Have you ever wondered why, in the greatest democracy in the world, almost no one runs for President of the United States as an independent? The answer is that running as an independent is extremely difficult, if not impossible. This is why very few people have attempted it, and none have won in modern history. 

Here is how presidential elections really work when it comes to independent candidacies.

1. Ballot Access: A Costly and Complex Endeavor

Each state establishes its own complex ballot access laws, often requiring independent presidential candidates to gather a staggering number of signatures under stringent conditions to get their name on the general election ballot. 

For example, California requires independent candidates to collect approximately 219,403 valid signatures months before the general election (California Secretary of State). In Texas, independent candidates must secure about 89,693 signatures from voters who did not participate in the primary elections, all within a narrow 69-day period. (Texas Election Code)

Ballot access deadlines are strategically designed to disadvantage independents, and historically, the ballot access process has been weaponized by partisan efforts against independents. 

Summary Statistic: Nationwide ballot access demands roughly 865,000 signatures collected within about 180 days, costing independent campaigns approximately $15-20 million. (Ballot Access News)

Real World Examples: 

1980: Ten-term Congressman John Anderson of Illinois, running as an independent after losing the Republican primary to Ronald Reagan, confronted restrictive deadlines requiring him to litigate in states like Ohio, diverting resources from campaign efforts. (FEC Historical Archives)

2004: Ralph Nader’s independent campaign faced significant legal challenges from the Democratic Party in Pennsylvania, where operatives contested over 30,000 signatures, resulting in extensive legal fees and his removal from the ballot. (NBC) 

2024: NBC News reported that the DNC was ready for a multi-state strategy to keep or remove independent and third-party candidates from the ballot.  Robert F. Kennedy, Jr. survived legal challenges in Hawaii, Nevada, North Carolina, New Jersey, and Maine. Still, by July 2024, the New York Times reported that Kennedy’s campaign fund had been drained to the point that it could not hold events or “traditional campaign priorities.” (IVN)

2024: No Labels experienced lawsuits in Arizona and Maine, where Democrats accused them of misleading voters. This illustrates how partisan strategies are actively employed to obstruct ballot access. (Ballotpedia)

2024: New York only had two names on its general election presidential ballot, thanks in part to former Governor Andrew Cuomo, who expanded the authority of a public campaign financing commission to rewrite election laws that pertain to minor political parties in the state. RFK, Jr. was kicked off the ballot in his home state after a five-day trial when opponents claimed he did not live there. In the last 40 years, this has happened in only one other state: Oklahoma. (IVN)

Listen to the podcast:

2. Political Infrastructure

Independent presidential candidates lack the essential infrastructure that major-party candidates automatically receive, creating severe disadvantages.

Voter Databases

The Democratic and Republican Parties maintain sophisticated national voter databases, enabling targeted campaign strategies and voter mobilization. Independents must develop or buy voter data, significantly increasing campaign expenses. (Harvard Business School)

Real World Examples: 

NGP VAN, Inc.: A privately-owned voter database and web hosting service provider used by the Democratic Party, Democratic campaigns, and other non-profit organizations authorized by the Democratic Party. In 2023-2024, more than $44 million was paid to NGP VAN from federally regulated campaign committees. (FEC)

The Data Trust: Claims to be the leading provider of voter and electoral data to Republican and conservative campaigns, parties, and advocacy organizations. (Data Trust)

Fundraising Networks

Platforms like ActBlue and WinRed offer major parties efficient fundraising channels that generate billions of dollars and provide access to millions of Democrats and Republicans with a history of donating to campaigns. 

Independent candidates lack any such integrated systems, requiring them to purchase expensive voter databases and build a donor base from scratch. This drastically limits fundraising capabilities and requires a greater reliance on grassroots and personal funding. (OpenSecrets)

Real World Examples: 

ActBlue PAC: Raised $3.8 billion for Democrats in the 2023-2024 cycle. (Ballotpedia; Federal Election Commission) 

WinRed: Raised $1.68 billion for Republicans in the 2023-2024 cycle.  This hybrid PAC is the #1 fundraising technology conservatives use, supported by a united front of the Trump campaign, RNC, RSLC, NRSC, and NRCC. (OpenSecrets; FEC)

Experienced Campaign Staff 

Major parties attract seasoned campaign staff — strategists, pollsters, and media consultants — who choose stable career paths within party structures that can provide reliable job opportunities. Many of these professionals are reluctant to join an independent campaign, fearing it could hurt their future career prospects within the party system. Independents, therefore, typically have limited access to these skilled professionals, impacting strategic effectiveness and campaign performance. (Harvard Business School)

Real World Example: The Democratic National Committee spent $17.3 million in January 2025 on experienced campaign staff and the resources to support them, including travel and office rent. The DNC’s American Express bill was $750,000, and their phone bill was $300,000! (FEC)

Summary Statistic: Presidential candidates raised $1.6 billion and spent over $1.3 billion in the first 21 months of the 2023-2024 election cycle, according to campaign finance reports filed with the Federal Election Commission that cover activity from January 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024. (FEC)

3. The Spoiler Effect

The “spoiler effect” puts voters into a strategic voting mindset at the ballot box, often forcing them to choose between the "lesser of two evils” because they fear spoiling the election. 

Instead of voting for the candidate they genuinely prefer, voters are pressured to choose one of the two major-party candidates who they think has the best chance of blocking the other major-party candidate from victory. 

This is why voters are frequently discouraged from supporting independent candidates. The spoiler effect also discourages independent candidates from running in the first place. 

Votes for independent candidates are dismissed as “wasted votes,” making it hard for an independent to gain traction and electoral viability. Over time, it is clear that this fear of wasting a vote and spoiling the election reinforces the two-party system.

Real World Examples: 

2000: Green Party candidate Ralph Nader received 97,421 votes in Florida, significantly influencing the election outcome by spoiling Al Gore’s chances and contributing to George W. Bush’s narrow victory by just 537 votes — a margin of only 0.009%.

2016: Jill Stein’s Green Party candidacy may have spoiled Hillary Clinton’s presidential chances, as Stein’s vote totals surpassed the slim margins by which Donald Trump defeated Clinton in critical states such as Wisconsin and Michigan. (CNN) Libertarian Gary Johnson was accused of playing spoiler throughout 2016. 

2024: RFK, Jr. suspended his campaign rather than “spoil” Donald Trump’s chance at victory. When Kennedy suspended his campaign, he said: “Many months ago, I promised the American people that I would withdraw from the race if I became a spoiler and altered the outcome of the election, but I had no chance of winning. In my heart, I no longer believe that I have a realistic path to electoral victory in the face of this relentless, systematic censorship and media control. So, I cannot in good conscience ask my staff and volunteers to keep working their long hours or ask my donors to keep giving when I cannot honestly tell them that I have a real path to the White House. Furthermore, our polling consistently showed that by staying on the ballot in the battleground states, I would likely hand the election over to the Democrats, with whom I disagree on the most existential issues: censorship, war, and chronic disease.” (Transcript of RFK, Jr. Concession Speech)

2024: Maine and Alaska do not have presidential election spoilers. Before RFK suspended his campaign, he said, “The people of Maine will be able to vote for me and still pick Trump or Biden as a second choice; they don’t have to worry about wasting their vote or choosing the ‘lesser of two evils.’”

Summary Statistic:  Independent and third-party candidates collectively garnered over 6 million votes in the 2016 election, significantly impacting outcomes in battleground states without garnering a single electoral vote. (FEC)

4. Presidential Debates: Barriers to Visibility

Since 1987, the Commission on Presidential Debates (CPD), managed by former leaders of the two major parties, has controlled debate participation. They use strict criteria, notably the 15% polling threshold requirement.

Without a chance to participate in debates, independent candidates are denied one of the most powerful tools for reaching voters, shaping public opinion, and proving their viability as serious contenders. The current debate rules create a self-reinforcing cycle where independents are seen as non-viable because they cannot debate, and they cannot debate because they are seen as non-viable. 

In 1992, Ross Perot would not have qualified for the debates had the current rule — requiring a candidate to average 15% in the polls a couple of weeks before the debates — been in place. In that case, Clinton and Bush agreed to let Perot onto the debate stage. (The Hill) The debate was (at the time) the most watched debate in US history, and Perot went on to be the most successful independent candidate in modern presidential history by garnering 19% of the vote. 

No independent presidential candidate has been invited to the debate stage since then. (CNN) This is because in 2000, the Commission on Presidential Debates instituted new rules for candidate inclusion:

• A candidate must be constitutionally eligible to run for president.
• A candidate must have access to the ballot in enough states to have a mathematical chance at an electoral majority.
• A candidate must poll at 15% in 5 nationwide polls hand-picked by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Even with the major parties' withdrawal from the CPD debates in 2024, independents remain marginalized in alternative formats, highlighting ongoing systemic exclusion and major-party dominance in public debate platforms. (Politico)

Real World Examples:

2000: The "15% rule" not only made it impossible for Green Party candidate Ralph Nader to be heard on the debate stage in the 2000 presidential election but Nader was physically barred and threatened with arrest just for attempting to watch the Bush-Gore debate in a separate auditorium. Nader had a ticket to be present, but the debate commission had provided security with pictures of third-party candidates and their running mates with the instructions that they were not allowed to attend. (IVN)

2012: Green Party presidential nominee Jill Stein did not achieve the 15% threshold either. She was arrested with her running mate as they attempted to enter the grounds of the debate site at Hofstra University. They were held for 8 hours, handcuffed to chairs, while President Obama and Senator Romney debated. As she was being arrested, Stein condemned what she called “this mock debate, this mockery of democracy.” (Democracy Now)

2016: Libertarian Gary Johnson was denied a podium on the debate stage alongside Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump despite significant grassroots support. (IVN)

Summary Statistic: Achieving the required 15% polling threshold typically necessitates campaign expenditures of at least $250 million, creating an insurmountable barrier for independent candidates. (IVN)

5. The Electoral College: Structural Inequality

The Electoral College was initially designed as an independent deliberative body, with electors representing the interests of their districts independently rather than along party lines. (Federalist Paper No. 68, Library of Congress) 

To win the election, a presidential candidate must obtain at least a majority (270) of 538 electoral votes. ​Most states (48 out of 50) and Washington, D.C., employ a winner-take-all system, where the candidate who receives the most popular votes statewide secures all of that state's electoral votes. 

This winner-take-all system creates a substantial disadvantage for independents because Electoral College votes are not awarded in proportion to popular support.

The exceptions are Maine and Nebraska, which allocate electoral votes proportionally based on congressional district outcomes.

If the U.S. electoral system moved away from the winner-take-all model to a proportional allocation of electoral votes, it would function quite differently. This would particularly benefit independent and third-party candidates, who could be granted electoral votes proportional to their actual popular support.

Recent Supreme Court rulings, notably Chiafalo v. Washington (2020), have further entrenched the state's power to control electors, making electoral victory almost impossible for independents regardless of their national support. (Supreme Court)

Real World Examples:

1980: Independent John B. Anderson of Illinois got nearly 5.7 million votes –6.6% of the popular vote, but won no electoral votes. 

1992: Ross Perot captured nearly 20 million votes—18.91% of the popular vote, an unprecedented total for any non-major-party candidate. Yet, he walked away with zero electoral votes because he didn't win a single state outright under the current system. (National Archives)

Summary Statistics: 

The current system (Winner-Take-All): If Candidate A wins 51% of the vote in a state with 10 electoral votes, they currently receive all 10 votes, while the runner-up candidate (even with 49% of the vote) gets none.

Proportional system: If Candidate A gets 51% and Candidate B gets 49%, electoral votes would be split accordingly, giving roughly:

Candidate A: 5 electoral votes

Candidate B: 5 electoral votes (rounded accordingly)

If an independent candidate also participated and earned 20%, the distribution would reflect all three candidates:

Candidate A: 50% → 5 votes

Candidate B: 30% → 3 votes

Independent: 20% → 2 votes

6. Campaign Finance: Financial Disparities

Campaign finance laws inherently favor candidates from the two major parties, granting access to coordinated spending, Political Action Committees (PACs), Super PACs, and established donor networks not available to independents. 

Real World Examples:

2008: Democrat Barack Obama raised $744.9 million compared to independent candidate Ralph Nader’s $4.3 million. (OpenSecrets)

2016: Republican Donald J. Trump raised $333 million, dramatically surpassing independent candidate Gary Johnson's $12 million, with Trump personally contributing $66 million — more than five times Johnson’s total fundraising amount. (OpenSecrets)

2024: Democrat Kamala Harris raised $900 million compared to independent candidate Cornel West’s $1.3 million during the same 21-month period from January 1, 2023, through September 30, 2024. (FEC) Fifty-five (55) Super PACs supported Harris. (Open Secrets)

Summary Statistic: America’s presidential candidates raised $1.62 billion in the first 21 months of the 2023-2024 election cycle from January 1, 2023 through September 30, 2024. More than 78% ($1.27 billion) went to just two candidates, Democrat Kamala Harris and Republican Donald Trump. (FEC)

7. Internal Party Controls: Limits on Competition

Rather than running as an independent on the general election ballot, an independent candidate might try to win the Democratic or Republican Party nomination from within the party instead. What they might discover, however, is that the parties actively suppress internal competition to try to control the outcome before any votes are even cast. 

Real World Example:

2016: In her 2017 book, Hacks: The Inside Story of the Break-ins and Breakdowns that Put Donald Trump in the White House, former DNC interim chair Donna Brazile wrote that she investigated and discovered an agreement that "specified that in exchange for raising money and investing in the DNC, Hillary would control the party's finances, strategy, and all the money raised. Her campaign had the right of refusal of who would be the party communications director, and it would make final decisions on all the other staff." Bernie Sanders' 2016 campaign manager, Jeff Weaver, said the agreement was evidence the DNC tried to tip the scales against his candidate. The DNC argued that it had no legal obligation to follow impartiality guidelines, showing the extent of institutional resistance against internal reform or outsider influence. (IVN; NPR)

Summary Statistic: In the Democratic primaries held from February 1 to June 14, 2016, Hillary Clinton won 34 primaries, securing 2,842 delegate votes, while Bernie Sanders won 23 primaries with 1,865 delegate votes.

Conclusion

Running as an independent presidential candidate in the United States requires overcoming considerable systemic challenges, including ballot access hurdles, lack of political infrastructure, the spoiler effect, debate exclusion, Electoral College barriers, campaign finance inequities, and entrenched internal party controls. These factors collectively sustain the dominance of the two major parties and significantly limit the potential for genuine competition and political diversity in American democracy.