In this article, we evaluate the rationale behind partisan disaffiliation laws, which prevent a candidate from running as an independent or from switching parties if they have not adequately severed their ties to an existing party. One prominent justification for these laws is that they help prevent voter confusion, which may result in the most preferred candidate losing. Utilizing a database of state legislative elections from 1968 to 2014, we categorize independent and third-party candidates into two groups: those who have run in the past as a Democrat or Republican, whom we refer to as former major-party candidates (FMPs), and those who have always run as a non-major party candidate (ANMs). The findings reveal that the latter appear less strategic about where to run, and they are unlikely to run again. In contrast, FMPs are much more likely to have held state legislative office and are more likely to have run multiple times; they are also more strategic, running under conditions that are advantageous for non-major party candidates. Voters react to this, giving ANMs far fewer votes than FMPs and being more apt to vote for them when “spoiling” an election is less likely. As a result, ANMs rarely deny winning candidates majorities, while FMPs who have won office in the past do so more than half the time. Our findings regarding “vote stealing” do not indicate a systematic tendency for FMPs to take substantially more votes from the party they recently left in comparison to the other major party. Overall, our findings indicate that partisan disaffiliation laws achieve the objectives they are designed to promote.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Anderson v. Celebrezze. 1980. 499 F. Supp. 121 (S.D. Ohio).
2.
ArgersingerPeter H.1980. “‘A Place on the Ballot’: Fusion Politics and Antifusion Laws.” American Historical Review, 85(2): 287–306.
3.
BrancatiDawn. 2008. “Winning Alone: The Electoral Fate of Independent Candidates Worldwide.” Journal of Politics, 70(3): 648–662.
4.
BurdenBarry C.2007. “Ballot Regulations and Multiparty Politics in the States.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 40(4): 669–673.
5.
BurdenBarry C., JonesBradley M., and KangMichael S.. 2014. “Sore Loser Laws and Congressional Polarization.” Legislative Studies Quarterly, 39(3): 299–325.
6.
ChamberlainAdam. 2014. “Voter Coordination and the Rise of the Republican Party: Evidence from New England.” Social Science History, 38(3–4): 311–332.
7.
ChhibberPradeep K. and KollmanKen. 2004. The Formation of National Party Systems: Federalism and Party Competition in Canada, Great Britain, India, and the United States. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
8.
CillizzaChris. 2014. “Charlie Crist Didn't Leave the Republican Party Because of Racism. He Left It Because He Couldn't Win a Primary.” Washington Post-The Fix Blog. Available at <https://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/21549>. Accessed on January22, 2016.
9.
CrispBrian F., OlivellaSantiago, and PotterJoshua D.. 2012. “Electoral Contexts that Impede Voter Coordination.” Electoral Studies, 31(1): 143–158.
10.
Curry v. Buescher. 2010. No. 10-1265 (10th Cir. Aug. 31).
11.
CurticeJohn. 2013. “Politicians, Voters, and Democracy: The 2011 UK Referendum on the Alternative Vote.” Electoral Studies, 32(2): 215–223.
12.
Davis v. State Election Board of Oklahoma. 1988. 762 P.2d 932 (Supreme Court of Oklahoma).
13.
EriksonRobert S. and WrightGerald. 2005. “Voters, Candidates, and Issues in Congressional Elections.” In Congress Reconsidered, ed. DoddLawrence C. and OppenheimerBruce L.. Washington, D.C.: CQ Press.
14.
Florida Senate Interim Report 2011-119. 2010. “Legal Implications of Candidate Party Switching in Florida Elections.” Published by the Committee on Ethics and Elections.
15.
GillespieJ. David. 1993. Politics at the Periphery: Third Parties in Two-Party America. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
16.
GillespieJ. David. 2012. Challengers to Duopoly: Why Third Parties Matter in American Two-Party Politics. Columbia, SC: University of South Carolina Press.
17.
HiranoShigeo and SnyderJames M.Jr.2007. “The Decline of Third-Party Voting in America.” Journal of Politics, 69(1): 1–16.
18.
HiranoShigeo and SnyderJames M.Jr.2014. “Primary Elections and the Quality of Elected Officials.” Quarterly Journal of Political Science, 9(4): 473–500.
19.
JenkinsJeffrey A. and MorrisIrwin L.. 2006. “Running to Lose?: John C. Breckinridge and the Presidential Election of 1860.” Electoral Studies, 25(2): 306–328.
20.
KangMichael S.2010. “Sore Loser Laws and Democratic Contestation.” Georgetown Law Journal, 99: 1013–1075.
21.
KlarnerCarl E.2010. “Forecasting the 2010 State Legislative Elections.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 43(October): 643–48.
22.
KlarnerCarl E., 2013. “State Legislative Election Returns Data, 2011–2012.” <http://hdl.handle.net/1902.1/21549>. Harvard Dataverse Network [Distributor] V1 [Version]. The 2011–2012 addendum has the following citation.
23.
KlarnerCarl E., BerryWilliam, CarseyThomas, JewellMalcolm, NiemiRichard, PowellLynda, and SnyderJames. State Legislative Election Returns (1967–2010). ICPSR34297-v1. Ann Arbor, MI: Inter-university Consortium for Political and Social Research [distributor], 2013-01-11. doi:10.3886/ICPSR34297.v1.
24.
LeDucLawrence. 2009. “The Failure of Electoral Reform Proposals in Canada.” Political Science, 61(2): 21–40.
25.
LeeDaniel J. 2012a. “Take the Good with the Bad: Cross-Cutting Effects of Ballot Access Requirements on Third-Party Electoral Success.” American Politics Research, 40(2): 267–292.
26.
LeeDaniel J.2012b. “Anticipating Entry: Major Party Positioning and Third Party Threat.” Political Research Quarterly, 65(1): 138–150.
27.
LeeDaniel J.2014. “Third-Party Threat and the Dimensionality of Major-Party Roll Call Voting.” Public Choice, 159(3): 515–531.
28.
LemSteve B., and DowlingConor M.. 2006. “Picking Their Spots: Minor Party Candidates in Gubernatorial Elections.” Political Research Quarterly, 59(3): 471–480.
29.
Libertarian Party v. Secretary of State. 1991. 817 P.2d 998 (Colo.).
30.
NagelJack H.1994. “What Political Scientists Can Learn from the 1993 Electoral Reform in New Zealand.” PS: Political Science and Politics, 27(3): 525–529.
31.
PyeattNicholas L.2014. “Incumbent Ideology, District Ideology, and Candidate Entry in U.S. Congressional Elections, 1954–2008.” Social Science Journal, 51(2): 181–190.
32.
RapoportRonald and StoneWalter J.. 2008. Three's a Crowd: The Dynamic of Third Parties, Ross Perot, and Republican Resurgence. Ann Arbor, MI: University Press of Michigan.
33.
ReynoldsJohn F. and McCormickRichard L.. 1986. “ Outlawing ‘Treachery’: Split Tickets and Ballot Laws in New York and New Jersey, 1880–1910.” Journal of American History, 72(4): 835–858.
34.
RikerWilliam H.1982. Liberalism Against Populism: A Confrontation Between the Theory of Democracy and the Theory of Social Choice. San Francisco, CA: W.H. Freeman.
RosenstoneSteven J., BehrRoy L., and LazarusEdward H.. 1996. Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure. 2nd Edition. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
37.
ScarrowHoward A.1986. “Duverger's Law, Fusion, and the Decline of American ‘Third’ Parties.” Western Political Quarterly, 39(4): 634–647.
38.
SchraufnagelScot and MilitaKerri. 2010. “Testing the Effects of Ballot Access Reform on Non-Major Party Electoral Fortunes: The Case of Florida's Revision 11.” American Review of Politics, 31(1): 25–39.
39.
SchraufnagelScot. 2011. Third Party Blues: The Truth and Consequences of Two-Party Dominance. New York: Routledge.
40.
ShockDavid R.2008. “Securing a Line on the Ballot: Measuring and Explaining the Restrictiveness of Ballot Access Laws for Non-Major Party Candidates in the United States.” Social Science Journal, 45(1): 48–60.
41.
SmithKeith. 2014. “Proposition 14 and California's Minor Parties: A Case Study of Electoral Reform and Party Response.” California Journal of Politics and Policy, 6(4): 437–470.
42.
South Dakota Libertarian Party v. Gant. 2014. 60 F. Supp. 3d 1043 (D.S.D.).
43.
StoneWalter J., FultonSarah A., MaestasCherie D., and MaiselL. Sandy. 2010. “Incumbency Reconsidered: Prospects, Strategic Retirement, and Incumbent Quality in U.S. House Elections.” Journal of Politics, 72(1): 178–190.
44.
Storer v. Brown. 1974. 415 U.S. 724, 94 S. Ct. 1274.
45.
TamasBernard and HindmanMatthew Dean. 2014. “Ballot Access Laws and the Decline of American Third-Parties.” Election Law Journal, 13(2): 260–276.
46.
Thournir v. Meyer. 1986. 803 F.2d 1093 (10th Cir.).
47.
Van Susteren v. Jones, 2003. 331 F.3d 1024 (9th Cir.).
48.
WareAlan. 2000. “Anti-Partism and Party Control of Political Reform in the United States: The Case of the Australian Ballot.” British Journal of Political Science, 30(1): 1–29.
