to represent these pressing issues, many Northerners turned to the Know-Nothing party, which had taken an abundantly clear stance on immigration despite its brief history.
Beginning as The Order of the Star Spangled Banner in 1850, this Nativist movement originally resembled a sort of secret society, urging its members to say that they “know nothing” of the party (pg. 6). Soon the Know-Nothings would become anything but secret, experiencing success in New York with lawyer Daniel Ullmann, who earned more than a quarter of all ballots cast in that state and its leading city to the shock of many onlookers (pg. 460). The party’s nativist appeals had struck a chord in New York, later diffusing to other areas in the Northeast and even across the country.
At its peak, the Know-Nothings were America’s first dominant third party, providing an alternative for voters dissatisfied with the political establishment. Unlike many grassroots movements, the Know-Nothings achieved political efficacy by electing over a hundred Congressmen, eight governors, a controlling share of state legislature seats across the country, and thousands of local politicians. The party even recruited former president (and Whig member) Millard Fillmore to run as a Know-Nothing in the 1956 election. Despite this surprising and seeming sudden success, the party failed to capture the Executive Branch, with Fillmore only winning one state in 1956 (pg. 30). The impact of the Know-Nothings was felt most acutely on the state level, transforming local politics in different ways in various states in the 1850s.
Taking an indecisive stance on slavery initially broadened the horizons of the Know-Nothing party but caused a reckoning when the nation moved towards civil war. From the Dred Scott ruling to the Lincoln-Douglas debates, there was no shortage of controversy over slavery and its future. The party was built around brushing slavery aside, hoping to find unity in other areas and create a truly national movement in the process. But in an era on the verge of civil war, there was no path toward unity without confronting slavery head-on. The Know-Nothings made the same fatal mistakes as the Whigs by underestimating the divisiveness of slavery. As the nation divided, the Know-Nothings became gradually more irrelevant, losing their role as a political force and instead becoming a party of the past. The Know-Nothings were a casualty on the way toward civil war, unable to sustain themselves amid better political alternatives.
Despite the death of this third party, the discontentment that fueled its rise still rings true centuries later in contemporary American politics. Issues continue to plague the American public that seems to be underrepresented in America, making many citizens dissatisfied with the two-party system. A proposed solution towards giving third parties more influence includes rank-choice voting, which (as its name suggests) allows candidates to be ranked in order of preference on a ballot. This system lowers the stakes for third parties, no longer facing an all-or-nothing dilemma. A survey experiment sought to understand the effectiveness of rank-choice voting, particularly related to third parties. The research found there to be a strong connection between hypothetical ranked-choice voting and support of third-party candidates (pg. 374). Respondents using RCV criteria showed nearly double the level of support of third parties in the 2020 election than those using a non-RVC system. RCV has the potential to create a more level political playing field and lend a helping hand to third parties.
Even though these conclusions made by Simmons and his team rely more on questionnaires than electoral data, RVC has shown results in real-world elections. For example, Alaska implemented this electoral reform in 2022, using it in elections for governor and Congress. Maine has also been a proponent of RCV and has seen increased governmental approval ratings ever since. These well-documented benefits leave observers wondering why RCV is not more popular. A reason for its slow diffusion has been the hesitation of some conservatives, more reluctant to introduce this electoral reform. Research has found many voters to find the run-off model is more satisfying – especially in come-from-behind victories (pg. 36). Even more significant is the potential dissatisfaction voters will have with RCV once it becomes more familiar, losing its novelty and promising impacts. Only time will truly be able to tell the future of elections in America, but proponents are hopeful that these doubts will be overwhelmed by the resounding benefits of this electoral reform.
Today, third parties represent issues as diverse as environmental regulation to libertarian causes, all of which can have a unique contribution to the political atmosphere. Rank-choice voting helps these parties, providing a solution that keeps the broader electoral system intact while also introducing needed reform. By doing away with binary decisions at the ballot and moving towards a ranking system, third parties are given more of a chance at competing, able to represent unique issues to their supporters. Like anything in American politics, uprooting the status quo is difficult, but RCV has shown significant progress here. One can only wonder how the Know-Nothing party would have fared in an RCV system, perhaps able to retain some of its influence instead of being a casualty of the Civil War. However, what observers do know is that these third parties will continue to persist in American politics, potentially serving an even larger role in the future.