While a third-party candidate has yet to win a U.S. presidential election, a few have had a significant impact on the results. This article looks at the obstacles third parties face, and L. Sandy Maisel's commentary probes the case of one third-party candidate, Ralph Nader. Maisel is the William R. Kenan, Jr., professor of government at Colby College in Waterville, Maine.

Although the Republicans and Democrats dominate the American political landscape, third parties have a long and active history of influencing U.S. presidential elections. In the 2000 election, candidates of 12 other parties appeared on some or all state ballots. In the upcoming election, there are again 12 third parties fielding candidates. Some, like the "prohibition parties" (primarily against the sale of alcohol) and various socialist groups, garnered only enough voter support signatures to qualify for the ballot in a few states. Others, however, are on the ballot in more than half of the 50 states: the Green Party, an environmentally concerned group (28); the Constitution Party, a Christian fundamentalist group (38); the Libertarian Party, a group that is fiscally conservative and socially liberal (49); and the Independent/Reform Party candidacy of Ralph Nader, a liberal reform group (37 with qualifications for several additional states undergoing judicial review).

It is extremely difficult for third parties to mount a credible challenge to the Republican and Democratic candidates, however. The Electoral College process and procedures for getting on the ballot, taking part in debates, and receiving government campaign funds all favor the established parties.

In addition, third parties rarely have the large statewide organizations of the major parties; they have less expertise in running campaigns; they get less media coverage. Since they are not already in power and less well known, they find it harder to raise money and, because extraordinarily large sums are needed to compete in U.S. nationwide races, they have to spend more time fundraising than campaigning on their issues. Still, some third-party candidates are successful at the local and state level, and there have been independent party representatives in Congress.

Third parties can, however, produce dramatic results. Their candidates can be "spoilers"—in a close election, they can take away enough votes from a major-party candidate that he loses a state's popular vote and, hence, its electoral votes and, hence, the presidency. This has happened several times in U.S. history. In 1912, former president Teddy Roosevelt's third-party candidacy took more than 27 percent and split the Republican vote, allowing Democrat Woodrow Wilson to win the presidency. In more recent times, George Wallace in 1968 and Ross Perot in 1992 took significant percentages of voters from both major parties in the general election. Many people believe that the 2000 Nader campaign took enough votes (2.8 million) away from Democratic candidate Al Gore that he lost the Electoral College election to George W. Bush. For that reason, his repeat candidacy in the 2004 election has been closely watched by both major parties.

Context is everything in American politics. Third-party candidates know this best of all and understand that in this election the context has a number of different facets. I am going to focus on the "third-party" candidacy of Ralph Nader. The quotation marks are used to highlight that Nader does not represent any one third party, but rather is on the ballot in those states in which his name appears under varying labels. When Americans talk of third parties today, they really mean "candidates other than those of the Democratic or Republican party."

In choosing to focus on the Nader candidacy, I intentionally slight the Green Party candidate, Peter Cobb, under whose party banner Nader ran four years ago. I also slight the other candidates whose names appear on the ballot in one or more states under various labels. I do so because I think their impact will be minimal. While they might raise interesting issues, no one is listening to them and almost no one will vote for them. But I must add a caveat: they are electorally irrelevant nationally to be sure, but in any state that is as close as New Mexico or Florida were in 2000, even a candidate receiving 0.5 percent of the vote, if those votes otherwise would have gone to the losing candidate, could be relevant.

That fact highlights the first facet of the 2004 context. Many people feel that Ralph Nader cost Al Gore the 2000 election, because people who voted for Nader otherwise would have voted for Gore in certain pivotal, tightly contested states. The accuracy of this claim is less relevant than the perception that it is true. Because of that perception Democrats have worked hard to keep Nader (and other third-party candidates) off of the ballot wherever they could. Ballot access is controlled at the state level in American elections, with each state having separate laws. At this writing, Nader's name will appear on the ballot in 32 states; it is on the ballot but under court challenge in four others; it is not on the ballot but Nader is seeking to gain ballot access in court in eight others; and it will definitely not appear on the ballot in seven states. In 2000, Nader appeared on 43 state ballots.

The second facet is closely related. Even in those states where Nader's name appears, former supporters are leery to support him, because they fear the same result that occurred in 2000, that is, by supporting their true favorite, they swung the election to their least favorite. Again, perception is all that is important here.

Not only is the closeness of the 2000 election fresh in many minds, but many pundits also are predicting an extremely close 2004 election. The relevant facet of this context for third parties is that whether President Bush or Senator Kerry wins the presidency will be determined by how they do in the nine or ten states that remain very competitive.

Voters in the states in which the contest is all but over can vote for Ralph Nader without fear of affecting the final result. That is not true in the other states. Nader is on the ballot in at least six of the pivotal states, with a chance to get on in two others. In polls in those states he is garnering about 2 percent of the vote. Generally a third-party candidate's projected vote drops as an election approaches, particularly a close election. But it does appear that in some states—New Hampshire as one example—the Nader vote could be more than the margin between the Bush and Kerry votes.

How then does one evaluate this role? Third parties are at a distinct disadvantage because of the American electoral system. Many voters recognize this—and whether they like it or not, accept it. As a result, particularly in a close election like this one, third-party candidates, even prominent ones like Nader, poll relatively few votes. However, in an extremely close election, as was demonstrated in 2000, even those small vote totals can be determinative. If the margin between the two top candidates widens, third-party candidates like Nader will be electorally irrelevant, but if that margin narrows, they could indeed determine who will be inaugurated as president in January 2005.

The opinions expressed in this article do not necessarily reflect the views or policies of the U.S. government.

These third-party candidates received above the historical average of 5.6 percent of the popular vote.