The 2016 Presidential Election has been one of the more interesting races in modern history. From candidate health conspiracy theories to televised remarks regarding the size of a specific body part no one would care to imagine, it’s safe to say that the American electorate has been taken on a flying coaster set ablaze. And, unsurprisingly, many voters want off.
Enter Gary Johnson, former governor of New Mexico, and the 2016 Libertarian nominee for president. Casting himself as the alternative candidate to two of the most widely disliked presidential nominees ever, Johnson has garnered a significant following, especially considering the dismal performance of most third-party candidates. The recent uptick in Johnson’s support has many wondering if his candidacy will decide the election, producing an effect similar to that of Ralph Nader in the infamous Bush v. Gore election of 2000. I, for one, am not convinced that he will.
It’s Just a Phase
While Johnson’s rise has been notable, it’s likely that the coalition of voters supporting him will begin to wither away. Historically, the popularity of third-party candidates fades closer and closer to election day, as supporters come to terms with the reality of their votes being ineffectual. What’s more, this trend may be even stronger for close elections, where folks feel less inclined to throw away their votes. As Andrew Gelman, a professor of political science at Columbia University points out, the tightness of the race may have played a factor in the Ross Perot phenomena, one of the most successful third-party candidate runs in history, “Perot in 1992 received 19 percent of the vote but won zero states. That election was not close, which perhaps made people feel more free to vote for a third party. I’d guess that the opportunity for third-party success in 2016 is again if the election does not seem like it will be close.”
But this race is close, and it arguably feels more consequential to many Americans than 1992 did, with the future of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, national security concerns, and increasing economic anxiety. With the stakes so high, it’s hard to imagine swaths of voters backing a candidate they know has zero chance of winning–they might as well opt-out of the process altogether. And that could happen, too. Given the current polarization within the country, and the messy, bar-brawl nature of the race thus far, it’s possible that those who are reluctant to back either of the major candidates feel so alienated from the race itself, that they decide not to cast a ballot at all. Johnson may have been able to capitalize on mainstream party disenchantment initially, but it’s only a matter of time before his supporters become disenchanted with him, too.
![1960-kennedy-nixon-debate[1]](https://election2016cudenver.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/1960-kennedy-nixon-debate1.jpg?w=288&resize=288%2C216#038;h=216 "1960-kennedy-nixon-debate[1]")
adelisamuric96
ahill19
chavezla
coleharding24
Coynepurse
daniozaeta
donalynwhite
eajones2016
ehurd3414
Tony Robinson
freedomrings1991
hopsshotfirst
james4768
mattyb21420
mercix26
mcseidel
sarahsargent92
sdraegers
sjdavis14
snarkystark
taylorlugomae
election2016
CU Denver on Election 2016 
james4768
September 16, 2016
Excellent article and it’s sad but true in regards to how this election has been handled. I think it reminds me of my kids fighting with the “He said, She said” type of finger pointing rather than stating what we all need to hear, I always liked the idea of a third party candidate and wonder if one day, they will garnish enough votes to create a third party within Washington. Although it might seem more chaotic to some, it seems the British Parliament, with multiple parties, manages to function quite nicely as well as providing better representation of the people.
Tony Robinson
September 18, 2016
Good insights and predictions here, regarding the likely deterioration of Johnson’s support as the General Election approaches. As you rightly note and demonstrate with that excellent chart showing other third party candidates, it is highly likely that many Johnson voters will ultimately decide to support one or other of the two major parties as the election approaches.
Of course, you also note the historically high distaste many voters have for both Clinton and Trump and that could change things–except, in the end, I think that votes fear/distaste of the candidate each voter is most fearful of will end up driving them either to Trump or Clinton, in a desperate attempt to stop the other candidate from winning. Johnson’s support will therefore wither in the end.
James usually points out that other political systems have multiple parties (like Britain) and claims that our system would be greatly enriched if we also have more than two parties. Most Americans agree that a multi-party system would be superior. The key reform that would take us down that path would simply be to elect the US House of Representatives, and state legislatures, with a proportional representation system. If we were to simply switch to Proportional Representation (PR), we would almost immediately foster third party success on the national stage. The presidential election, however, would still come down to a 2-party system, unless we switched to a parliamentary system to choose our President, which is an exceedingly unlikely reform.
Saige, you claim that this election is not likely to replicate Ross Perot’s third party success of 1992, because many Americans are more intensely concerned with the results of this election, “with the future of the Supreme Court hanging in the balance, national security concerns, and increasing economic anxiety.” I agree that this election seems more polarized than 1992, and that voters may in fact be more concerned with making the right choice than they were in 1992. But I disagree that this concern is driven mostly by the Supreme Court, national security, etc. I believe, instead, this election has brought up deep concerns over national “soul,” and associated comfort or discomfort levels of voters with deep demographic transformations that are remaking the country (urban/rural transformation, racial diversity, immigration and cultural diversity, etc.). It feels to me that these kinds of issues are at the heart of this election, rather than voters concerns over the future of the Supreme Court.
daniozaeta
September 25, 2016
I enjoyed reading your article. I agree with you that voters for the third party end up feeling like their votes do not count. It seems like we only have to choices sometimes. Although we can choose to vote for the third party ultimately I do not think we can get enough votes in any state to be able to say a third party won a state. I believe maybe a lot of people might not even know anything he has planned. I guess that is why a lot of his supports were pushing him to be in the debates, so people could hear what he had as planned and go out and change the way we vote. I am almost positive he will not be in any of the debates though, which is why it might be pointless to even vote for him because a lot of people might not even know who he is. I believe Gary Johnson might be popular with the younger generations and not the old because nobody really wants to give their vote away.
taylorlugomae
September 26, 2016
I really enjoyed this article because it sort of reminded me of my post in a way. It’s been a really interesting election due to the fact of these last minute third party candidates. I’m really confused as to why Johnson suddenly came out of nowhere especially after supporting Hillary so much during the DNC. Although he seems to be the third party nominee trend I agree with you that his supporters too will begin to wither away, and after this election, he may not even run in 2020 and possibly forgotten about.