Third party, orminor party, is a term used in the United States'two-party system forpolitical parties other than theDemocratic andRepublican parties. TheElectoral College forpresidential elections and theplurality voting system for most otherelections have established a two-party system in American politics. Third parties are most often encountered in presidential elections and while third-party candidates rarely win elections, they can have an effect on them throughvote splitting and other impacts.
With few exceptions,[1] the U.S. system has two major parties which have won, on average, 98% of all state and federal seats.[2] According toDuverger's law two main political parties emerge in political systems with plurality voting insingle-member districts. In this case, votes forminor parties can potentially be regarded assplitting votes away from the most similar major party.[2][3] Third partyvote splitting exceeded a president's margin of victory in three elections:1844,2000, and2016.
There have only been a few rare elections where a minor party was competitive with the major parties, occasionally replacing one of the major parties in the 19th century.[3][4] No third-party candidate has won the presidency since the Republican Party became the second major party in1856 and won in1860. Since then, a third-party candidate won states in five elections:1892,1912,1924,1948, and1968.1992 was the last time a third-party candidate placed second in any state, and1996 was the last time a third-party candidate got over 5% of the vote nationally.[5]
Greens, Libertarians, and others have elected state legislators and local officials. The Socialist Party elected hundreds of local officials in 169 cities in 33 states by 1912, includingMilwaukee, Wisconsin;New Haven, Connecticut;Reading, Pennsylvania; andSchenectady, New York.[6] There have been governors elected asindependents, and from such parties as Progressive, Reform, Farmer-Labor, Populist, and Prohibition. After losing a Republican primary in 2010,Bill Walker ofAlaska won a single term in 2014 as an independent by joining forces with the Democratic nominee. In 1998, wrestlerJesse Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota on theReform Party ticket.[7]
Sometimes a national officeholder that is not a member of any party is elected. Previously, SenatorLisa Murkowski won re-election in 2010 as awrite-in candidate after losing the Republican primary to a Tea party candidate, and SenatorJoe Lieberman ran and won reelection to the Senate as an "Independent Democrat" in 2006 after losing the Democratic primary.[8][9] As of 2025, there are only two U.S. senators,Angus King andBernie Sanders, who identify as Independent and both caucus with the Democrats.[10]
The last time a third-party candidate carried any states in a presidential race wasGeorge Wallace in1968, while the last third-party candidate to finish runner-up or greater was former presidentTeddy Roosevelt's 2nd-place finish on theBull Moose Party ticket in1912.[5] The only three U.S. presidents without a major party affiliation upon election wereGeorge Washington,John Tyler, andAndrew Johnson, and only Washington served his entire tenure as an independent. Neither of the other two were ever elected president in their own right, both being vice presidents who ascended to office upon the death of the president, and both became independents because they were unpopular with their parties. John Tyler was elected on theWhig ticket in 1840 withWilliam Henry Harrison, but was expelled by his own party. Johnson was the running mate forAbraham Lincoln, who was reelected on theNational Union ticket in 1864; it was a temporary name for the Republican Party.
| Part of thePolitics series |
| Voting |
|---|
_(cropped).svg) |
Balloting |
 Politics portal |
Electoral fusion in the United States is an arrangement where two or moreUnited States political parties on aballot list the samecandidate,[11] allowing that candidate to receive votes on multiple party lines in the same election.[12]
Electoral fusion is also known as fusion voting, cross endorsement, multiple party nomination, multi-party nomination, plural nomination and ballot freedom.[13][14]
Electoral fusion was once widespread in the U.S. and legal in every state. However, as of 2024, it remains legal and common only in New York and Connecticut.[15][16][17]
Ranked-choice voting (RCV) can refer to one of severalranked voting methods used in some cities and states in the United States. The term is not strictly defined, but most often refers toinstant-runoff voting (IRV) orsingle transferable vote (STV), the main difference being whether only one winner or multiple winners are elected. At the federal and state level,instant-runoff voting is used for congressional and presidential elections inMaine; state, congressional, and presidential general elections inAlaska; andspecial congressional elections inHawaii. Since 2025, it is also used for all elections in theDistrict of Columbia.
Single transferable voting, only possible in multi-winner contests, is not currently used in state or congressional elections. It is used to elect citycouncillors inPortland, Oregon,Cambridge, Mass., and several other cities.[19][20]
As of April 2025, RCV is used for local elections in 47 US cities includingSalt Lake City andSeattle.[21] It has also been used by some state political parties in party-run primaries and nominating conventions.[22][23][24] As a contingency in the case of arunoff election, ranked ballots are used by overseas voters in six states.[21]
Since 2020, voters in seven states have rejectedballot initiatives that would have implemented, or allowed legislatures to implement, ranked choice voting. As of June 2025, ranked-choice voting has also been banned in seventeen states.[25][26][27]
Notwithstanding apparent efforts by RCV advocates to implement RCV in all elections, there exists much public, private, and academic hesitation as to the viability of such an undertaking. Complexity, cost, possible promotion of strategic voting, and issues of transparency are among issues cited as barriers to adoption.[28]
Approval voting is a single-winnerrated voting system where voters can approve of all the candidates as they like instead ofchoosing one. The method is designed to eliminatevote-splitting while keepingelection administration simple andeasy-to-count (requiring only a single score for each candidate). Approval voting has been used in both organizational and political elections[which?] to improve representativeness and voter satisfaction.
Critics of approval voting have argued the simple ballot format is a disadvantage, as it forces abinary choice for each candidate (instead of the expressive grades of otherrated voting rules).| A jointPolitics andEconomics series |
| Social choice andelectoral systems |
|---|
 |
By results of combination By mechanism of combination By ballot type |
 Mathematics portal |
Proportional representation (PR) is achieved by anyelectoral system under which subgroups of an electorate are reflected proportionately in the elected body.[29] The concept applies mainly to political divisions (political parties) among voters.
The term is also used for any of the various electoral systems that produce proportional representation. The aim of such systems is that all votes cast contribute to the result so that each representative in an assembly is mandated by a roughly equal number of voters, and therefore all votes have equal weight. Under other election systems, a slightmajority in a district – or even simply aplurality – is all that is needed to elect a member or group of members. PR systems provide balanced representation to different factions, usually defined byparties, reflecting how votes were cast. Where only a choice of parties is allowed, the seats are allocated to parties in proportion to the vote tally orvote share each party receives.
Exact proportionality is never achieved under PR systems, except by chance. The use ofelectoral thresholds that are intended to limit the representation of small, often extreme parties reduces proportionality in list systems, and any insufficiency in the number of levelling seats reduces proportionality inmixed-member proportional (MMP) oradditional-member systems. Undersingle-transferable-vote (STV) orparty-list PR systems, small districts with few seats in each allow local representation but may reduce proportionality. Other sources of disproportionality arise fromelectoral tactics, such asparty splitting in some MMP systems, where the voters' true intent is difficult to determine.
Nonetheless, PR systems approximate proportionality much better thansingle-member plurality voting (SMP) andblock voting.[30] PR systems also are more resistant togerrymandering and other forms of manipulation.
Some PR systems do not necessitate the use of parties; others do. The most widely used families of PR electoral systems are party-list PR, used in 85 countries;[31] mixed-member PR (MMP), used in 7 countries; and single transferable vote (STV), used in Ireland,[32] Malta, theAustralian Senate, and theIndian Rajya Sabha.[33][34] Proportional representation systems are used at all levels of government and are also used for elections to non-governmental bodies, such ascorporate boards.
Inwinner-take-all (or plurality voting), the candidate with the largest number of votes wins, even if the margin of victory is extremely narrow or the proportion of votes received is not a majority. Unlike inproportional representation,runners-up do not gain representation in afirst-past-the-post system. In the United States, systems of proportional representation are uncommon, especially above the local level and are entirely absent at the national level (even though states like Maine have introduced systems likeranked-choice voting, which ensures that the voice of third party voters is heard in case none of the candidates receives a majority of preferences).[35] In Presidential elections, the majority requirement of theElectoral College, and the Constitutional provision for the House of Representatives to decide the election if no candidate receives a majority, serves as a further disincentive to third party candidacies.
In the United States, if an interest group is at odds with its traditional party, it has the option of running sympathetic candidates inprimaries. Candidates failing in the primary may form or join a third party. Because of the difficulties third parties face in gaining any representation, third parties tend to exist to promote a specific issue or personality. Often, the intent is to force national public attention on such an issue. Then, one or both of the major parties may rise to commit for or against the matter at hand, or at least weigh in.H. Ross Perot eventually founded a third party, theReform Party, to support his1996 campaign. In1912,Theodore Roosevelt made a spirited run for the presidency on the Progressive Party ticket, but he never made any efforts to help Progressive congressional candidates in 1914, and in the1916 election, he supported the Republicans.
Micah Sifry argues that despite years of discontentment with the two major parties in the United States, third parties should try to arise organically at the local level in places where ranked-choice voting andother more democratic systems can build momentum, rather than starting with the presidency, a proposition incredibly unlikely to succeed.[36] However, this ignores that in some states a third party is required to have a presidential candidate in order to also run local level candidates.[citation needed]
Strategic voting often leads to a third-party that underperforms its poll numbers with voters wanting to make sure their vote helps determine the winner. In response, some third-party candidates express ambivalence about which major party they prefer and their possible role as spoiler[37] or deny the possibility.[38] The US presidential elections most consistently cited as having been spoiled by third-party candidates are1844,2000, and2016.[39][40][41][42][43][44]This phenomenon becomes more controversial when a third-party candidate receives help from supporters of another candidate hoping they play a spoiler role.[44][45][46]
Nationally,ballot access laws require candidates to pay registration fees and provide signatures if a party has not garnered a certain percentage of votes in previous elections.[47] In recent presidential elections,Ross Perot appeared on all 50 state ballots as an independent in1992 and the candidate of the Reform Party in 1996. Perot, a billionaire, was able to provide significant funds for his campaigns.Patrick Buchanan appeared on all 50 state ballots in the 2000 election, largely on the basis of Perot's performance as the Reform Party's candidate four years prior. TheLibertarian Party has appeared on the ballot in at least 46 states in every election since1980, except for1984 whenDavid Bergland gained access in only 36 states. In 1980, 1992, 1996, 2016, and 2020 the party made the ballot in all 50 states and D.C. TheGreen Party gained access to 44 state ballots in 2000 but only 27 in 2004. TheConstitution Party appeared on 42 state ballots in 2004. Ralph Nader, running as an independent in 2004, appeared on 34 state ballots. In2008, Nader appeared on 45 state ballots and the D.C. ballot.
.jpg)
Presidential debates between the nominees of the two major parties first occurred in1960, then after three cycles without debates, resumed in1976. Third party or independent candidates have been in debates in only two cycles. Ronald Reagan andJohn Anderson debated in 1980, but incumbent President Carter refused to appear with Anderson, and Anderson was excluded from the subsequent debate between Reagan and Carter. Independent Ross Perot was included in all three of the debates with RepublicanGeorge H. W. Bush and DemocratBill Clinton in 1992, largely at the behest of the Bush campaign.[citation needed] His participation helped Perot climb from 7% before the debates to 19% on Election Day.[48][49]
Perot did not participate in the 1996 debates.[50] In2000, revised debate access rules made it even harder for third-party candidates to gain access by stipulating that, besides being on enough state ballots to win an Electoral College majority, debate participants must clear 15% in pre-debate opinion polls.[51] This rule has been in effect since 2000.[52][53][54][55][56] The 15% criterion, had it been in place, would have prevented Anderson and Perot from participating in the debates in which they appeared. Debates in other state and federal elections often exclude independent and third-party candidates, and the Supreme Court has upheld this practice in several cases. TheCommission on Presidential Debates (CPD) is a private company.[51]
TheFree & Equal Elections Foundation hosts various debates and forums with third-party candidates during presidential elections.
They can draw attention to issues that may be ignored by the majority parties. If such an issue finds acceptance with the voters, one or more of the major parties may adopt the issue into its ownparty platform. A third-party candidate will sometimes strike a chord with a section of voters in a particular election, bringing an issue to national prominence and amount a significant proportion of the popular vote. Major parties often respond to this by adopting this issue in a subsequent election. After1968, under President Nixon the Republican Party adopted a "Southern Strategy" to win the support of conservative Democrats opposed to the Civil Rights Movement and resulting legislation and to combat local third parties. This can be seen as a response to the popularity of segregationist candidateGeorge Wallace who gained 13.5% of the popular vote in the 1968 election for the American Independent Party. In1996, both the Democrats and the Republicans agreed to deficit reduction on the back of Ross Perot's popularity in the1992 election. This severely undermined Perot's campaign in the 1996 election.[citation needed]
However, changing positions can be costly for a major party. For example, in theUS 2000 Presidential election Magee predicts that Gore shifted his positions to the left to account for Nader, which lost him some valuable centrist voters to Bush.[57] In cases with an extreme minor candidate, not changing positions can help to reframe the more competitive candidate as moderate, helping to attract the most valuable swing voters from their top competitor while losing some voters on the extreme to the less competitive minor candidate.[58]
 | This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed. Find sources: "Third party" U.S. politics – news ·newspapers ·books ·scholar ·JSTOR(February 2025) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
| Party | No. registrations | % registered voters[59] |
|---|---|---|
| Libertarian Party | 704,455 | 0.44% |
| Green Party | 249,276[60] | 0.13% |
| Conservative Party of New York State | 164,826 | 0.10% |
| Peace and Freedom Party | 138,238 | 0.09% |
| No Labels | 109,920 | 0.07% |
| This sectionneeds additional citations forverification. Please helpimprove this article byadding citations to reliable sources in this section. Unsourced material may be challenged and removed.(May 2023) (Learn how and when to remove this message) |
This section includes only parties that have actually run candidates under their name in recent years.
This section includes any party that advocates positions associated withAmerican conservatism, including bothOld Right andNew Right ideologies.
This section includes any party that is independent, populist, or any other that either rejectsleft–right politics or does not have a party platform.
This section includes any party that has a left-liberal, progressive, social democratic, democratic socialist, or Marxist platform.
This section includes parties that primarily advocate for granting special privileges or consideration to members of a certain race, ethnic group, religion etc.
Also included in this category are various parties found in and confined toNative American reservations, almost all of which are solely devoted to the furthering of the tribes to which the reservations were assigned. An example of a particularly powerful tribal nationalist party is the Seneca Party that operates on theSeneca Nation of New York's reservations.[61]
This section includes parties that primarily advocate forIndependence from the United States. (Specific party platforms may range from left wing to right wing).
This section includes parties that primarily advocatesingle-issue politics (though they may have a more detailed platform) or may seek to attractprotest votes rather than to mount serious political campaigns or advocacy.
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unpledged Elector | Texas Regulars | 143,238 | 0.30% | Texas: 11.77% |
| Norman Thomas | Socialist | 79,017 | 0.16% | Wisconsin: 0.99% |
| Claude A. Watson | Prohibition | 74,758 | 0.16% | Indiana: 0.75% |
| Other | 57,004 | 0.12% | — | |
| Total | 346,218 | 0.72% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Strom Thurmond | States' Rights Democratic | 1,176,023 | 2.41% | Mississippi: 87.17% |
| Henry A. Wallace | Progressive | 1,157,328 | 2.37% | New York: 8.25% |
| Norman Thomas | Socialist | 139,569 | 0.29% | Wisconsin: 0.98% |
| Other | 150,069 | 0.30% | — | |
| Total | 2,623,896 | 5.38% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Vincent Hallinan | Progressive | 140,746 | 0.23% | New York: 0.90% |
| Stuart Hamblen | Prohibition | 73,412 | 0.12% | Indiana: 0.78% |
| Eric Hass | Socialist Labor | 30,406 | 0.05% | New Jersey: 0.24% |
| Other | 56,759 | 0.09% | — | |
| Total | 299,967 | 0.49% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unpledged Elector | Independent | 196,318 | 0.32% | South Carolina: 29.45% |
| T. Coleman Andrews | States' Rights | 108,956 | 0.18% | Virginia: 6.16% |
| Eric Hass | Socialist Labor | 44,450 | 0.07% | Washington: 0.65% |
| Other | 65,047 | 0.10% | — | |
| Total | 414,771 | 0.67% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unpledged Elector | Democratic | 286,359 | 0.42% | Alabama: 38.99% |
| Eric Hass | Socialist Labor | 47,525 | 0.07% | Washington: 0.88% |
| Rutherford Decker | Prohibition | 46,203 | 0.07% | Kansas: 0.45% |
| Other | 123,255 | 0.18% | — | |
| Total | 503,342 | 0.73% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Unpledged Elector | Democratic | 210,732 | 0.30% | Alabama: 30.55% |
| Eric Hass | Socialist Labor | 45,189 | 0.06% | Washington: 0.62% |
| Clifton DeBerry | Socialist Workers | 32,706 | 0.05% | Colorado: 0.33% |
| Other | 48,118 | 0.07% | — | |
| Total | 336,745 | 0.48% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| George Wallace | American Independent | 9,901,118 | 13.53% | Alabama: 65.86% |
| Henning Blomen | Socialist Labor | 52,589 | 0.07% | Colorado: 0.37% |
| Dick Gregory | Peace and Freedom | 47,149 | 0.06% | New York: 0.36% |
| Other | 143,521 | 0.20% | — | |
| Total | 10,144,377 | 13.86% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John G. Schmitz | American Independent | 1,100,896 | 1.42% | Idaho: 9.30% |
| Linda Jenness | Socialist Workers | 83,380 | 0.11% | Arizona: 4.74% |
| Benjamin Spock | People's | 78,759 | 0.10% | California: 0.66% |
| Other | 139,063 | 0.18% | — | |
| Total | 1,402,098 | 1.80% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Eugene McCarthy | Independent | 744,763 | 0.91% | Oregon: 3.90% |
| Roger MacBride | Libertarian | 172,557 | 0.21% | Alaska: 5.49% |
| Lester Maddox | American Independent | 170,373 | 0.21% | Idaho: 1.74% |
| Other | 472,572 | 0.58% | — | |
| Total | 1,560,265 | 1.91% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| John B. Anderson | Independent | 5,719,850 | 6.61% | Massachusetts: 15.15% |
| Ed Clark | Libertarian | 921,128 | 1.06% | Alaska: 11.66% |
| Barry Commoner | Citizens | 233,052 | 0.27% | Oregon: 1.15% |
| Other | 252,303 | 0.29% | — | |
| Total | 7,126,333 | 8.24% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| David Bergland | Libertarian | 228,111 | 0.25% | Alaska: 3.07% |
| Lyndon LaRouche | Independent | 78,809 | 0.09% | Virginia: 0.62% |
| Sonia Johnson | Citizens | 72,161 | 0.08% | Louisiana: 0.56% |
| Other | 241,328 | 0.26% | — | |
| Total | 620,409 | 0.67% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ron Paul | Libertarian | 431,750 | 0.47% | Alaska: 2.74% |
| Lenora Fulani | New Alliance | 217,221 | 0.24% | D.C.: 1.50% |
| David Duke | Populist | 47,004 | 0.05% | Louisiana: 1.14% |
| Other | 202,638 | 0.22% | — | |
| Total | 898,613 | 0.98% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ross Perot | Independent | 19,743,821 | 18.91% | Maine: 30.44% |
| Andre Verne Marrou | Libertarian | 290,087 | 0.28% | New Hampshire: 0.66% |
| Bo Gritz | Populist | 106,152 | 0.10% | Utah: 3.84% |
| Other | 269,507 | 0.24% | — | |
| Total | 20,409,567 | 19.53% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ross Perot | Reform | 8,085,294 | 8.40% | Maine: 14.19% |
| Ralph Nader | Green | 684,871 | 0.71% | Oregon: 3.59% |
| Harry Browne | Libertarian | 485,759 | 0.50% | Arizona: 1.02% |
| Other | 419,986 | 0.43% | — | |
| Total | 9,675,910 | 10.04% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ralph Nader | Green | 2,882,955 | 2.74% | Alaska: 10.07% |
| Pat Buchanan | Reform | 448,895 | 0.43% | North Dakota: 2.53% |
| Harry Browne | Libertarian | 384,431 | 0.36% | Georgia: 1.40% |
| Other | 232,920 | 0.22% | — | |
| Total | 3,949,201 | 3.75% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ralph Nader | Independent | 465,650 | 0.38% | Alaska: 1.62% |
| Michael Badnarik | Libertarian | 397,265 | 0.32% | Indiana: 0.73% |
| Michael Peroutka | Constitution | 143,630 | 0.15% | Utah: 0.74% |
| Other | 215,031 | 0.18% | — | |
| Total | 1,221,576 | 1.00% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Ralph Nader | Independent | 739,034 | 0.56% | Maine: 1.45% |
| Bob Barr | Libertarian | 523,715 | 0.40% | Indiana: 1.06% |
| Chuck Baldwin | Constitution | 199,750 | 0.12% | Utah: 1.26% |
| Other | 404,482 | 0.31% | — | |
| Total | 1,866,981 | 1.39% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gary Johnson | Libertarian | 1,275,971 | 0.99% | New Mexico: 3.60% |
| Jill Stein | Green | 469,627 | 0.36% | |
| Virgil Goode | Constitution | 122,389 | 0.11% | Wyoming: 0.58% |
| Other | 368,124 | 0.28% | — | |
| Total | 2,236,111 | 1.74% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Gary Johnson | Libertarian | 4,489,341 | 3.28% | New Mexico: 9.34% |
| Jill Stein | Green | 1,457,218 | 1.07% | Hawaii: 2.97% |
| Evan McMullin | Independent | 731,991 | 0.54% | Utah: 21.54% |
| Other | 1,149,700 | 0.84% | — | |
| Total | 7,828,250 | 5.73% | — | |
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jo Jorgensen | Libertarian | 1,865,535 | 1.18% | South Dakota: 2.63% |
| Howie Hawkins | Green | 407,068 | 0.26% | Maine: 1.00% |
| Rocky De La Fuente | Alliance | 88,241 | 0.06% | California: 0.34% |
| Other | 561,311 | 0.41% | — | |
| Total | 2,922,155 | 1.85% | — | |
In 2023 and 2024,Robert F. Kennedy Jr. initially polled higher than any third-party presidential candidate sinceRoss Perot[62] in the1992 and1996 elections.[63][64][65] As DemocratJoe Bidenwithdrew from the race and the election grew closer, his poll numbers and notoriety would drop drastically.[66]
| Candidate | Party | Votes | Percentage | Best state percentage |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Jill Stein | Green | 868,693 | 0.56% | Maryland: 1.09% |
| Robert F. Kennedy Jr. | Independent | 757,432 | 0.49% | Montana: 1.96% |
| Chase Oliver | Libertarian | 650,109 | 0.42% | North Dakota: 1.69% |
| Claudia de la Cruz | Party for Socialism and Liberation | 167,609 | 0.11% | California: 0.46% |
| Cornel West | Independent | 84,018 | 0.05% | Vermont: 0.42% |
| Peter Sonski | American Solidarity | 46,472 | 0.03% | Alaska: 0.21% |
| Randall Terry | Constitution | 41,412 | 0.03% | South Carolina: 0.21% |
| Other | 262,646 | 0.17% | — | |
| Total | 3,058,275 | 1.91% | — | |
Today, as in 1958, ballot access for minor parties and Independents remains convoluted and discriminatory. Though certain state ballot access statutes are better, and a few Supreme Court decisions (Williams v. Rhodes, 393 U.S. 23 (1968),Anderson v. Celebrezze, 460 U.S. 780 (1983)) have been generally favorable, on the whole, the process—and the cumulative burden it places on these federal candidates—may be best described as antagonistic. The jurisprudence of the Court remains hostile to minor party and Independent candidates, and this antipathy can be seen in at least a half dozen cases decided since Nader's article, includingJenness v. Fortson, 403 U.S. 431 (1971),American Party of Tex. v. White, 415 U.S. 767 (1974),Munro v. Socialist Workers Party, 479 U.S. 189 (1986),Burdick v. Takushi, 504 U.S. 428 (1992), andArkansas Ed. Television Comm'n v. Forbes, 523 U.S. 666 (1998). Justice Rehnquist, for example, writing for a 6–3 divided Court inTimmons v. Twin Cities Area New Party, 520 U.S. 351 (1997), spells out the Court's bias for the "two-party system," even though the word "party" is nowhere to be found in the Constitution. He wrote that "The Constitution permits the Minnesota Legislature to decide that political stability is best served through a healthy two-party system. And while an interest in securing the perceived benefits of a stable two-party system will not justify unreasonably exclusionary restrictions, States need not remove all the many hurdles third parties face in the American political arena today." 520 U.S. 351, 366–67.
The general election is now projected to be a three-way race between Biden, Trump, and their mutual, Kennedy, with a cluster of less popular third-party candidates filling out the constellation.
Early polls show Kennedy polling in the teens or low 20s
