2
Using VNS Exit Poll data for the Minnesota Election and ICM Surveys for the London
Election, we examine the similarities and differences between the candidates and their routes to
victory. We consider the following questions:
•
What are the attributes of a maverick candidacy?
•
Given the different electoral systems, did the electorate vote strategically in these
contests?
•
What causes voters to turn away from the major parties and support a maverick
candidate?
•
Can these candidates and their campaigns provide a blueprint for future maverick
candidates in other nations?
We believe that the selection of these two cases offers the opportunity to test these questions and
draw conclusions about the future about such candidates
Maverick Candidates
In their seminal work on third political parties Rosenstone, Behr and Lazarus (1996) find
that economic downtown, major party deterioration, and weak partisan loyalties are crucial for
third party support. Although these are important for third party emergence, we believe that
winning elections requires something additional. This additional aspect of support is what we
call a maverick style.
Being a maverick political candidate rests on five key assumptions. First, the maverick
candidate abandons the traditional parties even though they are the usual vehicles for success.
Rather than being mavericks, most third party candidates are what David Cannon refers to as
hopeless amateurs who “run for a feeling of duty to their party, or just for a thrill of the battle”
(Cannon, 1990, p.31). Moreover, members running as major party candidates cannot be
mavericks either, because they are utilizing the institutional advantages and techniques of the
major party.
Second, the maverick candidate is running on an ideology, policy or position that is
different from those of the major parties. This position is often the key point of the maverick’s
Convention