미국 제3정당 대통령 후보에 대한 법적, 제도적 제약: 2000년 랄프 네이더의 사례

Abstract

This research examines the legal-institutional characteristic of American politics which is disadvantageous to third party presidential candidates. In particular, it aims to answer two questions: how federal aspects of electoral system which guarantees each states autonomy and two levels of laws provide third party candidates with adverse circumstance, and how third party candidates devise their electoral strategy in response to these obstacles?

Electoral College system charted by federal constitution makes it impossible to convert popular votes which third party candidates gain to their substantial effects. Moreover, ballot access rules stipulated by each states statute are the prerequisite for third party candidates entry, which are the toughest barriers to them. By creating political dynamics unfavorable to minor candidates, these not only continue and reinforce the ascendancy of two-party system in the United States but also affect the scope and pattern of their electioneering. Ralph Nader, the nominated presidential candidate from Green Party in 2000, had to suffer from these harsh legal-institutional restrictions. Most of all, achieving ballot access is the most imperative to Nader, thus he travelled all fifty states for elevating his recognition. He criticized different and complicated regulation of ballot access laws and even brought in several lawsuits against state governments for qualifying himself as a presidential candidate. During the election campaign period, Nader selectively visited some states supportive to him among 44 states in which he could obtain ballot access as an electoral strategy of state-specific choice and focus.

This paper suggests that deep-rooted political system and constitutions which reflect the federal system of the United States are the most crucial factor to understand the low status of third party candidates. However, it is also implied that they are able to design their own electoral maneuvering under or beyond these legal-institutional obstacles.