Legal dispute over voting rights of third parties reveals flaws in the two-party system

A judge in Georgia ruled this week that several independent and third-party candidates are ineligible for the 2024 presidential election. The decision came in response to lawsuits filed by the Georgia Democratic Party challenging the four candidacies, while Republicans provided legal support to keep one of them – a socialist – on the ballot.

It is a series of events that expose how the all-or-nothing strategy of the Electoral College forces the two-party system to engage in strategic maneuvers – such as restricting access to elections to maintain party dominance.

The result is that third-party candidates who might otherwise appeal to voters dissatisfied with the two major parties are blocked. Could ranked-choice voting change this?

The current status

The state's chief administrative judge, Michael Malihi, has ruled against the ballots of independent presidential candidates Robert F. Kennedy Jr. and Cornel West, as well as Jill Stein of the Green Party and the candidate of the Party for Socialism and Liberation (PSL), Claudia De la Cruz, due to formal deficiencies in their nomination petitions.

In Georgia, due to a 2017 change in election law, it is actually a presidential candidate's electors, not the candidate themselves, who must submit nomination petitions for ballot access. The judge ruled against West and De la Cruz because the candidates had submitted petitions but their electors had not. Kennedy was ruled against because of concerns about his residency.

Kennedy officially withdrew his request to vote in Georgia on Tuesday following the ruling – after suspending his campaign in swing states last week to support former President Donald Trump.

In a statement, De la Cruz's campaign called the ruling a “slap in the face” to Georgia voters who had applied to be eligible to vote. The PSL candidate accused Democrats and Republicans alike of pushing to exclude third parties and independents from the ballot, but the Georgia Republican Party actually tried to keep her eligible by filing a motion in support of her petition.

In Stein's case, her electors properly filed their nomination petitions, the judge's order said. But the Green Party candidate's petition relied on a new Georgia law that automatically grants eligibility if a party is on the ballot in at least 20 other states. Stein claims she is on the ballot in 24 other states. But the judge denied her petition, ruling that she had only submitted official documentation from six states.

The Georgia Greens are expected to appeal, arguing that in some states they cannot obtain official documents until after the Georgia voting deadline has passed.

Malahi's decisions go to Foreign Minister Brad Raffesnperger, who has the final say.

The strategic game of party politics

In this year's hotly contested presidential race, both the Republican and Democratic parties in Georgia are vying for an advantage by controlling third-party ballot access. Although very few Georgians actually vote for third-party candidates, the Democrats' lead in the 2020 presidential election was just 11,779 votes—and the lead is expected to be narrow again this year.

Georgia's Republican-majority General Assembly took the first step, passing a law last session requiring 20 states to allow third parties to vote. This was likely done in the hope that left-wing third-party candidates like Stein and De La Cruz would steal votes from the Democratic candidate, says veteran political observer Charles Bullock, a political scientist at the University of Georgia.

Democrats are now being just as strategic, trying to exclude left-wing or progressive candidates from the ballot, Bullock said. “Those third, fourth and fifth parties are more attractive to Democrats than to Republicans, at least this year.”

Democrats, he added, may worry that third-party candidates could hurt their chances in the general election. Many still argue that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the election against George W. Bush in Florida in 2000 – and the national election, since Florida has 25 votes in the Electoral College.

According to this view, Democrats in Georgia have not ideological but strategic reasons for objecting to third-party candidates: These candidates could steal crucial votes from their own candidate, Vice President Kamala Harris, and increase Trump's chances in what is expected to be a razor-thin victory in Georgia.

For comparison, in 2020, Green Party candidate Howie Hawkins received 1,013 votes in Georgia. (That's only 0.3% of the vote nationwide.)

Republicans, on the other hand, used their legal muscle to support the socialist candidate De la Cruz, as well as West, Stein and Kennedy, and filed petitions demanding that all four be placed on the ballot, a move many observers see as an equally cowardly political strategy – despite public statements by Georgia Republican Party officials that they support the “rule of law.”

“Both major parties are fundamentally opposed to third parties,” Bullock said. “But when you realize that it actually hurts the opponent, they're suddenly on the side of those who vote for that party.”

This strategic maneuver by both parties has caused disappointment among many voters. Nick Blair, a 22-year-old independent voter from Georgia State University, expressed frustration with the administrative law judge's decision. “The reason people are asking for an independent [candidate] is because they want something different… That is not democracy at its core,” he said.

Blair had intended to vote for Kennedy, but after the negative vote and Kennedy's support for Trump, he said he is now voting for Trump in the hope that Kennedy could win a cabinet seat under Trump.

What about ranked-choice voting?

The maneuvering of Democrats and Republicans regarding third-party candidates raises questions about possible solutions to a seemingly endless political game.

Ranked-choice voting allows voters to rank candidates according to their preferences rather than choosing just one. That reduces the risk of vote splitting — and eliminates the so-called “spoiler effect,” in which the presence of a third-party candidate on the ballot can help a less popular candidate from a major party win, Bullock said.

“In ranked choice voting, you can go and vote for the Libertarian Party, the Green Party or someone else without necessarily throwing away your vote,” Bullock said.

While ranked-choice voting does not increase the likelihood of a minor party candidate winning, Bullock said, it does increase the chance for a minor party voter to see their second candidate represented, so they are not “wasting” their vote by voting for their first candidate.

Libertarian presidential candidate Chase Oliver – who is running in Georgia – said Atlanta Civic Circle that the Democratic Party's election challenges and the Republican Party's counter-tactics reflect the fear of both major parties.

“They're afraid that more choices will open voters' eyes to the false dichotomy they've conditioned voters to believe,” Oliver said.

Such legal maneuvers are a byproduct of the current electoral system, he added. “This is absolutely a consequence of the winner-take-all and majority voting that are the norm in the United States. With more choices and a more representative form of voting, such as ranked choice voting, we would see higher voter turnout and government by coalitions, not by [by] who has 50% plus one [vote].”

Alessandro Marazzi Sassoon contributed to this report.