Reasons why third parties experience limited success
Built in negative bias
• The Electoral College
o The winner takes all system has a built in negative bias for smaller third parties, as they
are spread too thinly nationally to ever win a national majority, or even a state majority
o Plurality systems favour a two-party system, and Duverger’s Law states that a plurality
system will always produce two-party systems, whereas proportional representation
promotes multipartyism
o “The main reason for America’s majoritarian character is the electoral system…smaller
parties are trampled” (Sachs, 2011) – as was the case with Ross Perot in 1992, where he
won 18.9% of the popular vote but no Electoral College seats
o Although, success can come regionally, where party coalitions are concentrated in
districts, as was the case with Wallace in 1968, who won 13% of the popular vote, nearly all
of which was confined to a few southern states
• Ballot access laws
o Although they vary between states, they are usually very strict and state almost
unattainable requirements for smaller parties
o California requires 1% of signatures, which translates to 1.2m people – John Anderson
in 1980 achieved this, but it cost him $3m
o Some are more lenient e.g. Tennessee requires just 25 signatures
o Ashton (2010) estimated that you need at least $200m to make it onto the ballot in all
50 states
o It is a problem to the extent that the ‘Change the Rule’ campaign is trying to stop it
The breadth of coalitions within the two main parties – co-optation
• Lance Selfa (journalist) argues that all radical parties have been absorbed by the two main
parties, thus muting any chance of success or ideological independence of third parties
• By embracing and absorbing the third party’s platform, the larger parties can also absorb
their support – co-optation
o Weaker parties are forced into forming an alliance (or a ‘fusion’ as Duverger calls it)
o E.g. Clinton’s 1992 Budget Reconciliation Act endorsed many of Perot’s economic
views, and thus stole a considerable amount of his support
Financial difficulties
• Lack of finance
o There is a catch 22 scenario whereby people are reluctant to donate to third parties, as
they assume they won’t win; thus, these parties have to ration out spending, the majority
of which goes on ballot access
o This is why third parties only really see success when they are self-funded – e.g. Ross
Perot is worth $4bn
o To make matters worse, campaign finance rules are skewed to help the major two
parties – the two main parties are offered $91m from the federal government, and primary
candidates are offered $23m
• Matching funds
o When the federal government matches anything the candidate has raised personally
o It is improbable that third parties can qualify for it, as they must have won 5% of the
popular vote in the previous election, putting them at a disadvantage from the outset,
especially considering many are temporary
o Only 3 have ever done so
o Perot did not qualify despite winning 18.9% of the vote
Lack of media coverage
• Due to the lack of funding, third parties can rarely afford ad campaigns
• More significantly, they are usually barred from the TV debates, especially considering the
Debate Commission – that decides the rules of the debates – is a bipartisan commission set
