Earlier this month, the No Labels party announced that it was ending its campaign for the 2024 presidential election. Victor Y. Wu explores whether third parties like No Labels are electoral spoilers or if they reflect a desire by the American public for more centrist politics. Analyzing new survey data from Democrats and Republicans who are unhappy with the current two-party system, he finds that these “disaffected partisans” are just as polarized as those who are satisfied with the mainstream political parties.

On April 4^th, the centrist third party No Labels announced that it was abandoning its 2024 presidential campaign. Having sought to run a “unity ticket” featuring a “moderate independent presidential candidate,” No Labels promoted itself as an alternative for moderate partisans from both sides of the aisle who were tired of extreme partisanship.

But announcing the end to their campaign, No Labels CEO and co-founder Nancy Jacobson stated, “No Labels has always said we would only offer our ballot line to a ticket if we could identify candidates with a credible path to winning the White House. No such candidates emerged, so the responsible course of action is for us to stand down.”

Are centrist third parties simply spoilers?

Other centrist third parties should follow in No Labels’ footsteps. Given well-documented institutional barriers that favor a two-party system and the strength of Democratic and Republican partisan identities, groups such as the Forward Party are unlikely to achieve electoral success in 2024. These groups are much more likely to simply reduce support for one of the major-party candidates. They may even cause a “spoiler effect” that swings the 2024 presidential election—likely in favor of Donald Trump.

In response to these criticisms, independent groups and candidates point to recent opinion polls showing an increase in support for centrist third parties. They believe these polls reflect that most Americans hold moderate policy preferences and dislike how the Democratic and Republican parties have drifted towards the extremes. For instance, Forward’s founders have stated that their party reflects “the moderate, common-sense majority.”

To succeed, however, centrist third parties must siphon enough voters from the Democratic and Republican parties. Do Democrats and Republicans who believe a third party is needed really hold more centrist or moderate policy positions?

I explore this question in a new study with Professor Joseph Bafumi at Dartmouth College. We used a nationally representative survey to evaluate the policy preferences of Democrats and Republicans who are unhappy with the current two-party system and who believe that a third party is needed.

We refer to these Americans as “disaffected partisans” and seek to determine if they really are less polarized and more moderate. Across 14 different issues, we compare the policy preferences of disaffected partisans who say a third party is needed and the preferences of partisans who do not.

Photo by Charlie Wollborg on Unsplash

Disaffected partisans are not more likely to support centrist policy positions. 

Our results do not offer hope for third parties like the Forward Party. Although disaffected partisans are the key constituency that third parties must target to have any hope of electoral success, our data show that disaffected partisans do not, in fact, converge towards centrist or moderate policy positions. Although most Americans think both parties are inadequate and a third party is needed, disaffected partisans are just as polarized as their non-disaffected counterparts.

Of course, divergence on policy positions may not be insurmountable for centrist third parties seeking to unify Democrats and Republicans who believe a third party is needed. Disaffected partisans might simply unite around the romanticized idea of an alternative to the status quo. Perhaps recognizing this possibility, Forward has chosen not to provide policy positions on controversial issues.

This strategy echoes an idea that political scientists have suggested since 1996: At their core, “third parties are expressions of discontent with the major parties and their candidates.” As one political commentator stated recently, “The Forward Party is betting that a movement defined by what it is against is far more important than what it stands for.”

Of course, the rubber would meet the road if the Forward Party does manage to somehow achieve electoral success—and at that point, it may regret its lack of clearly defined policy positions. More likely, however, is that centrist third parties will fail to overcome the institutional barriers favoring a two-party system.

Polarization is a problem, but third parties are not the solution.

To be clear, the instinct to confront extreme partisan polarization is a commendable one. Research shows that liberals and conservatives today will migrate away from communities with opposing ideologies, reject dating profiles with different political predispositions, and even give up a chance to win money just to avoid listening to each other. These retreats into ideological enclaves will undermine the potential for democratic deliberation to address complex and pressing societal problems.

However, centrist third parties are unlikely to provide the solution to partisan polarization, at least not through a major electoral victory. To avoid a “spoiler effect” that swings the 2024 presidential election, third parties should follow in No Labels’ footsteps and abandon their electoral ambitions.

• This article is based on the paper, “Disaffected partisans who want a third party are just as polarized,” in Party Politics. 
• Please read our comments policy before commenting. 
• Note: This article gives the views of the author, and not the position of USAPP – American Politics and Policy, nor of the London School of Economics.  
• Shortened URL for this post: https://wp.me/p3I2YF-dLG