The trend of increasing major party polarization in the United States has raised concerns about the quality of representation and governance. One potential corrective is third parties, as they can hold the major parties accountable and instigate positive change. We, however, highlight limits to their influence. Two factors dampened the electoral support for third party candidates in the 2016 U.S. presidential election despite favorable conditions. First, the cost of third party voting is higher in the current polarized era, since casting a vote for a third party can lead to their less-favored major party candidate winning. Voters today have especially negative feelings toward their less-favored major party. Second, Trump co-opted voters distrustful of the government, which is a group that tends to support third parties. Our analysis of American National Election Studies (ANES) data from 1992 and 2016 shows support for both factors.
AbramowitzA. I.WebsterS. (2016). The rise of negative partisanship and the nationalization of U.S. elections in the 21st century. Electoral Studies, 41, 12-22.
2.
AbramsonP. R.AldrichJ. H.PaolinoP.RohdeD. W. (1992). “Sophisticated” voting in the 1988 presidential primaries. American Political Science Review, 86, 55-69.
3.
AdamsJ.DowJ.MerrillS.III. (2006). The political consequences of alienation-based and indifference-based voter abstention: Applications to presidential elections. Political Behavior, 28, 65-86.
4.
AldrichJ. H. (2011). Why parties? A second look. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
5.
AldrichJ. H.LeeD. J. (2015). Why two parties? Ambition, policy, and the presidency. Political Science Research and Methods, 4, 275-292.
6.
AllenN.BroxB. J. (2005). The roots of third party voting: The 2000 Nader campaign in historical perspective. Party Politics, 11, 623-637.
7.
BurdenB. C. (2005). Minor parties and strategic voting in recent U.S. presidential elections. Electoral Studies, 24, 603-618.
8.
BurdenB. C.JonesB. M.KangM. S. (2014). Sore loser laws and congressional polarization. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 24, 603-618.
9.
CarminesE. G.StimsonJ. A. (1989). Issue evolution: Race and the transformation of American politics. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
10.
ChamberlainA. (2010). An inside-outsider or an outside-insider? The republican primary campaign of Ron Paul from a third-party perspective. Politics and Policy, 38, 97-116.
11.
ChamberlainA.KlarnerC. (2016). Spoilers? Evaluating the logic behind partisan disaffiliation requirements for independent and third-party candidates. Election Law Journal, 15, 330-350.
12.
DavisO. A.HinichM. J.OrdeshookP. C. (1970). An expository development of a mathematical model of the electoral process. American Political Science Review, 64, 426-448.
13.
DownsA. (1957). An economic theory of democracy. New York, NY: Harper & Row.
14.
DuvergerM. (1963). Political parties: Their organization and activity in the modern state (NorthB.NorthR., Trans.). New York, NY: John Wiley.
15.
FiorinaM. P.AbramsS. J.PopeJ. (2005). Culture war? The myth of a polarized America. New York, NY: Pearson Longman.
16.
GillespieD. J. (2012). Challengers to duopoly: Why third parties matter in American two-party politics. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.
17.
GoldH. J. (1995). Third party voting in presidential elections: A study of Perot, Anderson, and Wallace. Political Research Quarterly, 48, 751-773.
HiranoS. (2008). Third parties, elections, and roll-call votes: The populist party and the late nineteenth-century U.S. congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly, 33, 131-160.
22.
HiranoS.SnyderJ. M.Jr. (2007). The decline of third-party voting in the United States. Journal of Politics, 69, 1–16.
23.
HirschmanA. (1970). Exit, voice, and loyalty. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
24.
KangM. (2011). Sore loser laws and democratic contestation. Georgetown Law Review, 99, 1013-1076.
25.
KangW.-T. (2004). Protest voting and abstention under plurality rule elections: An alternative public choice approach. Journal of Theoretical Politics, 16, 79-102.
26.
KeithB. E.MaglebyD. B.NelsonC. J.OrrE.WestlyeM. C.WolfingerR. E. (1992). The myth of the independent voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
27.
KochJ. (1998). The Perot candidacy and attitudes towards government and politics. Political Research Quarterly, 51, 141-153.
28.
KselmanD.NiouE. (2011). Protest voting in plurality elections: A theory of voter signaling. Public Choice, 148, 395-418.
29.
LeeD. J. (2012a). Anticipating entry: Major party positioning and third party threat. Political Research Quarterly, 65, 138-150.
30.
LeeD. J. (2012b). Take the good with the bad: Cross-cutting effects of ballot access requirements on third-party electoral success. American Politics Research, 40, 267-292.
31.
LevenduskyM. (2009). The partisan sort: How liberals became Democrats and conservatives became republicans. Chicago, IL: The University of Chicago Press.
32.
MillerA. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964-1970. American Political Science Review, 68, 951-972.
33.
PalfreyT. (1984). Spatial equilibrium with entry. Review of Economic Studies, 51, 139-156.
34.
PetersonG.WrightonJ. M. (1998). Expressions of distrust: Third-party voting and cynicism in government. Political Behavior, 20, 17-34.
35.
PooleK. T.RosenthalH. (2007). Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, Canada: Transaction Publishers.
RapoportR. B.StoneW. J. (2008). Three’s a crowd: The dynamic of third parties, Ross Perot, and republican resurgence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
38.
RosenstoneS. J.BehrR. L.LazarusE. H. (1996). Third parties in America: Citizen response to major party failure (2nd ed.). Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
39.
SouthwellP. L. (2003). The politics of alienation: Nonvoting and support for third-party candidates among 18-30-year-olds. Social Science Journal, 40, 99-107.
40.
SouthwellP. L.EverestM. J. (1998). The electoral consequences of alienation: Nonvoting and protest voting in the 1992 presidential race. Social Science Journal, 35, 43-51.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
