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

Abstract

Third-party candidates in the United States routinely see a decline in support in the final weeks of presidential campaigns. While political scientists attribute this partially to Duverger's Law, many communication scholars have tied this collapse to media coverage that frames third-party candidates as fringe outsiders, longshots, and spoilers. This study extends these explanations of third-party failure by describing the rhetorical containment of third-party voters. Based on a case study of the 2016 presidential election and public debate about supporters of Gary Johnson and Jill Stein, the essay suggests such voters face a form of marginalization that portrays them as intruders in a two-party race, as immature and uninformed, and responsible for eventual victors, while presenting them a false choice of winning by sacrificing their cause.

Third-party candidates, newspaper editorials, and political debates

“…When the media does write about third-party candidates, reporters portray them as inconsequential players or spoilers whose only role will be to tip the election in favor of either the Democrat or Republican (Herrnson & Faucheux, 1999). Neville-Shepard (2019) found that third-party support tends to trail off as the campaign progresses, partially because media commentators essentially shame third-party voters into supporting one of the major-party candidates. His analysis of the 2016 presidential election showed that third-party voters are contained when they are portrayed in the news media as immature, short-sighted citizens whose bad voting decisions are responsible for and decisive in the election of unpopular figures.…”

“…Finally, the study fills a gap in the literature. Most studies of third-party candidates focus on presidential elections rather than gubernatorial campaigns (see Joslyn, 1984; Neville-Shepard, 2019; Rosenstone et al, 1996; Sifry, 2003; Stempel, 1969). Those that do highlight statewide races focus on news reports, not editorials (Frith, 2005 Kirch (2013)).…”