Support for minor parties is increasing in some state elections. In this article we use survey data to model support for contemporary third party candidates in California. Our analysis indicates that voters choose minor party candidates when they are dissatisfied with major candidates and when they perceive no difference between the major parties. We also find that these minor party candidates receive support from voters who have loyalties to the minor party, a finding that contrasts with some of the existing literature on minor party voting in U.S. national elections.
Get full access to this article
View all access options for this article.
References
1.
Abramson, P.
(1979). Developing party identification: A further examination of life-cycle, generational and period effects. American Journal of Political Science, 23(1), 78-96.
2.
Alvarez, R. M.
, & Nagler, J. (1995). Economics, issues and the Perot candidacy: Voter choice in the 1992 election. American Journal of Political Science, 39(3), 714-744.
3.
Alvarez, R. M.
, & Nagler, J. (1998). When politics and models collide: Estimating models of multiparty elections. American Journal of Political Science, 42(1), 55-96.
4.
Bell, C.
, & Price, C. (1984). California government today: Politics of reform. Homewood, IL: Dorsey.
5.
Burnham, W. D.
(1970). Critical elections and the mainsprings of American politics. New York: Norton.
6.
Chaney, C.
, Alvarez, R. M., & Nagler, J. (1998). Explaining the gender gap in U.S. presidential elections. Political Research Quarterly, 51(2), 311-340.
7.
Collet, C.
(1993). Bye-bye GOP, ta-ta Dems: California voters flee traditional parties. California Journal, 24(10), 33-37.
8.
Collet, C.
, & Hansen, J. R. (1995, March). The rise of third parties in western states. Paper presented at a meeting of the Western Political Science Association, Portland, OR.
9.
Converse, P.
(1976). The dynamics of party support. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage.
10.
Converse, P.
, Miller, W., Rusk, J., & Wolfe, A. (1969). Continuity and change in American politics: Parties and issues in the 1968 election. American Political Science Review, 63(4), 1083-1110.
11.
Cox, G.
(1997). Making votes count. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press.
12.
Duverger, M.
(1959). Political parties. New York: John Wiley.
13.
Elden, J.
, & Schweitzer, D. (1971). New third party radicalism: The case of the California Peace and Freedom Party. Western Political Quarterly, 24(3), 761-774.
14.
Gold, H.
(1995). Third party voting in presidential elections: A study of Perot, Anderson and Wallace. Political Research Quarterly, 48(4), 751-774.
15.
Jennings, M. K.
, & Markus, G. (1984). Partisan orientations over the long-haul. American Political Science Review, 78(4), 1000-1018.
16.
Lowenstein, D.
(1995). Third parties and independent candidates. In D. Lowenstein, Election law: Cases and materials (pp. 391-424). Durham, NC: Carolina Academic Press.
17.
Riker, W.
(1982). The two-party system and Duverger's law: An essay on the history of political science. American Political Science Review, 76(3), 753-766.
18.
Rosenstone, S.
, Behr, R., & Lazarus, E. (1984). Third parties in America: Citizen response to major party failure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.
19.
Shepsle, K.
, & Bonchek, M. (1997). Analyzing politics: Rationality, behavior and institutions. New York: Norton.
20.
Stambough, S. J.
, & Thorson, G. R. (1995). Anti-incumbency and the 1992 elections: The changing face of presidential coattails. Journal of Politics, 57(1), 210-219.
21.
Tolchin, S.
(1996). The angry American: How voter rage is changing the nation. Boulder, CO: Westview.
22.
Vowels, J.
(1995). The politics of electoral reform in New Zealand. International Political Science Review, 16(1), 117-115.
