A No Labels unity ticket could be catastrophic for American democracy 

The “shiny penny syndrome” is when a new penny is perceived to be more valuable and sought after than a tarnished one even though the two have the same value. It applies to romantic relationships, consumer behavior and technology. It’s also relevant to politics, when an alternative that seems new and better captivates voters — until close inspection reveals blemishes.

Such is the case with the “unity” presidential ticket proposed by the group No Labels, advertised as a needed choice on the ballot for centrist voters who reject the candidates of both major parties. That shiny penny could cost our democracy dearly. 

Some have suggested that a third-party effort has little chance of winning even one state in 2024. But what if this conventional view is mistaken, and No Labels mounts the first truly competitive third-party challenge in U.S. history?

To take the White House, No Labels would need to win more than two dozen states — not just the handful of purple ones, but many others that are, to varying degrees, one-party states. This would be an unprecedented feat: combining all of the electors won by all third-party candidates since the Civil War would not be enough. Nor would tripling the number of electors won by the extraordinarily popular former President Theodore Roosevelt in his 1912 campaign as the Progressive Party nominee. Again, even assuming No Labels could be much more competitive than everyone expects, their ticket’s odds of winning the presidency would be slim to none. 

That leaves the real possibility of triggering what Thomas Jefferson termed the “most dangerous blot on our Constitution” — a contingent election. By winning some electors but falling short of a majority, No Labels would likely prevent either Biden or Trump from hitting 270. Under the Twelfth Amendment, it would fall to the House of Representatives, not the voters, to select the next president, with each state getting a single vote. 

That this process is fundamentally undemocratic is troubling: The House can ignore the will of the electorate and pick a president who was a clear loser at the ballot box, and unequal voting power is simply a matter of geography. The 86 members representing the 28 smallest states would control 56 percent of the votes in a contingent election, while the 90 representatives from California and Texas would have just 4 percent. In the words of former Republican House Leader Robert Michel, this would be an “outrage to the whole concept of popular sovereignty.”

But concerns about democratic legitimacy are just one part of the problem. The absence of federal laws governing a contingent election would invite dangerous opportunities for manipulation, abuse, delay and other disruptive tactics in and outside of Congress. A small faction of extremist lawmakers could derail the entire process in fealty to their preferred candidate. A presidential vacancy, with competing claims as to who may lawfully serve indefinitely as the acting president, is a real possibility. These and other concerns have prompted nonpartisan experts to warn that a contingent election would be a “horrific nightmare scenario” leading to “chaos and crisis.” 

After likewise concluding that “a contingent election would be calamitous,” we joined a bipartisan group of former members of Congress — including, among others, Sen. Jack Danforth (R-Mo.), Sen. William Cohen (R-Maine) and Sen. Mary Landrieu (D-La.) — in a recent letter to No Labels leadership explaining the nature and scope of the risks. In the letter, we urge No Labels to reevaluate the wisdom of a presidential campaign not because we fear change, want to limit voter choice or believe that our respective parties should be protected from electoral competition. Nor do we fail to grasp that our nation faces extraordinary challenges at home and abroad, and that many voters are frustrated with the status quo. 

Rather, we urge caution because even the best-case scenario for any third-party campaign presents a dangerously high likelihood of triggering a contingent election. And we know that this process would likely disrupt the peaceful and orderly transition of power in January 2025 and irreparably harm our democratic institutions.

With such high stakes, a “unity” ticket gamble would be reckless. Not a shiny penny, but the possible bankruptcy of American democracy.

Steve Israel represented New York in the U.S. House of Representatives over eight terms and was chairman of the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee from 2011 to 2015. Follow him @RepSteveIsrael. Tom Coleman represented Missouri in the House from 1976 to 1993. Follow him @RepTomColeman.