Are third parties doomed to failure in the USA?

The success of third parties within the US can strongly be argued, in that they are ’doomed to failure’, in particular through recent years. This can be explained due to the vast sum in financial demands in which third parties cannot meet due to the inability to gain credible reconciliation to obtain huge sums of funds, and thus continue to live in the shadow of the Republicans and Democrats; two growing leading parties. Also, other factors like state legislation which encourage third party barriers, such as evidently shown in New York were for a party to be placed on the ballot paper it must reach a certain number of signatures. Through the electoral system of FPTP encouraging a two party system, and the two leading parties being seen as ’umbrella parties’ in which there is little room for a third party to offer an ideological stance on policies which has not already been covered. Means it is highly unlikely for a third party to succeed as evidently shown within the debates in 2000 with Gore verses Nader, where straight ticket voting also contributes to the third party failures. However, third parties must be credited in that it has proven to be worthy of success, like in 1996 where Jess Ventura was elected governor of Minnesota.

Third parties are largely disadvantaged and doomed to fail due to their inability to raise a substantial amount of funds or ‘war chest’. this is firstly, simply down to the matter of third parties are not widely known, as the Democrats or Republicans so Americans would logically be apprehensive to fund and donate. Also, they are penalised by the way in which they qualify for “matching funds” in Presidential elections. Republican and Democrat party candidates qualify by raising at least $5,000 in contribution of $250 or less in 20 states, whereas third party candidates only qualify