The Effect Of Third Party Candidates In Presidental Elections

The Effect of Third Party Candidates in Presidental Elections

Although citizens of the United States have the opportunity to vote for many different offices at the national, state, and local levels, the election of the president of the United States every four years is the focal point of the

American political process. The American political system has maintained a two- party system since its inception. Political scientists argue that a two-party system is the most stable and efficient means of running a democratic nation as a mono-party system leads toward tyranny, and a multi-party system creates over- diversification and gridlock (Mazmanian 6). The Constitution of the United

States does not in any way limit the structure of the political system to two parties. In fact, there has been no presidential election where there were only two candidates; however, third-party candidates are rarely represented in a majority of the states, and those that were on the ballot in a majority of states have never been successful. However, on a few occasions, third party candidates have been able to make a significant impact on the presidential election process such as George Wallace in 1968 and H. Ross Perot in 1992.

Through nineteenth century there was little deviation from the traditional two-party system. Until then, political candidates were utterly dependant upon the political infrastructure of an established party for their campaigns. Until the development of mass media technologies, including radio and television, political candidates had no direct means of communicating with the public and were thus dependant on the communications systems of the major parties. Thus, third party movements lacked the capabilities to run an effective campaign against the major parties.

However, mass media has changed the scope of the election process and brought about the demise of the major political parties (Robinson 147).

Candidates who run a television dominated campaign have hurt their parties in a number of ways. The media specialists who manage such campaigns tend to be loyal to a candidate rather than to the candidate's party; as a result, the campaign supports a single candidate and not the entire ticket of the party. In addition, the heavy reliance on television allows a candidate to reach voters directly, thereby weakening the traditional function of the party as an info... ... middle of paper ...

...eed, Ross Perot and George Wallace had a profound effect on the outcome of the elections they participated in, but Perot had a more lasting effect. Ross Perot proved to the world that it is quite plausible for a completely independent candidate to "walk into center stage and steal the show" (Robinson 141). With the decline of the political parties and their role in the campaign process, the possibilities for more successful independent candidates can only increase. Eventually an independent will go farther than swaying the outcome. One day an independent will win.

Works Cited

Brown, Gene. H. Ross Perot: Texas Billionaire. Vero Beach: Rourke Enterprises,

Inc, 1993.

Goldman, Peter and Tom Mathews. "The Manhattan Project". Newsweek (Special

Election Issue) November/December, 1992. pp.40-57

Jackson, David. "3rd party chances gauged" Dallas Morning News. November 5, 1992.

Mazmanian, Daniel A. Third Parties in Presidential Elections. New York: Franklin

Watts, 1974.

Murr, Andrew. "Superhero". Newsweek (Special Election Issue) November/December,

1992. pp.70-77.

Robinson, James W., ed. Ross Perot Speaks Out. Rocklin: Prima Publishing, 1992.

.