Response to Third Party and Independent Candidates in American Politics: Wallace, Anderson and Perot

Teresa Jo Dunn

PLSC357

September 28, 2005

Response to Third Party and Independent Candidates in American Politics: Wallace, Anderson and Perot

In this article, Abramson provides a history of third party and independent candidates in the American political system. Abramson also explores the reasons why third parties are not more prevalent and do not receive greater support in the United States. In addition to this study of American politics, Abramson explains and compares the presidential elections of France’s Fifth Republic to those of the United States to show the difference of outcomes.

To illustrate the history of third party and independent candidates, Abramson chooses to focus on three efforts of independent candidacy, George Wallace in 1968, John B. Anderson in 1980 and H. Ross Perot in 1992. Within a brief review of the history of elections and the ratification of the Twelfth Amendment, Abramson explains that this was when a reduction of eligible candidates began, as the number fell from five to three. Since that time, third party candidates have been more of a strategic tool to wrest votes from Democrats or Republicans in order to deny them a majority in an election, rather than in hopes of the independent winning the election itself. However, in the absence of a majority the decision goes to the house of representatives, which provides a possible way for an independent to be elected, though “a legislative body dominated by Democrats and Republicans would be unlikely to turn to an independent.” (Abramson, 352) Abramson explains that an electoral vote majority is not the only impedance to a third party candidate. The ways that states choose their electors via popular vote, rather than proportional representation also stands in the way of election success.

In explaining the tenacity of the two party system in the United States, Abramson uses “Duverger’s Law.” Which, when translated says: “the simple majority single ballot system favors the two party system.” (Abramson, 352) This law consists of two effects, a mechanical one where gaining the plurality in an electoral vote is very difficult and a psychological one in that there is an emergence of “strategic” voting where one votes for major party candidates because they think that the third party candidate (even if it is who they prefer) cannot win. An excellent example of this mechanical effect is Perot’s campaign in 1992. “Perot won 18.9 percent of the popular vote without gaining a single electoral vote because his support was distributed relatively evenly across the country.” (Abramson, 353) While more widely discussed, the psychological effect is harder to relay with hard data. Politicians have long used the argument that voters should avoid wasting their vote on a candidate who doesn’t have a chance to win electoral votes and encourage the practice of strategic voting. However, according to John A. Ferejohn and Morris P. Fiornia, “rational voters never engage in strategic voting.” (Abramson, 355) To support this claim, Abramson employs the theory of social choice, as written by The Marquis of Condorcet who “argued that if there is an outcome that would