As I’ve written before, I began college as a math major, mesmerized by its straight-line simplicity (e.g., the total of all notations on one side of an equal sign had to be precisely the same as the other) and influenced by a couple of strong, male math teachers. But calculus stymied me in college. Instead of cherishing my manual slide-rule, I found deciphering its multiple scales and symbols like pondering hieroglyphics without a dictionary.

Today, I feel the same way when people talk about political or election “calculus.” The advanced-math metaphor was sparked by a Boston Globe note on a little-known third party, “No Labels,” which is working to be listed on ballots in all 50 states in 2024. As of Sept. 22, it had registered 15,000 members in Arizona (Biden won in 2020 by 10,000 votes) and met requirements in 10 other states. They have announced no candidates, but hint at a “unity” candidate to “to bring the country together.”

Third parties have a long history in the U.S. (the name itself emphasizes how uniformly we have been a two-party system), but not a very successful one in terms of electing a president or replacing a dominant party. Abraham Lincoln was the last third-party president when his anti-slavery Republicans replaced the Whigs to oppose Democrats in 1860.

According to NPR, third parties often form in support of a single person (e.g., Teddy Roosevelt‘s Bull Moose Party in 1912) or policy (e.g., socialists targeted labor laws and women’s voting in the early 1900s), and when the person moves on or the party brings an issue into the mainstream, the party often disappears. In my lifetime, examples include George Wallace’s 1968 support for segregation in the South (winning 13% of the national vote) and Ross Perot’s anti-deficit campaign of 1992 (19%), but neither was a threat to win under the Electoral College’s winner-take-all system (Wallace won 46 electoral votes, Perot 0).

In 2000, Green Party candidate Ralph Nader is blamed for Al Gore’s disputed loss in Florida. Nader got less than 3% of the vote nationwide, but 97,000 votes in Florida where Gore lost to George W. Bush by 537. There were similar issues in New Hampshire. Recent history shows that a vote for a third-party candidate is not only wasted, but actually helps the opponent by subtracting a vote for a candidate who is closer to the third-party’s policies.

If you take “No Labels” at their word (their plans and principles are clearly expressed at www.nolabels.org/), they are no starry-eyed idealists hoping for a moral victory in a losing battle. They suggest they are an “insurance policy” if polls continue to show that 63% of Americans would support a “moderate independent” candidate if the other choices are Joe Biden and Donald Trump. They won’t support a candidate they believe would get less than 30% of the vote (like Nader or Jill Stein in 2016), and haven’t named a candidate, planning to wait until April 2024 to make a decision. If they do choose a presidential candidate, they will leave fundraising and running the campaign to the candidate. Regardless, no other state or local candidate may use their spot on the state ballot.

It’s hard for anyone other than the extreme right or left (of which I am at least an honorary member) to argue with their six core beliefs, including caring more for the country than a party, the importance of free speech and vigorous debate while respecting those holding different views, politicians listening to the majority of moderates more than the extremes on either side, a basic love for America, and support for its military forces. Since 2009, they helped form the House Problem Solvers Caucus, made up of 50-plus members, split equally between Republicans and Democrats. They provided much of the muscle to pass the 2020 COVID relief bill, the recent infrastructure bill, and the first gun safety legislation in 30 years.

Maybe the election calculus isn’t that complicated. With most Americans looking forward to the 2024 election like a night on a bed of thorns, there might be a path for success down the middle. Recently, a Recorder columnist stated “we deserve better” than an unappetizing choice between two very old politicians based on our fear of one or the other. I believe the Biden administration has done a good job in trying times, but it would be great to have a younger problem-solver in the White House in 2024. There certainly is no shortage of problems to solve.

Allen Woods is a freelance writer, author of the Revolutionary-era historical fiction novel “The Sword and Scabbard,” and Greenfield resident. His column appears regularly on a Saturday. Comments are welcome here or at awoods2846@gmail.com.