A majority of Americans say they are “frustrated” or “angry” – or both – with Republicans and Democrats, according to the Pew Research Center. But that rarely translates into support for independent or third-party candidates.
One exception has been in the Northeast. Angus King of Maine and Bernie Sanders of Vermont are the Senate’s only independents. King, Lowell Weicker of Connecticut and Lincoln Chafee of Rhode Island represent three of the five independent and third-party governors elected nationwide since 1990. And of the 23 current independent or third-party state legislators in the country, excluding technically nonpartisan Nebraska, 14 of them, or 61%, are in New England.
I was intrigued by the questions of why third-party and independent candidates are so successful, relatively speaking, in the Northeast and whether this region can teach lessons about broadening the choices available to voters.
In their book “Third Parties in America,” Steven Rosenstone, Roy Behr and Edward Lazarus argue that alternative parties succeed where motivation for third-party voting is high, constraints against doing so are low, or both.
Those may sound like obvious points, but let’s explore them individually. First, motivation. Third parties do better when voters are frustrated with the two major parties and see them as incapable or unwilling to respond to their needs.
In a polarized national political climate, New Englanders might appear to be good candidates for anger. Vermont gave Donald Trump his smallest share of the 2024 presidential vote of any state – less than a third. Massachusetts was not far behind.
This should not necessarily be interpreted as enthusiasm for the Democrats. Pew found that two-thirds of Democrats are frustrated with their own party.
Still, the idea that discontent explains New England’s openness to third parties and independents clashes with other pieces of the picture. Other states where most voters are hostile to Trump, such as California, Maryland and Illinois, have few successful third-party or independent candidates.
That brings us to the second possibility: constraints on third parties, or their absence.
Unlike parliamentary democracies that use proportional representation, the U.S. system is stacked against third parties because of its “first-past-the-post” electoral system, under which candidates can win with pluralities of the vote.
This type of voting encourages citizens to consider only the two major parties because other candidates are generally considered not to have any realistic shot of winning.
States set the rules governing which candidates qualify for the ballot. In almost every state, Democrats and Republicans have advantages over other parties or independents. But in the Northeast, it is easier for independents and candidates from other parties to get on the ballot.
In no New England state does an independent candidate for a state legislative seat have to collect more than 150 signatures to secure a ballot spot. In Georgia, by contrast, candidates must collect signatures equal to 5% of the total number of registered voters in the jurisdiction holding an election, which can translate into thousands of signatures.
To see the impact of ballot access rules on candidates outside of the major parties, you only need to look at one of the few states outside of New England where such candidates have done as well: Alaska.
Alaska has long had ballot access rules that are among the most open in the nation. Candidates for state House races need only pay a filing fee of $30 to get a ballot line, and it is nearly as easy for them to file as a recognized party or group.
That helps explain why five independents currently serve in the Alaska House, that the state elected as governor a third-party candidate in 1990 and an independent in 2014, and reelected U.S. Sen. Lisa Murkowski as a write-in candidate after she lost the Republican primary in 2010.
Ease of ballot access attracts outsider candidates, increases competition, and gives voters an outlet for their frustrations.
To sum up, if people want more choices in elections, they will need to change the rules.
Bert Johnson is a professor of political science at Middlebury College. Distributed by The Conversation and The Associated Press.
