Recent successes by independent presidential candidates raise questions about the stability of the American two-party system. Students of electoral behavior point to party decline, whereas analysts of party organization see growth and transformation. Analyses of the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 National Election Study surveys are used to determine whether support for Wallace, Anderson, and Perot resulted from dissatisfaction with the current two-party system. We find that there has been little erosion of support for the major political parties between 1968 and 1996. Americans with low levels of support for the major political parties were more likely to support Wallace in 1968 and Perot in 1992 and 1996. But to a large extent, support for Wallace, Anderson, and Perot resulted from dissatisfaction with the major-party candidates. Support for the major parties themselves has not eroded enough to provide a systemic opportunity for an independent candidate or for a new political party to end the Republican and Democratic duopoly.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramson, Paul R.1983. Political Attitudes in America: Formation and Change. San Francisco: W H. Freeman.
2.
Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, Phil Paolino, and David W Rohde. 1995. “Third-Party and Independent Candidates in American Politics: Wallace, Anderson, and Perot”. Political Science Quarterly110 (Fall): 349-367.
3.
Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, Phil Paolino, and David W Rohde. 1998. “Challenges to the American Two-Party System: Evidence from the 1968, 1980, 1992, and 1996 Presidential Elections”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
4.
Abramson, Paul R., John H. Aldrich, and David W Rohde. 1999. Change and Continuity in the 1996 and 1998 Elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press.
5.
Aldrich, John H.1995. Why Parties?: The Origin and Transformation of Political Parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
6.
Aldrich, John H.1999. “Political Parties in a Critical Era”. American Politics Quarterly. 27 (January): 9-32
7.
Aldrich, John H., and David W Rohde. 1997-98. “The Transition to Republican Rule in the House: Implications for Theories of Congressional Politics”. Political Science Quarterly112 (Winter): 541-567.
8.
Alvarez, R. Michael, and Jonathan Nagler. 1995. “Economics, Issues and the Perot Candidacy: Voter Choice in the 1992 Presidential Election”. American Journal of Political Science39 (August): 714-744.
9.
Bartels, Larry M.2000. “Party Identification and Voting Behavior, 1952-1996”. AmericanJournal of Political Science44 (January): 35-50.
10.
Butler, David, and Donald Stokes. 1974. Political Change in Britain: The Evolution of Electoral Choice, 2nd ed.London, UK: Macmillan.
11.
Campbell, Angus, Philip E. Converse, Warren E. Miller, and Donald E. Stokes. 1960. The American Voter. New York: Wiley
12.
Ceaser, James, and Andrew Busch. 1993. Upside Down and Inside Out: The 1992 Elections and American Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
13.
Ceaser, James, and Andrew Busch. 1997. Losing to Win: The 1996 Election and American Politics. Lanham, MD: Rowman and Littlefield.
14.
Congressional Quarterly. 1994. Congressional Quarterly's Guide to U.S. Elections, 3rd ed.Washington, DC: Congressional Quarterly.
Converse, Philip E.1976. The Dynamics of Party Support: Cohort-Analyzing Party Identification. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
17.
Converse, Philip E., Warren E. Miller, Jerrold G. Rusk, and Arthur C. Wolfe. 1969. “Continuity and Change in American Politics: Parties and Issues in the 1968 Election”. American Political Science Review63 (December): 1083-1105.
18.
Cox, Gary W1997. Making Votes Count: Strategic Coordination in the World's Electoral Systems. Cambridge, MA: Cambridge University Press.
19.
Crewe, Ivor, and Anthony King. 1995. The Birth, Life, and Death of the Social Democratic Party. Oxford, UK: Oxford University Press.
20.
Dalton, Russell J., and Martin P Wattenberg. 1993. “The Not So Simple Act of Voting”. In Ada W Finifter, ed., Political Science: The State of the Discipline II. Washington, DC: American Political Science Association.
21.
Downs, Anthony. 1957. An Economic Theory of Democracy. New York: Harper & Row.
22.
Duverger, Maurice. 1963. Political Parties: Their Organization and Activity in the Modern State, trans. Barbara North and Robert North. New York: Wiley
23.
Duverger, Maurice. 1986. “Duverger's Law Forty Years Later”. In Bernard Grofman and Arend Lijphart, eds., Electoral Laws and Their Political Consequences. New York: Agathon Press.
24.
Honaker, James, Anne Joseph, Gary King, Kenneth Sheve, and Naunihal Singh. 1999. “Amelia: A Program for Missing Data (Windows Version).” Cambridge, MA. Harvard University, http://Gking.Harvard.edu.
25.
Keith, Bruce E., David B. Magleby, Candice J. Nelson, Elizabeth Orr, Mark C. Westlye, and Raymond E. Wolfinger. 1992. The Myth of the Independent Voter. Berkeley: University of California Press.
26.
Key, V O., Jr.1965. Politics, Parties, and Pressure Groups, 5th ed.New York: Crowell.
27.
King, Gary, James Honaker, Anne Joseph, and Kenneth Sheve. 1998, “Listwise Deletion is Evil: What to Do about Missing Data in Political Science”. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Political Science Association, Boston.
28.
Ladd, Everett Carll. 1993. “The 1992 Vote for President Clinton: Another Brittle Mandate?Political Science Quarterly108 (Spring): 1-28.
29.
Mayer, William G.1996. The Divided Democrats: Ideological Unity, Party Reform, and Presidential Elections. Boulder, CO: Westview Press.
30.
Page, Benjamin I., and Calvin C. Jones. 1979. “Reciprocal Effects of Policy Preferences, Party Loyalties and the Vote”. American Political Science Review73 (December): 1071-1089.
31.
Petrocik, John R.1974. “An Analysis of Intransitivities in the Index of Party Identification”. Political Methodology1 (Summer): 31-47.
32.
Rahn, Wendy M., John H. Aldrich, Eugene Borgida, and John L. Sullivan. 1990. “A Social-Cognitive Model of Candidate Appraisal”. In John A. Ferejohn and James H. Kuklinski, eds., Information and Democratic Processes. Urbana: University of Illinois Press.
33.
Riker, William H.1982. “The Two-party System and Duverger's Law: An Essay on the History of Political Science”. American Political Science Review76 (December): 753-766.
34.
Rohde, David W1991. Parties and Leaders in the Postreform House. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
35.
Rosenstone, Steven J., Roy L. Behr, and Edward H. Lazarus. 1984. Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major Party Failure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
36.
Rosenstone, Steven J., and John Mark Hansen. 1993. Mobilization, Participation, and Democracy in America. New York: Macmillan.
37.
Schlesinger, Joseph A.1991. Political Parties and the Winning of Office. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
38.
Shafer, Byron E., and William J. M. Claggett. 1995. The Two Majorities: The Issue Context of American Politics. Baltimore: Johns Hopkins University Press.
39.
Sundquist, James L.1983. Dynamics of the Party System: Alignment and Realignment of Political Parties in the United States, rev. ed.Washington, DC: Brookings.
40.
Wattenberg, Martin P1991. The Rise of Candidate-Centered Parties: Presidential Elections of the 1980s. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
41.
Wattenberg, Martin P1998. The Decline of American Political Parties, 1952-1996. Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
42.
Zaller, John, and Mark Hunt. 1994. “The Rise and Fall of Candidate Perot: Unmediated Versus Mediated Politics-Part I”. Political Communication11 (Oct.-Dec.): 357-390.
43.
Zaller, John, and Mark Hunt. 1995. “The Rise and Fall of Candidate Perot: Unmediated Versus Mediated Politics-Part II”. Political Communication12 (Jan.-March): 97-123.
