With the 2016 presidential election transpiring in the most uneasy way possible, it seemed as if during the chaos amongst the republicans and democrats, third party candidates appeared to be considered by more and more voters in the United States as each debate aired. However, regardless of the disgust many expressed concerning (our now President of the United States), Donald J. Trump and the distrust so many held with (the 67th secretary of state), Hillary Clinton; there was absolutely no third party victory in any state on Tuesday, November 8th, 2016. Although minor parties have a slight chance of effecting a presidential polling by gathering a substantial number of votes in swing states to make a difference, there are many factors that influence the insignificance of the candidates during elections. Some will believe that minor parties’ ratings and voting percentage have gone up in recent years especially during the recent presidential election, which is a popular assumption. Several statistics and surveys point out that many Americans view a third party vote as stereotypically a “wasted” vote. However, main party dominance seems to be what keeps Americans from even considering throwing away their practiced right to a candidate who has such a proven unlikely chance of victory. Political parties have slowly twisted into an identification rather than an outlook on morals that candidates possess. Supporting the opinion of Kristina Nwazota when the question of why there’s a two party domination came up, “The answer, according to historians and scholars, is the political process that has regulated third parties to the sidelines and the nature of the parties themselves.” 

Recognizing that there exist politicians in the United States that are not part of the two major parties is an essential part of American politics to understand. While there are several reasons why members of society refrain from voting for a non-main party candidate, the actions of politicians and the nature of an election can also attract voters to glance into a third party candidate. One factor affecting the probability of success for third parties is the level of competition amongst the major parties. When competition is high or low, third parties are expected to be much more successful compared to moderate competition which has not seen to positively affect them, the most recent election proves this to be true. Additionally, added explanation from individuals on leaving a major party vote behind is sometimes due to failure from their preferred party or candidate. While both Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, nearly tripled their success from 2012, “…they were far from the most successful minor party candidates in recent presidential history: George Wallace won 13.5 percent of the vote as the American Independent Party nominee in 1968, and Ross Perot won 8.4 percent as the Reform Party’s nominee in 1996.” (Devine and Kopko, page 2).

Previous actions drew many away from runners of the two major parties in the most recent presidential election. However, this was a very controversial topic in 2016, which Al Jazeera interviewed Green Party candidate, Jill Stein on as he asked if she’d suggest uncertain voters settle for the lesser of two evils or “throw away” their vote to a third party who they could almost guarantee would not come close to even bringing home a statewide win. Jill Stein, who holds bias because of her association with the Green Party, refused to agree with Jazeera that there was even less of a threat between the major party candidates.

While I understand that there are many valid motives for supporters of third parties, the odds are unlikely to favor a non-major party in the near future. Third party votes are typically seen among Americans as a “wasted vote” which George Yancey makes an effort to refute in his article on “The Stream” published during the race between Trump and Clinton. Yancey puts forward encouragement to viewers to vote for a candidate who they support morally- not for their connection to the party they represent. 

The United States has a political system that essentially functions off of two main parties, being the Republicans and Democrats. Americans typically associate themselves with one of the two parties, a small amount of individuals actually identify themselves as an independent. The main problem of having two major parties is that they tend to take away light from the third parties. As Devine and Kopko state in their article on the Washington Post online (page 3), “Yet they faced challenges that go beyond those noted above, including lack of federal matching funds, state ballot-access restrictions, and voters’ willingness to vote for the “lesser of two evils.” These are the main reasons why minor parties are not successful in presidential elections. 

The significance of this issue is that the dominance of these two major parties are starting to ruin politics in America. Voters have spoken up and admitted to voting for a “lesser of two evils” simply because many consider third party and independent voting a waste of a vote, which the article written by Julia Maskivker agrees “Yes, you do have an obligation to vote for the lesser of two evils.” State ballot-access restrictions are yet another cause to add to the list of minor party disadvantages during elections. Ballot access laws are state mandated, each state has the decision of how to represent candidates on their ballots. Richard Winger (editor of Ballot Access News) is a huge supporter of FairVote, a non-profit organization in hopes to strengthen and make a fair democracy. FairVote interviewed the longtime advocate to create a list of the worst ballot access laws in the U.S. This list includes states that require unreasonable prerequisites for independent candidates to make it on the ballot. Lack of federal matching funds are also negatively impacting the minor parties. “The Presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20 million (plus a cost-of-living adjustment (COLA)) for the general election campaign. In 1992, each major party nominee received $55.24 million. To be eligible, candidates must agree to limit their spending to the amount of the grant and must pledge not to accept private contributions for the campaign.” (fec.gov). Although this website states some minuscule limitations for the main party candidates, these candidates simply must agree to the rules to receive the funding. On the other hand, (fec.gov) states that “Minor party candidates and new party candidates may qualify for partial general election funding, based on their party's electoral performance.” So not only do the candidates have to qualify for the funding, if they do, they only receive partial funding. 

Although minor parties were projected to thrive during the 2016 election, they ceased to even make recent history among the successful minor party candidates during presidential elections. An NBC/Wall Street Journal poll confirmed that there is, in fact, an issue among the majority of Americans- having 83% upset with the two-party system that exists today. Writer Bruce Bartlett on Forbes.com explains an interest in a parliamentary system, one like Great Britain, where a national election only lasts less than a month unlike our presidential elections which “…never seems to end.” Although Bartlett explains few concerns with the parliamentary system, he seems to be interested in a best of both worlds situation which is unlikely because of the history that makes up our Democracy. Despite Clinton and Trump having the such high unfavorable ratings, this had no comparable importance to previous elections and minor party success. As showed in the image created by Roper Center and IBD/TIPP, in 1992 as well as 1996 there was an average unfavorable rating among the two major party candidates, which gave Ross Perot recent history-high support with nearly twenty percent in 1992 and roughly eight percent in 1996. Another graph of the average favorable ratings among the Republican and Democratic Parties constructed by Gallop shows that the average favorability among the major party candidates was above fifty percent and in November, 2016 it was extremely low just barely not reaching forty percent.

During elections, third party candidates typically lose supporters as their campaigns come to a close. This is most likely due to the fact that voters worry that if they do no contribute to the lesser of two evils, fear that their vote may be considered a wasted one kicks in. Without change in our political system, it is seen as nearly impossible for a candidate not associated with the Republican or Democratic parties to win a national election, or to even have success in a single state. There are many ways that we would have to change how our system is conducted to help these minor parties and non-party’s to be successful. It is unfortunate that our electoral institutions are designed to ensure a two-party system. Although there are not rules in place to mandate the guarantee of success for the Republicans and Democrats, after the amount of time our nation has been running off of this Democracy, it is safe to say that major parties will continue to dominate elections for quite a while. It is upsetting to see great potential and morals in candidates that one would support but simply has to make the decision not to because of the fear that major party candidates will succeed if voters “waste” a vote. It goes to say that Americans get scared when it comes to who is in power. There are many ways that we can and are attempting to fix this issue but it seems as though it is unfortunately, a lost cause.
