Skip to main content

Expressions of Distrust: Third-Party Voting and Cynicism in Government

Abstract

Voter distrust of the national government is an ongoing theoretical concern for scholars who study voting behavior in the United States. Previous research demonstrates that distrustful voters are less likely to vote for major party candidates than their more trusting counterparts. Using the American National Election Survey, we explore the relationship between citizen distrust and voting for three major third-party challengers (Wallace, Anderson, and Perot) and the use of trust levels as predictors of third- party voting. We find citizen trust levels are significant and strong predictors of third-party voting, independent of other common explanatory variables of vote choice. We also find trust levels are stable over time, and we find little evidence to support the argument that trust levels measure trust of incumbent political figures.

This is a preview of subscription content, access via your institution.

REFERENCES

  • Aberbach, J. D., and J. L. Walker (1970). Political trust and racial ideology. American Political Science Review 64: 1199–1219.

    Google Scholar 

  • Abramson, P. R. (1983). Political Attitudes in America: Formation and Change. San Francisco: W. H. Freeman.

    Google Scholar 

  • Aldrich, J. H., and F. D. Nelson (1984). Linear Probability, Logit, and Probit Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bisnow, M. (1983). Diary of a Dark Horse: The 1980 Anderson Presidential Campaign. Carbondale, IL: Southern Illinois University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Bobo, L., and F. D. Gilliam (1990). Race, sociopolitical participation, and black empowerment. American Political Science Review 84: 377–393.

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown, C. W., and R. J. Walker (1984). A Campaign of Ideas: The 1980 Anderson/Lucey Platform. Westport, CT: Greenwood.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A. (1960). Surge and decline: A study of electoral change. Public Opinion Quarterly 24: 397–418.

    Google Scholar 

  • Campbell, A., P. E. Converse, W. E. Miller, and D. E. Stokes (1960). The American Voter. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Canfield, J. L. (1984). A Case of Third-Party Activism: The George Wallace Campaign Workers and the American Independent Party. Lanham, MD: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ceaser, J. V., and A. Busch (1993). Upside Down and Inside Out: The 1992 Election and American Politics. Lanham, MD: Rovman and Littlefield.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chressanthis, G. A. (1990). Third-party voting and the rational voter model: Empirical evidence from recent presidential elections. Public Choice 65: 189–193.

    Google Scholar 

  • Chressanthis, G. A., and S. D. Shaffer (1993). Major-party failure and third-party voting in presidential elections, 1976–1988. Social Science Quarterly 74: 264–273.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J. (1974). Comment: The political relevance of trust in government. American Political Science Review 68: 973–988.

    Google Scholar 

  • Citrin, J., and D. P. Green (1986). Presidential leadership and the resurgence of trust in government. British Journal of Political Science 16: 431–453.

    Google Scholar 

  • Converse, P. E., W. E. Miller, J. G. Rusk, and A. C. Wolfe (1969). Continuity and change in American politics: Parties and issues in the 1968 election. American Political Science Review 63: 1083–1105.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMaris, A. (1990). Interpreting logistic regression results: A critical commentary. Journal of Marriage and the Family 52: 271–276.

    Google Scholar 

  • DeMaris, A. (1992). Logit Modeling: Practical Applications. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Fresia, G. J. (1986). There Comes a Time: A Challenge to the Two Party System. New York: Praeger.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert, N. (1993). Analyzing Tabular Data: Loglinear and Logistic Models for Social Researchers. London: UCL Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Gillespie, J. D. (1993). Politics at the Periphery: Third Parties in Two-Party America. Columbia: University of South Carolina Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Golubovskis, G. M. (1981). Crazy Dreaming: The Anderson Campaign 1980. Flint, MI: Talking Seal Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Hosmer, D. W., and D. Lemeshow (1989). Applied Logistic Regression. New York: Wiley.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, S. E. (1994). Racism, cynicism, economics, and David Duke. American Politics Quarterly 22: 190–204.

    Google Scholar 

  • Howell, S. E., and D. Fagan (1988). Race and trust in government. Public Opinion Quarterly 52: 343–350.

    Google Scholar 

  • Ladd, E. C. (1980). Polling and the press: The clash of institutional imperatives. Public Opinion Quarterly 44: 574–584.

    Google Scholar 

  • Liao, T. F. (1994). Interpreting Probability Models: Logit, Probit, and Other Generalized Linear Models. Newbury Park, CA: Sage

    Google Scholar 

  • Lipset, S. M., and W. Schneider (1983). The Confidence Gap: Business, Labor, and Government in the Public Mind. New York: Free Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Menard, S. (1995). Applied Logistic Regression Analysis. Newbury Park, CA: Sage.

    Google Scholar 

  • Milbrath, L. W. and M. L. Goel (1977). Political Participation. New York: University Press of America.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H. (1974). Political issues and trust in government: 1964–1970. American Political Science Review 68: 951–972.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H. (1983). Is confidence rebounding? Public Opinion 16–20.

  • Miller, A. H. (1990). Confidence in government during the 1980s. In D. Madsen, A. H. Miller, and J. A. Stimson (eds.), American Politics in the Heartland. Dubuque, IA: Kendall/Hunt.

    Google Scholar 

  • Miller, A. H., and O. Listhaug (1990). Political parties and confidence in government: A comparison of Norway, Sweden, and the United States. British Journal of Political Science 20: 357–386.

    Google Scholar 

  • Morgan, S. P., and J. D. Teachman (1988). Logistic regression: Description, examples, and comparisons. Journal of Marriage and the Family 50: 929–936.

    Google Scholar 

  • Oldendick, R., and S. E. Bennett (1978). The Wallace factor: Constancy and cooptation. American Politics Quarterly 6: 496–484.

    Google Scholar 

  • Pindyck, R. S., and D. L. Rubinfeld (1991). Econometric Models and Economic Forecasts. New York: McGraw-Hill.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rhode, D. W., J. H. Aldrich, and P. R. Abramson (1983). Change and Continuity in the 1980 Elections. Washington, DC: CQ Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenstone, S. J., R. L. Behr, and E. H. Lazarus (1984). Third Parties in America: Citizen Response to Major-Party Failure. Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Rossiter, C. L. (1966). 1787: The Grand Convention. New York: Macmillan.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smallwood, F. (1983). The Other Candidates: Third Parties in Presidential Elections. Hanover, NH: University Press of New England.

    Google Scholar 

  • Sniderman, P. M. (1981). A Question of Loyalty. Berkeley, CA: University of California Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Strauss, D. (1992). The many faces of logistic regression. The American Statistician 46: 321–327.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., and N. H. Nie (1972). Participation in America. New York: Harper and Row.

    Google Scholar 

  • Verba, S., N. H. Nie, and J. Kim (1978). Participation and Political Equality. New York: Cambridge University Press.

    Google Scholar 

  • Wolfinger, R. E., and S. J. Rosenstone (1980). Who Votes? New Haven, CT: Yale University Press.

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and Permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Peterson, G., Wrighton, J.M. Expressions of Distrust: Third-Party Voting and Cynicism in Government. Political Behavior 20, 17–34 (1998). https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024891016072

Download citation

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1023/A:1024891016072

Keywords

  • Explanatory Variable
  • Strong Predictor
  • National Government
  • Vote Behavior
  • National Election