You asked that I put some information together for you regarding possible improvements in Iowa’s laws regarding the role of third parties. Some is summarized in this letter. There are also a couple of enclosures. Please forgive me if some of this is overly simplistic and well known to you.

What’s the value of third parties?

Laws to make life easier for Iowa’s third parties is not special interest legislation designed to help them alone. It gives all Iowans exposure to a wider range of proposals for improvements in our state and more incentive to participate in politics at a time when voter turnout is dangerously low.

Such reforms are just good government. They will bring Iowa up to the standard of the world’s democracies and the more citizen-friendly states.

Moreover, properly understood, reforms can be drafted in a win-win way to assist the major parties as well. Such legislation is supported elsewhere by thoughtful Republicans and Democrats. It should be here.

What is the present role of third parties in Iowa?

In Iowa a third party is defined as either a “political party” or a “nonparty political organization.” Sec. 43.2.

There are two implications of “political party” status. (1) A “party” need only nominate candidates for statewide office to have their names appear on the ballot. (2) Voter registration cards carry the party’s name for those wishing to declare party affiliation.

So what’s the problem?

The problem is that third parties are caught in a “catch 22.”

In order to have a prayer of building a party, a third party must be able to know who its members are. But to do that it must have its name on the voter registration form and its members distinguishable on the auditors’ voter rolls. To do that, however, it must become a “party” – which was what it was striving for in the first place.

In short, to become a party it must first be a party.

After that it just gets worse.

To stay a “party” its candidates must consistently poll over 2 percent in every gubernatorial and presidential election – forever. Sec. 43.2.

Of course, to poll that many votes it must have the party building asset of having its name on the voter registration form.

The proof is in the history. With all the additional overwhelming odds third parties must face, few, if any, in Iowa have ever been able to maintain “party” status over a number of election cycles.

Bottom line: Iowa law at present is rigged to prevent third parties even coming into existence -- let alone maintaining their status.

Is change desirable? Is it possible?

Whether change is desirable turns on one’s view of the value of third parties.

Those who recognize third parties have been the source of much of the best legislation of the 20th Century, and a force for increasing citizen participation, support all reforms.

Major party members with myopic vision, who haven’t thought about the win-win aspects of third parties, assume the majors are better off without them, and won’t support any reform.

Here is one example of a win-win benefit to major parties of a third party reform: “instant runoff voting.”

In Iowa, a candidate doesn’t have to get a majority to win. The candidate who gets a "plurality," that is, the most votes, wins. That means third party candidates may end up being “spoilers.”

Consider this case:

Assume there’s a very conservative third party. Forced to a choice, its members would prefer Republicans to Democrats. But their first choice is their party’s candidate -- and that’s the one for whom they vote.

As a result, their candidate gets 7 percent of the vote. The Republican gets 45 percent of the vote. The Democrat gets 48 percent. Under Iowa law the Democrat wins.

How does "instant runoff voting" work?

Voters select both first and second choices if they wish.

In our example, the conservative third party members would cast a first choice vote for their party’s candidate and a second choice vote for the Republican. Since a majority is required to win, and in our scenario no candidate got a majority, the candidate with the lowest number of votes (the most conservative) is eliminated.

The votes are then counted again, this time using the second choices of those who voted for the eliminated candidate. (Note that this eliminates both the delay, and the cost, of actually holding a second election.)

After the second count the Republican, who now has a majority, is declared the winner. The true will of the majority of voters is recognized.

Thus, ironically, instant runoff voting makes it possible for (a) third parties to exist, while (b) strengthening both of the major parties, and (c) creating a truer, more accurate and democratic result. It’s a win, win, win.

(The non-partisan Center for Voting and Democracy provides additional information on its "Instant Runoff Voting" page.)

What are some of the other possible reforms?

Republican Congressman Jim Leach has introduced legislation to create a commission to study the electoral process. H.R. 5631, 106 Cong., 2d Sess. (in 2001 numbered H.R. 57 and co-sponsored by 46 Members). The Bill requires the Commission to examine, among other things, “instant runoff voting [and] candidates appearing on multiple ballot lines” (now “fusion balloting”).

Instant runoff voting is discussed above.

“Candidates appearing on multiple ballot lines,” or “fusion balloting,” would also favor both the third, and the two major, parties. If anything, even more.

Under this approach Iowa could keep the 2 percent requirement. But a third party could keep its place on the ballot, and on the voter registration cards, so long as the candidate it chose got 2 percent. Thus, if our conservative third party was willing to nominate as its candidate the Republican Party’s choice that candidate’s votes would be credited to both parties. The conservative third party would keep its status as a “party.” And the Republican candidate would, undoubtedly, pick up more votes than if he or she was running without the conservative third party endorsement.

No third party would have to choose one of the major party’s candidates. It could still go for the 2 percent with its own candidate. But it would at least have the option – and a substantial incentive – to do so.

I am unaware of how many states permit this, but it is available in New York.

For example, in 1980 Jimmy Carter beat Ronald Reagan in New York, and yet Reagan got the state’s electoral votes. How? The Conservative Party also nominated Reagan -- and their members’ votes handed him the victory.

Have there been any proposals along these lines in Iowa?

Yes. Senate File 439 (S.J. 627) was introduced during the 2001 Iowa legislative session.

It proposes amendments to Sec. 43.2 that would provide two alternatives to the present system.

1. It substitutes, for the 2 percent requirement in all gubernatorial and presidential races, a 2 percent requirement for “any statewide office.” This wouldn’t solve the problem for third parties, but it would at least give them more options. It would certainly benefit the two major parties, as it would virtually eliminate the risk of the “spoiler” factor in their high stakes gubernatorial races.

2. It provides an additional option. A third party could maintain party status by keeping the number of its registered voters at one-half of one percent of the number of voters who cast ballots in the preceding election (about 5000 – over three times what is necessary for a “nonparty political organization” to get a candidate on the ballot). This provision would be even more helpful to the two major parties, as it provides an even greater incentive not to risk “spoiler” results.

In Vermont “any group of individuals which has organized and filed” can become a party. Title 17, Sec. 2103.

Hawaii only requires petitions (not voter registrations) containing the signatures of one-tenth of one percent of voters in the preceding election who request the third party be recognized. Sec. 11-62 (3). New Mexico has the same procedure, but requires one-half of one percent. Sec. 1-7-2 (A).

New Mexico also addresses disqualification. Third parties need not constantly meet impossible standards to retain party status. But inactive parties are automatically culled. A party ceases to be a party if (a) it fails to have anyone on the ballot for two successive elections, or (b) its candidate ever fails to get one-half of one percent of the vote for governor or president.

Are there other possibilities?

Yes. Iowa law provides that the voter registration card must provide a way for a registrant to indicate “political party registration.” 48A.11 (1)(i).

This offers a couple possibilities with little, and perhaps no, change in the law (that is, changes consistent with the law as written might be made administratively with legislative urging).

All “nonparty political organizations” could be listed on voter registration forms – if, say, they had appeared on the statewide ballot in any three of the past 10 years.

A similar purpose could be achieved by providing a blank preceded by the word “Other.” Registrants could enter any recognized party or nonparty political organization, and the auditor’s records would reflect their choice.

A third possibility would be a combination of both (list the larger nonparty political organizations and provide a blank for others).

Conclusion.

Many people, nationally and within Iowa, have been thinking about electoral reforms for many years.
 
I would like to see the Iowa Legislature gain the national recognition that could come from adopting all of the proposals outlined. But any would be better than what we have now.

• The more people who are involved in the political process the more voters there will be for all parties.

• Most third party members end up voting for major party candidates on down the ballot.

• With “instant runoff” or "fusion" they can vote for the top, too.

• Many third party campaign workers will end up drifting to the major parties – especially if their party ultimately folds, as many do.

Properly presented and understood these reforms should have the support of all responsible legislators. Win-win solutions for all parties are available. It's long past time Iowa adopt them.