MINOR PARTIES| 185a disputed recount, Nader received almost 100,000 votes—enough to swing the
state, and the election, to Gore.
However, the outcome of Nader’s 2000 presidential campaign doesn’t so much
highlight the importance of minor parties as it illustrates the closeness of the
2000 presidential election. If Nader had not run, Gore might have received enough
additional support to win. But given that Bush’s margin of victory in Florida was
so small, any number of seemingly minor events (a polling station closing early, or
rain in some areas and sunshine in others) could have changed the outcome.
EFFECTS ON ELECTION OUTCOMES
Minor parties did not play a decisive role in the 2008 presidential election, but
in several swing states they received more votes than the margin of diff erence
between Obama and McCain. The most successful were the Independent Party
(661,000 votes) and the Libertarian Party (491,000), while others like the Bos-
ton Tea Party and the U.S. Pacifi st Party received far fewer votes (2,305 and 97,
respectively). Minor parties won about 1.5 million votes in the 2008 presidential
race, whereas the two major parties received 121 million votes.
Even in terms of lower offi ces, minor-party candidates typically attract only
meager support. The Libertarian Party claimed to have more than 154 offi cehold-
ers as of 2011. However, many of these offi cials held unelected positions such as
seats on county planning boards or ran unopposed for relatively minor offi ces such
as justice of the peace.^31
Looking back in history, some minor-party candidates for president have
attracted a substantial percentage of citizens’ votes. George Wallace (governor of
Alabama at the time) ran as the candidate of the American Independent Party in
1968, receiving about 13 percent of the popular vote nationwide. Texas millionaire
Ross Perot, the Reform Party candidate for president in 1996, won 8.4 percent of
the popular vote. Perot also ran as an independent in 1992, winning 18.2 percent
of the popular vote. And as noted above, consumer advocate Ralph Nader ran as
the Green Party nominee for president in 2000, winning almost 5 percent
of the vote.
STRUCTURAL AND ISSUE DIFFERENCES
The diff erences between major and minor political parties in contem-
porary American politics grow even more substantial when consid-
ered in terms other than election outcomes. For most minor parties the
party in government does not exist, as few of their candidates win offi ce.
Many minor parties have virtually no organization beyond a small
party headquarters and a website. Some minor parties, such as
the Green Party, the Libertarian Party, and the Reform Party,
have local chapters that meet on a regular basis. But these
modest eff orts pale in comparison to the nationwide net-
work of offi ces, thousands of workers, and millions of dollars
deployed by Republican and Democratic Party organiza-
tions. Nonetheless, research shows that some people vote
for minor-party candidates in order to show their support
of these candidates’ positions and to express their belief
that neither major party can govern eff ectively.^32
The issues and issue positions taken by minor parties
and their candidates are almost always very diff erent from
MINOR PARTY PRESIDENTIAL
candidates, such as Ralph Nader
in 2000, sometimes attract
considerable press attention
because of their distinctive, often
extreme policy preferences—but
they rarely affect election
outcomes. Nader ran again, as an
independent, in 2004 and 2008.