Observers of U.S. elections have reason to believe that third parties are not relevant political actors since they rarely win many votes or influence which major party wins an election. Researchers should use dependent variables besides vote choice and vote share to find third party effects that are a normal aspect of the American two-party system. A spatial model of elections motivates the hypothesis that a higher likelihood of third party entry induces greater major party candidate divergence. An empirical test that uses candidate positioning data in the 1996 U.S. House elections provides evidence of this third party effect.
AdamsJamesMerrillSamuelIII.2006. Why small, centrist third parties motivate policy divergence by major parties. American Political Science Review100:403–17.
2.
AldrichJohn H.1983a. A Downsian spatial model with party activism. American Political Science Review77:974–90.
3.
AldrichJohn H.1983b. A spatial model with party activists: Implications and electoral dynamics. Public Choice41: 63–100.
4.
AldrichJohn H.1995. Why parties? The origin and transformation of political parties in America. Chicago: University of Chicago Press.
5.
AnsolabehereStephenSnyderJamesStewartCharles. 2001. Candidate positioning in U.S. House elections. American Journal of Political Science45:136–59.
6.
BaumolW. J.PanzarJ. C.WilligR. D.1982. Contestable markets and the theory of industry structure. New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich.
7.
BergerMark M.MungerMichael C.PotthoffRichard. 2000. The Downsian model predicts divergence. Journal of Theoretical Politics12:228–40.
8.
BrennanGeoffreyHamlinAlan. 1998. Expressive voting and electoral equilibrium. Public Choice95:149–75.
9.
BrennanGeoffreyLomaskyLoren. 1993. Democracy and decision: The pure theory of electoral preference. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
10.
BurdenBarry. 2004. Candidate positioning in US congressional elections. British Journal of Political Science34:211–27.
11.
BurdenBarry. 2007. Ballot regulations and multiparty politics in the states. PS: Political Science & Politics40:669–73.
12.
BurnhamWalter D.1970. Critical elections and the mainsprings of American politics. New York: Norton.
13.
CalvertRandal. 1985. Robustness of the multidimensional voting model: Candidates’ motivations, uncertainty, and convergence. American Political Science Review29: 69–95.
14.
GibsonJames L.CotterCornelius P.BibbyJohn F.HuckshornRobert J.1985. Whither the local parties? A cross-sectional and longitudinal analysis of the strength of party organization. American Journal of Political Science29:139–60.
15.
HardinJames W.2002. The robust variance estimator for two-stage models. Stata Journal2:253–66.
16.
HerronMichaelLewisJeffrey. 2007. Did Ralph Nader spoil a Gore presidency? A ballot-level study of Green and Reform Party voters in the 2000 presidential election. Quarterly Journal of Political Science2:205–26.
17.
HiranoShigeo. 2008. Third parties, elections, and roll-call votes: The Populist Party and the late nineteenth-century U.S. Congress. Legislative Studies Quarterly33:131–60.
18.
HiranoShigeoSnyderJamesJr.2007. The decline of third-party voting in the United States. Journal of Politics69:1–16.
19.
HoleArne Risa. 2006. Calculating Murphy-Topel variance estimates in Stata: A simplified procedure. Stata Journal6:521–29.
20.
HolianDavid B.KrebsTimothy B.WalshMichael H.1997. Constituency opinion, Ross Perot, and roll-call behavior in the U.S. House: The case of the NAFTA. Legislative Studies Quarterly22:369–92.
21.
JacobsonGary C.1989. Strategic politicians and the dynamics of U.S. House elections, 1946–86. American Political Science Review83:773–93.
22.
KimKwang-Ho. 2005. Valence characteristics and entry of a third party. Economics Bulletin4 (18): 1–9.
23.
LacyDeanBurdenBarry. 1999. The vote-stealing and turnout effects of Ross Perot in the 1992 U.S. presidential election. American Journal of Political Science43: 233–55.
24.
LemSteve B.DowlingConor M.2006. Picking their spots: Minor party candidates in gubernatorial elections. Political Research Quarterly59:471–80.
25.
Lewis-BeckMichaelSquirePeverill. 1995. The politics of institutional choice: Presidential ballot access for third parties in the United States. British Journal of Political Science25:419–27.
26.
MarkinKaren M.1995a. Ballot access 2: For congressional candidates. Washington, DC: Federal Election Commission.
27.
MarkinKaren M.1995b. Ballot access 4: For political parties. Washington, DC: Federal Election Commission.
28.
MurphyKevin M.TopelRobert H.1985. Estimation and inference in two-step econometric models. Journal of Business and Economic Statistics3:370–79.
29.
PalfreyThomas. 1984. Spatial equilibrium with entry. Review of Economic Studies51:139–56.
30.
PooleKeithRosenthalHoward. 1997. Congress: A political- economic history of roll call voting. New York: Oxford University Press.
31.
PooleKeithRosenthalHoward. 2007. Ideology and Congress. New Brunswick, NJ: Transaction Publishing.
32.
RapoportRonald B.StoneWalter J.2001. It’s Perot, stupid! The legacy of the 1992 Perot movement in the major-party system, 1992–2000. PS: Political Science & Politics34: 49–58.
33.
RapoportRonald B.StoneWalter J.2005. Three’s a crowd: The dynamic of third parties, Ross Perot, and Republican resurgence. Ann Arbor: University of Michigan Press.
34.
RosenstoneStevenBehrRoyLazarusEdward. 1996. Third parties in America: Citizen response to major party failure, 2nd ed.Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
35.
StratmannThomas. 2005. Ballot access restrictions and candidate entry in elections. European Journal of Political Economy21:59–71.
36.
SundquistJames L.1983. Dynamics of the party system. Washington, DC: Brookings Institution.
37.
WittmanDonald. 1983. Candidate motivation: A synthesis of alternative theories. American Political Science Review77:142–57.
Supplementary Material
Please find the following supplemental material available below.
For Open Access articles published under a Creative Commons License, all supplemental material carries the same license as the article it is associated with.
For non-Open Access articles published, all supplemental material carries a non-exclusive license, and permission requests for re-use of supplemental material or any part of supplemental material shall be sent directly to the copyright owner as specified in the copyright notice associated with the article.
