Third Parties and the Two-Party System
by CHRISTIAN COLLET
Public Opinion Quarterly, Fall 1996, volume 60, no. 3, pages 431-449
Since the late 1960s and early 1970s, there has been much discussion and concern about the
stability and strength of the two-party system in America. After David Broder's (1971)
declaration that "the party's over," a debate emerged among political scientists
and observers over whether the Republicans and Democrats - and partisanship itself - were
indeed in decline. In large part, the focus on party decline has generated ample evidence
of increasing voter independence since 1952 (e.g., Beck 1984; Nie, Verba, and Petrocik
1979; Wattenberg 1996), although some controversy remains about whether voters may
actually be "covert partisans" (Keith et al. 1992, p. 23). For those looking at
general public support for the party system, though, there has been less controversy. As
Jack Dennis concluded in a 1975 article that looked at most of the available indicators of
party system strength over time, "attitudes toward the parties and the evaluations of
the importance of the party institution show, with few exceptions, a general state of low
public regard and legitimation" (p. 218). While some have argued that the Republicans
and Democrats have revitalized organizationally and have become increasingly competitive
(e.g., Herrnson 1994; Reichley 1994), few would conclude that, generally speaking, the
major parties and the two-party system are as sacred to the American public today as they
once were.
Recently, the discussion of party system instability has taken on a new twist with the emergence of Ross Perot and the increasing activity of third parties and independent candidates. While the candidacies of George Wallace and John Anderson in the 1968 and 1980 presidential elections attracted some attention to the existent strains in the system, it was not until Perot's surprising 19 percent showing in 1992 that the cracks in the two-party armor began to be fully apparent and alternatives to the Republicans and Democrats credibly considered. Following Perot, a number of political observers - Theodore Lowi (1994) and Gordon Black and Benjamin Black (1994) among them - began to argue for the creation of a third major party, citing strong public support that they claim exists for a viable, mainstream alternative. In September 1995, Ross Perot began to transform the possibility into reality, by announcing the formation of his Reform Party and launching a campaign to qualify it for the ballot in all fifty states. In the course of his announcement and efforts to get his party registered nationwide, he, like Lowi and Black and Black, cited public opinion data showing overwhelming support for a third party. "Sixty-two percent of the American voters," Perot claimed in ads and speeches, "want a new political party."
The available trend data on the two-party system reveal that, on some indicators, the "general state of low public regard" for the parties found by Dennis in 1975 has sunk even lower. In an NES item asking whether parties "make the government pay attention to what the people think," the percentage saying "not much" has grown from a mere 13 percent in 1964 to 30 percent in 1995, when the question was repeated by CBS/New York Times (question 1 below). Another important NES measure of party attitudes - the feeling thermometer - also evidences growing disenchantment; those feeling cold toward the Democrats and, more important, political parties in general, have shot to unprecedented levels since 1990 (question 2; feelings toward the Republicans, however, have been stable). On the positive side for the parties, there has been no substantial increase over time in the percentage of those agreeing with the idea that "we probably don't need political parties" (question 3). Further, the likes and dislikes measured by NES show no net increase in negative feelings toward the specific parties since 1952 (question 4), although they do underscore the trend toward neutrality, as Wattenberg (1996) has observed. Those seeing "no difference" between the parties were no higher in 1994 than in 1952 (question 5), and there was no change from 1978 to 1984 in the nearly two-thirds agreeing that there are at least "some basic differences" between the two parties (question 6). However, from 1981 to 1985 nearly two-thirds consistently agreed that the "two political parties do more to confuse the issues than to provide a clear choice" (question 7). Thus, while the public may recognize fundamental distinctions between the parties, they seem to be increasingly indifferent toward them when asked to evaluate them individually. When respondents are asked to evaluate the two-party "system" or the "two political parties" as a whole, though, the public mood tends to move from neutrality to negativity.
Recent items asking respondents to make more direct assessments about the party system underscore this point. A question asked twice by the Los Angeles Times in 1995 (question 8), shows that roughly half of the public consider the two-party system to be "unsound." Some other questions that have not been repeated suggest similar dissatisfaction; one, in particular, by NBC/Wall Street Journal in 1995 showed that only 15 percent agreed that the "two-party system works fairly well," and 82 percent said it has either "real problems" or "is seriously broken" (9/16-19/95). Another by Gordon Black in 1992 showed 56 percent agreeing that they "were angry at both political parties" (5/92). Thus, the public may not feel greater dissaffection toward the Republicans and Democrats in particular - 61 percent in 1992 CBS/New York Times poll said that "the Republican and Democratic parties are still necessary" (6/17-20/92) - but are registering a growing antipathy toward the two-party system and its ability to provide compelling ideas and solutions to the chronic problems in the nation.
We can observe some of this growing desire for alternatives by observing the increasing levels of public support for a third party. However, the available trend data in this area are somewhat problematic, for two reasons: (1) many items are inconsistent in terms of question wording and frequency, and it has only been in recent years that identical questions on third parties have been asked with regularity; (2) in large part, items seem to be asked in periods where third party movements are making noise, which may mean that public hostility toward the two-party system and support for third parties may be artificially high (since they are measured only at high points). This makes it difficult to develop firm generalizations about the strength and consistency of support for third parties over time.
Still, the data do reveal some considerable changes. The earliest items on third parties (appearing in Roper surveys in 1938 and 1944) show overwhelming majorities in support for and satisfaction with the two-party system (questions 9-10), and the support for the current system continued to be strong into the 1960s - even as Wallace emerged and voters began to act more independently, in terms of self-identification and ticket splitting (Nie, Verba, and Petrocik 1979). But by the early eighties, the drop in support for the system began to manifest, and by 1994, for the first time, a minority said that they felt that the Republicans and Democrats were doing "an adequate job" and a majority felt that there should "be a third major party."
Additional questions highlight the change that occurred between the 1960s and today. Similarly worded Gallup and Harris items show increases between the 1960s and the 1980s in the number who would support a "center" or "middle-of-the-road" party (question 11). More illustrative of the current situation is a question asked by ABC/Washington Post in the 1980s and repeated, with a small variation, by Times-Mirror in 1994 and 1995, asking whether respondents agree or disagree with the statement "We should have a third major political party in this country in addition to the Republicans and Democrats." In the early 1980s, support ranged from 41 to 49 percent, and the percentages declined as low as 37 percent in 1985 (question 12). But when Times-Mirror asked a similar, though not identical, question in a 1994 survey, they found that 53 percent agreed; by October 1995, the percentage had grown to 59 percent. Yet another item asked in 1992 and continued at several points throughout 1995 and early 1996 by CBS/New York Times showed roughly the same levels of support for third parties, with fairly stable agreement in the mid to upper fifties (question 13).
Other items have shown even greater percentages supporting the idea of a third party. Time/CNN surveys by Yankelovich have asked a differently worded question that has tended to get higher rates of approval: "Would you favor or oppose the formation of a third political party that would run candidates for president, Congress, and state office against the Republican and Democratic candidates?" (question 14). Those in favor grew from 58 percent in June 1992 to as high as 63 percent in October 1992 but fell off to 50-59 percent in the 1993 to early 1995 period. A similarly worded item asked in late 1995 by ABC/Washington Post (question 15), though, shows overall support rebounding to over 60 percent but only 25 to 31 percent saying that they were "strongly" in support of a third party. In general, it seems that the higher percentages of support elicited by these two questions may underscore the public's interest, in particular, in having more candidates to choose from during election time; rather than having a single alternative in the presidential election, they may be asking for more alternatives across the board. Affirming this point is a follow-up to a CBS/New York Times survey (12/95) that asked why individuals said they wanted "a new political party." Seventy-five percent said that it was because "having more [candidates] is better for the country," while only 16 percent said that it was because the two parties did not "produce good candidates."(1) As well, a more recent CBS/New York Times survey in April 1996 showed a plurality (48 percent) agreeing that "having only two parties can't provide voters with enough options."(2)
While Perot and others can take satisfaction that the public has become more receptive to the general idea of having a third party, especially one that they feel will offer more candidates and choice on the ballot, some questions remain about the depth, stability, and viability of support for such an alternative. Can support for the idea of a third party, in general, translate into support for a specific party at the polls? Traditionally, third party candidates for the presidency fare well early in campaigns but usually see their support diminish considerably before Election Day (question 16), as voters begin to sense that they do not have a realistic chance at winning the race (Abramson et al. 1995; Rosenstone, Behr, and Lazarus 1984). (Colin Powell, who was getting consistent levels of support before he bowed out of the campaign last November, may have been an exception, however [question 17]). Furthermore, none of the significant third party or independent candidates in recent years has been able to establish an enduring top-to-bottom party organization capable of mounting a consistent slate of candidates in statewide and legislative elections.(3)
There also seems to be some doubt about whether the public thinks that an alternative party or parties are the best way to remedy the "system" or whether there may be greater support for political independence. When asked to choose between maintaining the two-party system, having elections without party labels, or having "one or more new parties" emerge, support for the latter drops, with a low of 23 percent in the most recent asking of this question in the 1994 NES (question 18). By contrast, support for elections without party labels has been consistently around one-third, while the percentage wanting to maintain the two-party system increased significantly, from 29 percent to 39 percent between 1992 and 1994. In another item, the public has consistently shown a two to one preference for "independent" candidates over "party" candidates, when the question was asked between 1974 and 1986 (question 19). Feeling thermometer ratings indicate (question 20) that "independents" have generally had greater positive than negative ratings, although this may have changed slightly in recent years as an increasingly unpopular Perot has become more closely identified with independents. More recently, the public showed a strong desire for Colin Powell to mount a presidential campaign independent of any party affiliation (question 21).
Since few are willing to give unqualified support to any third party candidate (question 22), a major problem for Perot and others is convincing the public that a third party can make a difference in terms of governing. Recent items by CNN/USA Today and CBS/New York Times show, respectively, that the public is skeptical about a new party's ability to solve the problems that afflict Washington; 48 percent feel that Perot's party would "continue politics as usual" and 49 percent believe that a third party would lead to "more conflict."(4) Furthermore, most feel it to be "very" or "somewhat" important that the president "be from one of the two major parties," and this has changed little between 1980 and 1995 (question 23). Sixty-one percent feel that a president who was neither a Republican nor Democrat would have "serious problems" dealing with Congress.(5)
In sum, the data provided here do show increases in discontent with the two-party system and an increase in the willingness to support a third party, as Perot, Black and Black, and others have claimed. But some tendencies in the data ought to be considered. First, it is important to remember that the public shows more antipathy toward the "system" itself - the two parties together in an abstract sense - rather than the Republicans and Democrats in particular. Their support for a third party seems to be rooted in a desire for more choices at the polls rather than any deep-seated desire to replace, or do away with, the existing choices. Second, support for a third party diminishes when respondents are given a choice between nonpartisan reforms and a party movement (question 18). Third, while the public shows an interest in third parties in an electoral sense, they have some serious reservations about their abilities to govern; even in 1992, when third party support was running high, most continued to believe that it is important that the president "be from one of the two major parties" (question 23).
Ultimately, it is difficult to know whether the country is merely in the midst of a period of extreme discontent that will eventually subside or whether public angst will persist until genuine structural change occurs. The data suggest that the desire for change is there - and the gradual and dramatic increase in public support for the idea of another party is certainly strong evidence - but questions remain as to whether that support for the idea of having a third party can be maintained for a particular party itself. Support for alternative parties and candidates at the national level has traditionally been fleeting, and any third party or independent candidate will face considerable challenges in convincing the public that he or she can govern a country dominated by the major parties and can make a lasting difference. The public may be more open these days to the general idea of having parties or independent candidates competing for office with Republicans and Democrats (which would presumably encourage more parties and candidates to do so), but there is no indication, at this point, that equal levels of support will exist for those parties or candidates if they do emerge, or if the support will sustain itself to have a lasting effect on American politics.