Constrained by Duality: Third-Party Master Narratives in the 2016 Presidential Election

Abstract

The 2016 presidential election saw the rise and fall of third-party candidates Jill Stein and Gary Johnson. This essay proposes that such third-party candidates are challenged in navigating the dichotomous nature of the myth of the American Dream that serves as the basis of party master narratives. Suggesting that third-party candidates attempt to create alternative narratives through what Rushing and Frentz called dialectical transformation and dialectical synthesis, the essay examines how such strategies were put to use by Stein and Johnson, and how they demonstrate a significant disadvantage for third parties.

Noncooperative dynamics in election interference

“…Of the above tweets, 363,131 occurred during the 102 days beginning on 28 July 2016 and ending the day before Election Day. We note that the presence of minor party candidates doubtless played a role in the result of the election, but even the most prominent minor parties (Libertarian and Green) received only single-digit support [39,40]. We do not model these parties and instead consider only the zero-sum electoral contest between the two major parties.…”

Containing the Third-Party Voter in the 2016 U.S. Presidential Election

“…Often their shortcomings stem from their own missteps. For instance, most third-party candidates struggle to raise enough money to be competitive, they appeal to small constituencies, and they often lose supporters by seeking ideological purity and rejecting compromise (Dwyre & Kolodny, 1997; Harold, 2001; Neville-Shepard, 2017). Moreover, many third parties nominate candidates who lack qualifications for the offices they seek (Rosenstone et al., 1996), and their limited focus on issues means their positions are easily coopted by the major parties (Hirano & Snyder, 2007; Lowi, 1999).…”

“…Political scholars writing about third-party campaigns agree with Johnson’s perception that the sudden drop in third-party support toward the end of the campaign is inevitable. Political communication scholars have suggested that third-party candidates exhibit a rhetorical style that is too extreme to sustain support (Harold, 2001; Neville-Shepard, 2017; Tonn & Endress, 2001; Zaller & Hunt, 1995). Additionally, political scientists have described various cultural and structural barriers to third-party success, ranging from political socialization that creates an allegiance to the two major parties, to restrictive ballot access, single-member plurality districts, limited media coverage, and exclusion from debates (Bibby & Maisel, 2003; Gillespie, 2012; Kirch, 2015; Rosenstone, Behr, & Lazarus, 1996).…”