Skip to main content icon/video/no-internet

PROTEST VOTING IS voting for an outsider candidate, perceived as having no chance to win, as an expression of dissatisfaction with traditional parties. What distinguishes it from regular voting is its negative connotation: it is a vote of rejection, rather than a vote of support for the recipient. Its goal is to send a signal to one's own party or the political elite, in general, rather than to promote a particular candidate, party, or policy. Protest voting is different from split-ticket voting, when a voter simultaneously casts votes for candidates of different parties, and from strategic voting, when a voter votes with the better-positioned candidate rather than with the one that represents him or her better.

Protest voting is a form of expression of political discontent akin to returning a blank vote, spoiling the vote, and nonvoting (when not due to political indifference). Unlike these other forms of voting that ultimately amount to abstention, a voter engaged in protest voting actually casts a vote for a party or candidate. While the intent of the protest vote is to scare political leaders, in some instances the protest vote is credited as having changed the outcome in close elections.

Presidential Elections

The most often-quoted instances of protest voting take place in presidential elections. In the 1992 U.S. presidential election, the popular vote was divided between Bill Clinton (42.9 percent), George H.W Bush (37.1 percent), and Independent Ross Perot (18.8 percent). Many of the votes received by Ross Perot were seen as protest votes. Public opinion research have shown that Perot supporters were more likely than the voters choosing the others two candidates to mistrust the government and to fear public officials' corruption. Although Perot succeeded in attracting new voters to the political process, he also took away votes from the two major parties. Some claimed that he disproportionately hurt Bush, therefore allowing Clinton to win the election, however his overall impact on the outcome is difficult to assess. In the extremely close 2000 election between George W. Bush and Al Gore, Ralph Nader, a candidate for the Green Party, received many thousands of votes that otherwise likely would have been cast for Gore. In Florida alone, Nader received 97,421 votes. Bush won Florida by a mere 537 votes, giving him the electoral votes needed to win the presidency. Most political analysts believe that these protest votes for Nader cost Gore the presidency, because the vast majority of these votes would have gone to Gore, the more liberal feasible alternative, had Nader not been on the ballot.

Protest voting is not limited to the United States. Presidential runoff elections, common to many democracies around the world, highlight another remarkable feature of this form of protest. Sometimes, dissatisfied electors vote in the first round for a marginal candidate, who every so often makes a surprising appearance into the second round, only to have voters turn against him or her in the run-off. There might be a political cultural dimension associated with this behavior, as voters in some countries, such as France, resort to it frequently as a protest mechanism, while voters in other democracies might choose a different form of protest.

...

  • Loading...
locked icon

Sign in to access this content

Get a 30 day FREE TRIAL

  • Watch videos from a variety of sources bringing classroom topics to life
  • Read modern, diverse business cases
  • Explore hundreds of books and reference titles

Sage Recommends

We found other relevant content for you on other Sage platforms.

Loading