Nick Troiano GOVT-121, Jennifer Raymond July 3, 2011 Independent Comparative Study Voter Dissatisfaction and Third Parties

INTRODUCTION In the 1950s, French sociologist Maurice Duverger sought to explain the varying number of political parties that competed within different countries. His research attributed differences to the types of electoral systems that were used. One of his findings, known as Duvergers Law, states that simple-majority, single-ballot electoral systems tend to favor two-party political systems.1 Duverger acknowledged that exceptions, while rare, can occur. Indeed, one recent exception occurred in the 2010 general 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 what circumstances can third parties effectively compete within electoral systems that otherwise discourage them? Using Duvergers Law as a foundation, this paper explores the theory that voters will tend to vote for a third political party if they become dissatisfied with the direction of their country and lose confidence in their governments ability to change it. This theory is tested by analyzing public opinion polls from the United Kingdoms 2010 general election and the United States 2000 presidential election, in which a third party achieved very 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 rise of third political party in the United States 2012 presidential election. THEORY Duvergers Law is a product of two factors; one is described by Duverger as mechanical and the other as psychological. The mechanical factor is the regular underrepresentation 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 have representation 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 which aims at competing with the two old parties still remains weak, the system works against it, raising a barrier against its progress.1 The psychological factor is the realization among 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 the less evil of its two adversaries in order to prevent the success of the greater evil.1 We return to the question of why third parties can sometimes effectively compete within electoral systems that otherwise discourage them. While the underlying mechanics of the electoral system do not change from election to election, the way voters rationally evaluate their decisions, from a psychological standpoint, does. When both major parties are viewed especially poorly, it might seem more worthwhile for a voter to risk wasting his or her vote in order to support a preferred alternative. This occurs when voters believe that their country is headed in the wrong direction and that their government, regardless of 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 the opportunity for a third party to effectively compete in an election. CASE SELECTION 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 electoral system and the United Kingdom has a parliamentary system, both countries utilize single ballot plurality voting, which is Duvergers main concern. Second, voters in both countries are generally disposed to evaluating electoral decisions similarly, in the sense that 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 determine why a third party might be able to effectively compete in an election, independent of such factors that Duvergers 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 which a 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, competing as a third party candidate against Republican George W. Bush and Democrat Al Gore. In 2010, Nick Clegg led the Liberal Democrats as a third party challenge to David Camerons Conservative Party and Gordon Browns Labour Party.

DATA During the 2010 general election, 31% of adults in the United Kingdom believed their country was on the right track (22% of Conservatives, 32% of Liberal Democrats, 3

and 61% of Labour).4 Only 30% said they were satisfied with the way the government was running the country (6% of Conservatives, 26% of Liberal Democrats, and 68% of Labour).5 Although Conservatives were the most dissatisfied with the direction of the country and how the government was handling it, the leader of the Liberal Democrats was perceived as the most trustworthy of all the party leaders. Less than half of adults found David Cameron (43%) or Gordon Brown (41%) to be trustworthy. Some 66% found the leader of the third party, Nick Clegg, to be trustworthy.6 On the other hand, in the United States 2000 election, a majority of Americans (51%) believed the country was on the right track.7 And 68% reported to be satisfied with the United States system of government and how well it was working.8 Both major party candidates were perceived as honest and trustworthy by a majority of Americans. Some 64% thought so of George Bush and 55% thought the same of Al Gore.9 On their respective Election Days, the United Kingdoms Liberal Democrat Party was much more successful than the United States Green Party. Ralph Nader received 2.74% of the popular vote and zero electoral votes.10 The Liberal Democrats won 23% of the popular vote and enough seats, 57, that it controlled the balance of power in government and eventually formed a coalition government with the Conservative Party.11 DISCUSSION Unemployment in the United Kingdom was 7.8% at the time of its 2010 general election.12 Discontent with the economy likely fueled dissatisfaction among voters, a majority of whom not only perceived that their country was headed in the wrong direction but also that their government was unable to change it. This likely led to a lack of trust among voters of both major parties (as demonstrated by the perception of their

leaders) and created an opportunity for the Liberal Democrats to make the case that they could offer a better alternative. Indeed, Nick Clegg said at one of the candidate debates, I believe the way things are, are not the way things have to beDont let anyone tell you that the only choice is old politics. We can do something new. We can do something different this time.13 Come Election Day, nearly a quarter of all voters cast their ballots for the Liberal Democrats. They made the rational choice that their vote would be more meaningful going to a third party, despite its smaller chance of winning, than going to either of the major two, which they may have perceived as only maintaining a dissatisfactory status quo. In the United States, voters were generally more content with the state of their country and how well their government was working. Unemployment was only 3.9%.14 A majority of voters trusted both major party candidates. Voters likely feared that in a tight election, Ralph Nader would simply spoil the election for Al Gore, which many concluded was what ultimately occurred as a result of returns in Florida. There was no countervailing interest that persuaded a critical mass of voters to support the third party, as in the United Kingdom. Overall, data from public opinion polls demonstrates a correlation between voter satisfaction and the competitiveness of third parties, supporting the theory presented. There was a 20-point gap between the United States and United Kingdom in the number of voters who believed their country was on the right track (the independent variable). Similarly, there was a 20-point gap in the number of votes the third parties received in both countries (the dependent variable). This supports the theory that in order for voters to overcome their fear of wasting their votes on a third party, there must a greater fear

that neither major party is capable of getting their country back on the right track. This was the case in the United Kingdom in 2010, but not in the United States in 2000. ALTERNATIVE EXPLANATIONS Other factors besides voter dissatisfaction may help explain why a third party was much more successful in the United Kingdom in 2010 than the United States in 2000. First, unlike Ralph Nader, Nick Clegg was permitted to take part in the televised candidate debates. His popularity, and by extension that of the Liberal Democrats, rose significantly as a result of his well-regarded performance.15 Second, electoral mechanisms differ between the United States and United Kingdom, such as campaign finance and ballot access laws. Ralph Nader was blocked from the ballot in several states in 2000, for example. A third party in the United Kingdom may have an advantage over a third party in the United States. Third, the Liberal Democrats had a long track record of incremental success since their formation in 1988. In the 2005 election, the Liberal Democrats won 18.3% of the vote and 62 seats in parliament.16 Voters may have been less concerned that they were wasting their votes in 2010 because of the Liberal Democrats success in prior elections. The Green Party had no such record of success. Lastly, the United Kingdom has very distinct party systems in Northern Ireland, Scotland and Wales. In these areas, third parties like the Liberal Democrats are more locally relevant, so they enjoy more support from voters.17 In the United States, there is no varied state or regional support for third parties.

FUTURE STUDY Future research may examine counter-examples to Duvergers Law in other countries to see if the theory presented in this paper can be generalized. This would help determine if the alternative explanations above are complimentary to the theory or if they are better explanations themselves. This area of study can also benefit from research into whether the Liberal Democrats success in 2010 and their resulting influence in government further erodes voters fears of wasting their votes by supporting the party and if so, whether the party can sustain voter support even during times when voters are satisfied with the direction of their country and how well the government is working. IMPLICATIONS To the extent that voter dissatisfaction is a predictor of third party support, the case in the United Kingdom suggests what may lie ahead for the United States. Since 2000, public opinion in the United States has trended toward where public opinion in United Kingdom was in 2010. The number of Americans who believe the United States is on the right track decreased by 25 points from 2000 to 26% in 2011.18 In the same period of time, the number of Americans who are satisfied with the United States system of government and how well it is working decreased by 26 points to 42%.8 Unemployment in the United States rose to over 9%.14 In the 2012 presidential election, voter dissatisfaction with government and the direction of the country may create a vacuum in which a third party candidate emerges. Voters fears of wasting their votes or spoiling the election by voting for a third party candidate may be overcome by a greater desire for an alternative to the two major parties.

Endnotes 1 Duverger, Maurice. The Number of Parties. Essential Reading in Comparative Politics. Ed. Patrick ONeil and Ronald Rogowski. New York: W.W. Norton & Company, 2010. 282-286.
2 3

Ipsos Public Affairs. Unity12 Survey: Topline Data. 1027 June 2010. Ipsos MORI. Interest in Politics. 3-9 December 2010. <http://www.ipsosmori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/poll.aspx?oItemId=2427&view= wide>. Populus. Times Poll. 5-7 February 2010. Pg. 12. <http://populuslimited.com/ uploads/download_pdf-070210-The-Times-The-Times-Poll---February-010.pdf>. Ipsos MORI. Political Monitor. 18-19 April 2010. <http://ipsos.co.uk/Assets/ Docs/Polls/apr2010web.pdf>. Ipsos MORI. Trustworthiness of Candidates Trends. 18-19 April 2010. <http://www.ipsos-mori.com/researchpublications/researcharchive/ poll.aspx?oItemID=97&view=wide>. Pew Research. Political Survey. 22-26 July 2009. <http://peoplepress.org/files/legacy-questionnaires/532.pdf>. Gallup. Satisfaction with Various Things. 10-14 January 2001. 7-9 January 2011. <http://www.gallup.com/poll/File/145763/Satisfaction_Various_Things_Jan _24_2011.pdf>. Tracking Poll: Presidential race tightening again. CNN. 23 October, 2000. <http://articles.cnn.com/2000-10-23/politics/tracking.poll_1_tracking-poll4-point-margin-sampling-error?_s=PM:ALLPOLITICS>. 2000 Official Presidential General Election Results. Federal Election Commission. 26 June 2011. <http://www.fec.gov/pubrec/2000presgeresults.htm>. Election 2010. BBC News. 26 June 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/ election2010/results/>. United Kingdom employment. Eurostat. 26 June 2011. <http://epp.eurostat.ec. europa.eu/portal/page/portal/employment_unemployment_lfs/introduction>. Marshall, Mike. Sentiment and the UK Elections. Lexalytics. 26 June 2011. <http://www.lexalytics.com/lexablog/bid/32173/Sentiment-and-the-UKelections>.

10

11

12

13


14

United States employment. Bureau of Labor Statistics. 26 June 2011. <http://www.bls.gov/bls/unemployment.htm>. Riddell, Peter. Times poll shows Tory viewers rate Nick Clegg TV debate winner. The Sunday Times. 16 April 2010. <http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/news/ politics/article7099620.ece>. Election 2005. BBC News. 26 June 2011. <http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/shared/vote2005/ flash_map/html/map05.stm>. Mortimore, Roger. Re: Duvergers Law. Email communication. 27 June 2011. Rasmussen Reports. Right direction or Wrong Track. 20-26 June 2011. <http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/mood_of_america/rig ht_direction_or_wrong_track>.

15

16

17 18