Every four years, the United States elects a president. The elected has almost always been a Republican or a Democrat, and this trend is likely to continue for the foreseeable future. However, every four years, there’s always some talk of a third-party candidate. For a time, it was Ralph Nader of the Green Party (who may have caused a bit of an upset in the Election of 2000). Before him, it was Ross Perot in 1992. Although neither 2008 nor 2012 saw significant third-party attention, 2016 has been different. In a historical election, both major party candidates are witnessing unparalleled levels of public dislike and lack of confidence. The result has been the (marginal) rise of not one, but two, third-party candidates. These are Jill Stein of the Green Party and Gary Johnson of the Libertarian Party (though both Stein and Johnson ran in these same parties in the 2012 Presidential Election as well).

While polling data suggests Johnson nor Stein are currently within margin for the presidency, it does not change the extraordinary occurrence of their respective campaigns receiving notable media attention, with Johnson polling at 7.4%, and Stein at 2.5% (though these numbers are small, they may be enough to theoretically impact the election in a state or two come November). While this reflects a major level of discontent among mainstream party voters, it also highlights what I see as a major problem within third-party politics.

In every election year of recent memory, third-party candidates and leaders have made speeches and done interviews lamenting the existence of the two-party system. They may have a point; this year more than most has shown a national disinterest in voting along party lines and down the ticket. The question is being asked “why don’t we see more third-party politicians in public office when so many voters claim to hate the two-party system?” The answer is this: third-parties don’t try hard enough to get elected.

To be clear, I am not attacking any third-party candidate, nor am I criticizing the political philosophy of any or all third parties. I definitely don’t believe that voting for a third-party candidate is “throwing away your vote” (although I admit I myself will not be voting for a third-party candidate). What I am scrutinizing is the election strategy of third-parties, with emphasis on the Libertarian and Green Parties. Every election year, third-party candidates complain that only Republicans and Democrats get elected president, but the third-parties run (practically) only for president. For parties that refer to themselves as “grassroots” organizations, they tend to aim mainly for the sky, and not at the levels of government that tend to see larger effects on voters. While it is not bad that these parties continuously run for president, they put so much effort and resources into trying to get their candidate elected into (what is right now) an almost-impossible position, they forget change can happen at the smallest levels, not just the biggest.

In 2014, only 758 candidates, across the entire United States, ran as members of, or with, the Libertarian Party (20 were registered under a different party, but were accepted as Libertarian candidates). These elections occurred in forty-eight states and the District of Columbia. Not one single candidate in Maine ran as a Libertarian, which is surprising considering Maine is a blue state turned red; the type of battle ground that should be the focus of the party that holds a fiscally conservative, but socially liberal, platform.

In the same year, a mere 250 Green Party candidates across the nation ran for office, occurring in only twenty-five states and the District of Columbia.

As I said earlier, both parties tend to target most of their resources at the presidential election, wasting big opportunity beneath. To the Green Party’s merit, its candidates have a tendency to run for smaller positions, especially in local-level government. This is the level where party-affiliation tends to matter least to voters; this is where voters elect people, not Republicans or Democrats. The Libertarian Party, in general, run candidates more for positions like Congressmen and women, Senators, and Governors; positions where party-affiliation is typically more important to constituents.

I am well aware that there is little glory in spending money on local politics over the Highest Office in the Land. Obviously winning the Oval Office in this election would add instant credibility to a third party, and potentially bring a huge blow to the two-party system, but data suggests this outcome is unlikely for 2016. As I said, Jill Stein and Gary Johnson, based on current polling date, may collectively drag enough voters away to cause an upset in one or a few states, but neither is close to being on a winning track (barring some major change in the Clinton-Trump race).

If these third parties begin to accept the unlikelihood of bring such sweeping change this quickly, maybe they will begin to see a second route to changing the two-party system. Financing mass numbers of their candidates for city council and mayor; supporting their members running for positions like District Attorney and City Attorney in major cities. Establish a relationship with voters that third-party doesn’t mean bad; it just means change (for better or for worse, depending on the voter). The parties could still run candidates for president (even if just as a show of competition), but they would need to avoid making that a focus.

I am not ignorant to the difficulties even this plan would face, even in the long run. To date, the Green Party claims just over 248,000 members (as of 2014); for the Libertarian Party, that number is around 326,000 (as of 2013). It should be fair to point out those numbers may likely have grown by the end of this political season, when new reports should come out. All the same, that is in the face of around 43.5 million Democrats and 41.3 million Republicans (both as of 2013). As I said, overcoming these odds is not likely to happen overnight. A smarter-paced build-up of party participation, membership, and understanding may be the key to unlocking and overcoming the two-party system so many seem discontent with. If the Libertarian or Green Parties ever wish to really become a big political player, they may first have to slow it down and invest (both time and money) in a strategy for long-term success, not just short-term expansion.