Nick TroianoGOVT-121, Jennifer RaymondJuly 3, 2011Independent Comparative Study

Voter Dissatisfaction and Third PartiesI

NTRODUCTION

In the 1950s, French sociologist Maurice Duverger sought to explain the varyingnumber of political parties that competed within different countries. His researchattributed differences to the types of electoral systems that were used. One of hisfindings, known as Duverger’s Law, states that simple-majority, single-ballot electoralsystems tend to favor two-party political systems.

Duverger acknowledged thatexceptions, while rare, can occur. Indeed, one recent exception occurred in the 2010general election in the United Kingdom, when a third political party won enough seats in parliament to control the balance of power. This raises the question, under whatcircumstances can third parties effectively compete within electoral systems thatotherwise discourage them?Using Duverger’s Law as a foundation, this paper explores the theory that voterswill tend to vote for a third political party if they become dissatisfied with the direction of their country and lose confidence in their government’s ability to change it. This theory istested by analyzing public opinion polls from the United Kingdom’s 2010 generalelection and the United States’ 2000 presidential election, in which a third party achievedvery little support. A significant gap in voter satisfaction in both countries at the time of their respective elections provides evidence in support of the theory presented. This

finding is important, as it may predict a political environment that is conducive to the riseof third political party in the United States’ 2012 presidential election.

HEORY

Duverger’s Law is a product of two factors; one is described by Duverger asmechanical and the other as psychological. The mechanical factor is the regular under-representation of third parties that results from single ballot, plurality votes. For example,a third party that wins second or third place in most districts will tend to haverepresentation in government that is disproportionately smaller than the amount of support it receives in a given election. Duverger writes, “So long as a new party whichaims at competing with the two old parties still remains weak, the system works againstit, raising a barrier against its progress.”

The psychological factor is the realizationamong voters that, as a result of this under-representation, their votes might be wasted if given to a third party. Thus, voters have a “natural tendency to transfer their vote to theless evil of its two adversaries in order to prevent the success of the greater evil.”

We return to the question of why third parties can sometimes effectively competewithin electoral systems that otherwise discourage them. While the underlying mechanicsof the electoral system do not change from election to election, the way voters rationallyevaluate their decisions, from a psychological standpoint, does. When both major partiesare viewed especially poorly, it might seem more worthwhile for a voter to risk wastinghis or her vote in order to support a preferred alternative. This occurs when voters believethat their country is headed in the wrong direction and that their government, regardlessof which major party is in control, has little ability to change its course. High levels of

dissatisfaction and a sense of hopelessness with the two major parties provide theopportunity for a third party to effectively compete in an election.

ASE

ELECTION

The United States and the United Kingdom are good cases to test this theory for two reasons. First, despite the fact that the United States has a presidential electoralsystem and the United Kingdom has a parliamentary system, both countries utilize single ballot plurality voting, which is Duverger’s main concern. Second, voters in bothcountries are generally disposed to evaluating electoral decisions similarly, in the sensethat the average voter has about the same level of education and knowledge of politics.For example, a majority of citizens in the United Kingdom (58%) and the United States(72%) say they are interested in politics.

2,3

This allows space for research to determinewhy a third party might be able to effectively compete in an election, independent of suchfactors that Duverger’s Law already explains.The 2000 election in the United States and 2010 election in the United Kingdom,in particular, make good comparisons because they are the most recent elections in whicha third party was qualified to be on the ballot in enough states/districts that it could potentially win the election. In 2000, Ralph Nader ran on the Green Party line, competingas a third party candidate against Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. In2010, Nick Clegg led the Liberal Democrats as a third party challenge to DavidCameron’s Conservative Party and Gordon Brown’s Labour Party.

ATA

During the 2010 general election, 31% of adults in the United Kingdom believedtheir country was on the right track (22% of Conservatives, 32% of Liberal Democrats,