No Labels and the Failed Math of a Third-Party Bid: Why the Math Doesn’t Add Up for a Centrist Ticket in 2024

No Labels, a political organization known for its bipartisan approach to governance, recently announced the end of its plans to field a Unity Ticket in the 2024 presidential election. The unique problem they faced? They couldn’t find a candidate willing to take on the “hellish job” they were offering.

In a recent op-ed in the Wall Street Journal, No Labels Co-Chair Nancy Jacobson highlighted the challenges they faced in finding a candidate for their third-party bid. Despite a growing dissatisfaction with the two major parties and a desire for more moderate options, the math behind their campaign was flawed from the start.

With polling showing a majority of Americans feeling a Trump-Biden rematch would not be good for the country and a growing number of voters identifying as independent, the timing seemed ripe for a centrist third-party candidate. However, the reality is that the number of truly undecided voters who could be swayed by a centrist ticket is relatively small.

The electoral math in the US also presents a challenge for third-party candidates, as the winner is often the candidate with the most votes, even if they don’t have a majority. This can lead to vote-splitting and make it difficult for third-party candidates to gain traction.

Instead of focusing on fielding a candidate for the 2024 election, No Labels may be better served by advocating for electoral reforms like ranked-choice voting. This method of elections allows voters to rank their candidates in order of preference, ensuring that the candidate with the broadest support ultimately wins.

While the idea of a centrist third-party candidate may be appealing to many Americans, the reality is that without significant changes to the electoral system, their chances of success are slim. By focusing on changing the math of elections, organizations like No Labels can work towards a more representative and inclusive political system.