A strong disapproval among the electorate of both major party challengers is one common explanation for the periodic emergence of major third party presidential candidates in the United States. Simply put, if neither candidate is acceptable, then another candidate will find support among a large portion of the voters. However, this is not necessarily the case. Because modern third party candidates are political entrepreneurs, these candidates will look for fragmentation in the party coalitions and exploit them. Using data from the American National Elections Study, this article will disaggregate the data on feelings about the two major party candidates and who supports them. In doing so, it finds third party candidates tend to emerge when the incumbent president is politically weak and unpopular among both the nation as a whole and their party in particular, regardless of the standing of the other major party challenger. It also finds the idea that people turn to third party candidates after rejecting the two major party candidates is incorrect. Rather, people turn to a third party candidate only if they are disaffected with their party’s nominee. Voters who are unsatisfied with their own party’s candidate would rather look for another alternative and support a third party candidate than vote for the opposition party. This indicates partisanship among the electorate has been stronger since 1968 then previously believed.

For 18 years, Joseph Lieberman has represented the State of Connecticut in the U.S. Senate, gaining seniority and becoming popular enough in his state and party to be nominated for the Vice Presidency in 2000. However, due to his perceived closeness to President George W. Bush and his support for the war in Iraq, Lieberman faced an unexpected challenge in the Democratic Primary and ultimately lost the party's nomination to political upstart Ned Lamont. A multimillionaire who could finance his own campaign, Lamont was aided in his insurgency by a host of bloggers in Connecticut and across the nation who took it as their mission to defeat Lieberman. This article will examine the role bloggers played in Ned Lamont's primary campaign as sources of financial support, logistical assistance, and as a place for likeminded individuals to find a community to support his candidacy. In this way, blogs became a "virtual political party" for Lamont who was able to create a support system for his candidacy when the entire Democratic establishment was backing Lieberman. This campaign could provide a template for future candidates challenging party establishments and demonstrates that many of the traditional party functions can be replaced by the Internet.

During the past decade the United States has seen an increase in alternative forms to Election Day voting, including voting by mail. Voting by mail has spurred a number of studies concerning the effects it has on voter turnout and other aspects of voting. However, one important facet of voting by mail has not been examined-when people decide to send in their vote. Because ballots are mailed out weeks before the election, voting by mail creates, in effect, a rolling Election Day. This could have profound effects for campaigns as candidates must determine when to use campaign resources and campaign to an electorate who might have already voted. Using data from the 2008 general election in Washington State, this study examines when voters turned in their ballots and determines if age, partisanship, or other factors play a role in the timing of turning in a ballot.

This research examines the rapid growth in popularity of Iceland’s Pirate Party (Piratur) by analyzing recent election results and public opinion polling (2013-17) on the popularity and ideological placement of the Pirate Party. We find that most respondents viewed the Pirate Party as centrist, and the majority of the respondents were neutral in their view of the party, although negative assessments rose by 2017.

While legislative polarization at the national level has been carefully examined and largely explained, the causes of polarization in state legislatures have been more elusive. Studies examining factors such as gerrymandering and party primaries as possible explanations have found largely undetectable or at best very modest relationships between these variables and levels of polarization. This paper provides an explanation of state legislative polarization based on socio-economic and demographic factors within the states. Economics and demographics have long played a significant role in understanding party choice, vote choice, the decision to abstain or vote, and support for various policies. Because of this we explore if these factors also influence polarization of state legislatures. Utilizing the Shorr-McCarty polarization data for state legislatures, which provides the differences between the mean Democratic and Republican legislator scores, and controlling for important economic and demographic factors, we explain a significant amount of the polarization existing in state legislatures. These findings present a fascinating look into not only the root causes of polarization in state legislatures, but also point to some fundamental differences in politics and ideology at the state and national levels.