Sep
9
Minor Party Influence: How The American Independent Party Transformed the Political System
Filed Under From the Field, Minor Party Influence | Leave a Comment
Braden Glenny is a sophomore Politics major pursuing a concentration in American Politics
This post is the second 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.
Throughout American history, many minor political parties have risen for specific reasons and failed to gain large amounts of traction in the long term. One such party is the American Independent Party, a far-right political party founded in 1967. It reached its peak in 1968, with the nomination of Alabama Governor George Wallace for president as a more conservative alternative to the two main parties. The American Independent Party successfully pushed the much larger Republican Party further to the right. It, along with other minor parties in the United States, could potentially gain more prominence if changes occur to the election process, such as implementing multi-member districts and loosening requirements for ballot access.
The creation of the American Independent Party was the direct result of dissatisfaction among primarily members of the Democratic Party. Many conservative Democrats felt disillusioned with what they viewed as an increasing “hostility of the national party’s policies toward the interests of their region” (30). The supporters of the American Independent Party viewed efforts by the federal government to enforce desegregation as an unconstitutional action against the rights of the states. The official American Independent Party platform from 1968 claims that the federal government was violating the Tenth Amendment by taking control over “rights and privileges of the individual citizen, which are properly subject to state or local control, as distinguished from federal control”. Along with this key issue, the American Independent Party had a platform which could be broadly categorized as socially conservative, economically populist and anti-elitist (30). This platform provided a broader sense of appeal, which helped the party expand its base.
The American Independent Party was the most successful during the 1968 presidential election, which it greatly influenced. In 1968, the party nominated Governor George C. Wallace, a Democrat from Alabama, for President. Wallace had previously run as a Democrat in 1964, competing in primaries against incumbent Lyndon B. Johnson in “Wisconsin, Indiana, and Maryland—and surprised political observers by winning between 30 percent and 43 percent of the popular vote in these contests” (8). Such a performance seemingly proved that Wallace’s platform had popular support nationwide. There was a serious concern that Wallace could deadlock the Electoral College and use that as leverage against the two main parties in hopes of receiving concessions. In the end, he received 13.53 percent of the popular vote and carried five states worth 45 electoral votes in total (31). Wallace still remains the most recent third party candidate to win state votes in the Electoral College.
Wallace would return to the Democratic Party in 1972 and the AIP would attempt to go on without his candidacy to elevate them. However, they would only receive 1.4% of the popular vote in the 1972 election (9). The party had a major schism in 1976, splitting their already minuscule vote total (31). Today, only the California affiliate of the American Independent Party remains operational, where they play “an active role in state politics”. They continue to influence elections in California primarily by endorsing candidates running as part of the much larger Republican Party (Endorsements). Although the party remains active in this form, it has zero presence on the national stage. How has the AIP influenced the system, if it has accomplished little electorally?
The AIP played a major part in the American political scene by helping jump-start the so-called “Southern Strategy” and shift the Republican Party in a more conservative direction. Prior to the 1960s, the American South was solidly Democratic at every level of government. However, the Democratic Party nationally would begin to become more liberal. The AIP in 1968 gave many formerly hardline Democrats an opportunity to consider the potential of an alternative party. Nixon would adopt many tennets of Wallace’s 1968 campaign, such as support for law enforcement. This action would lead many white working-class voters in the South to defect to the Republican side, pushing the party further to the right. Since then, the South has been a major point of focus with how campaigns conduct themselves rhetorically. The AIP had successfully taught both parties that you cannot ignore the interests of the South (31). The desire for a third electorally viable party in the United States is nothing new. However, as explained previously, this momentum is not permanent. Why could there not be a third major party under normal circumstances? What can be done to make minor parties more viable?
The United States has been dominated by a two-party system since the 1820s. One common explanation often utilized by scholars is that this is due to what is known as Duverger’s law. To simplify, Duverger’s law essentially states that single-member districts with a first-past-the-post voting system are more likely to result in two-party systems. Some reformers suggest that if US states were to adopt some form of proportionally represented multi-member district for legislative seats, the two-party system weaken. However, it is currently illegal for states to apportion their congressional seats in a multi-member fashion. An act of Congress repealing the law in place would be a necessity. Multi-member districts, particularly statewide ones, may be in violation of the Voting Rights Act if there is a significant minority population. Additionally, ten states already utilize some form of multi-member district for their state legislatures (2013). Despite this, nearly all of these state legislative seats are controlled by the two main parties (2013). Therefore, it is debatable whether multi-member districts make much difference by themselves.
In addition to implementing multi-member districts, changing laws restricting ballot access could also benefit minor parties. Many state election laws are often tailored specifically to hurt these less prominent parties. For example, to appear on the ballot in Pennsylvania, an independent or minor party candidate must obtain a number of signatures equivalent to two percent of voters in the highest turnout election for the office being sought after (Ballot access requirements for political candidates in Pennsylvania), which often adds up to a much higher total than the number required from “ballot qualified” parties. In addition to having to meet extensive signature requirements, candidates must pay a filing fee, which is much easier for Democratic or Republican candidates to afford due to having access to far more resources. Such laws often make it near impossible for independent or minor party candidates to appear on the ballot and changing them would give minor parties a fairer chance.
The American Independent Party is an American far-right party founded in 1967 due to the dissatisfaction of conservative southern Democrats with the state of national politics. It performed well in the 1968 presidential election due to the name recognition provided by Alabama governor George C. Wallace. However, after he returned to the Democratic Party, the AIP began to fall apart. The AIP successfully pushed the greater Republican Party further to the right and brought the desired attention to southern interests. While the two-party system has existed in the United States for centuries, certain reforms such as implementing multi-member districts and loosening ballot access requirements can help boost minor parties. Additionally, even if they do not directly win elections, minor parties can have a major impact on the American political landscape, just as the American Independent Party did.