Why don't third parties succeed in US? Maybe it’s the law.

Duverger’s law is a political theory that says democracies with single-member legislative districts and winner-take-all voting tend to favor a two-party system.

Scott Morgan/AP
Libertarian presidential candidate Gary Johnson speaks during a campaign rally in Des Moines, Iowa, on Sept. 3, 2016. Because of debate rules, neither he nor Green Party candidate Jill Stein will participate in Monday's presidential debate.

When Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump walk onstage for tonight’s presidential debate, why will they be alone? Why won’t Libertarian Gary Johnson and the Green Party’s Jill Stein be there?

The short answer is that Mr. Johnson and Ms. Stein did not clear an arbitrary polling threshold. Last October, the Commission on Presidential Debates announced that only candidates polling 15 percent or more in an average of major surveys would be allowed on the debate stage. Johnson is drawing around 7 percent at the moment, according to RealClearPolitics. Stein is down around 2 percent.

The long answer – which addresses why third parties have a hard time muscling into the top tier of US politics – may be that it’s the law. Duverger’s law.

Named for French political scientist Maurice Duverger, Duverger’s law is more of a theory than an actual, you know, statute. It holds that any democratic country with single-member legislative districts and winner-take-all voting tends to favor a two-party system.

That’s because many voters don’t want to waste their ballot, and thus gravitate toward a legislative candidate they think has a chance to win. Third-party candidates have a hard time building enough of a following to actually win a congressional or state legislative seat, in this theory. And without a grass-roots base of elected officials, third-party candidates who aren’t already famous have a very difficult time building momentum.

The US has had notable third-party candidates in recent years. Ross Perot won 19 percent of the popular vote in 1992. Ralph Nader’s 3 percent of the vote in 2000 might have been just enough to cost Al Gore the election.

And Duverger’s law is far from a perfect explanation of the real world. Critics point out counter-examples, such as Britain, where single-member winner-take-all districts have produced multiple-party systems. State ballot access laws, raw partisanship, and other institutional factors also contribute to third-party struggles.

Still, Duverger’s proposition inspires wide respect in academia. “In political science, this is about as close as we get to a law,” wrote Stanford University political scientist Anna Grzymala-Busse in a 2014 remembrance of the French scholar.

Are there implications here for the 2016 election? Well, it’s possible that as November approaches, Johnson and Stein’s vote share will further dwindle. Some of their backers will decide that a protest vote isn’t as important as actually influencing the outcome. Many aren’t Libertarians or Greens per se, but Republicans and Democrats who won’t, or haven’t yet, committed to Clinton or Trump.

According to polls, Stein’s sliver seems more committed, but for many Green voters, Clinton is their second choice. Johnson draws support more from disaffected members of both parties. It’s not clear who would benefit more if some of the Libertarian’s current supporters abandon him.

Yes, the numbers here are small. The net result of a shakeout among current third-party voters might be only a few percentage points for one big party candidate or another. But the distance between Clinton and Trump is paper-thin at the moment. A percentage point or two could make all the difference on Nov. 8.

You've read  of  free articles. Subscribe to continue.
Real news can be honest, hopeful, credible, constructive.
What is the Monitor difference? Tackling the tough headlines – with humanity. Listening to sources – with respect. Seeing the story that others are missing by reporting what so often gets overlooked: the values that connect us. That’s Monitor reporting – news that changes how you see the world.

Dear Reader,

About a year ago, I happened upon this statement about the Monitor in the Harvard Business Review – under the charming heading of “do things that don’t interest you”:

“Many things that end up” being meaningful, writes social scientist Joseph Grenny, “have come from conference workshops, articles, or online videos that began as a chore and ended with an insight. My work in Kenya, for example, was heavily influenced by a Christian Science Monitor article I had forced myself to read 10 years earlier. Sometimes, we call things ‘boring’ simply because they lie outside the box we are currently in.”

If you were to come up with a punchline to a joke about the Monitor, that would probably be it. We’re seen as being global, fair, insightful, and perhaps a bit too earnest. We’re the bran muffin of journalism.

But you know what? We change lives. And I’m going to argue that we change lives precisely because we force open that too-small box that most human beings think they live in.

The Monitor is a peculiar little publication that’s hard for the world to figure out. We’re run by a church, but we’re not only for church members and we’re not about converting people. We’re known as being fair even as the world becomes as polarized as at any time since the newspaper’s founding in 1908.

We have a mission beyond circulation, we want to bridge divides. We’re about kicking down the door of thought everywhere and saying, “You are bigger and more capable than you realize. And we can prove it.”

If you’re looking for bran muffin journalism, you can subscribe to the Monitor for $15. You’ll get the Monitor Weekly magazine, the Monitor Daily email, and unlimited access to CSMonitor.com.

QR Code to Why don't third parties succeed in US? Maybe it’s the law.
Read this article in
QR Code to Subscription page
Start your subscription today