"" .
Ware generally accepts the institutionalist approach to explaining party systems but notes that their have been two major errors made in the approach: an extreme focus on electoral systems and a lack of consideration of the sociological approach. As Kim and Ohn point out, major social schisms are not even necessary for predicting more than two parties:.
"Almost all the societies probably have enough social divisions to accommodate at least three political parties."" .
Institutional barriers are the only remaining explanation for the two-party system in American politics. Bryce's review found that no one barrier limits party development and that the importance of each barrier has changed over time. An example of his research would be that lack of money hurt John Anderson (1980) but had no effect on Ross Perot (1992, 1996). On the other hand, the Electoral College harmed both presidential candidates. Bryce found that institutional barriers such as the Electoral College and the direct primary had not changed in importance over the last half of the twentieth century; only the psychological barriers to third parties had decreased in importance. .
The structural barriers have different effects on each candidate and party. Bryce rates ballot access obstacles as the most important barrier to George Wallace, with cultural and psychological factors a significant check and balance. For John Anderson, ballot access and economic constraints were most critical to the problems he endured during his campaign. Institutional and psychological barriers had some impact. According to Bryce, Ross Perot suffered from most from institutional barriers and then ballot access. Whatever the analysis, the barriers combine to prevent a breakdown of the American two-party system.
There is much debate among scholars on which barriers are the most devastating to third party candidates, but there is sound consensus that the constraints are quite high.