"I doubt very seriously that any third party in 2004 will be qualified for any federal election funds, based upon this year's race," says David Gillespie, a political science professor at Presbyterian College.

"Short of having another Ross Perot, with his multimilllions, I don't see much of an immediate future in terms of the third-party horizon."

The splintered Reform Party is the only minor political party eligible to receive federal funding this year for its presidential candidate.

The Federal Election Commission meets Tuesday to decide whether $12.6 million earmarked for the party's nominee should go to Pat Buchanan or John Hagelin. Government auditors said last week that only Buchanan has met eligibility requirements.

But there may well be no money to fight for in 2004. A candidate needs at least 5 percent of the general election vote to qualify his party for funding in the following presidential election, and Buchanan has mustered only 1 or 2 percent in recent polls.

In California, his ratings were so low "we actually lumped his support together with all other third party candidates," said Mark DiCamillo, director of the state's Field Poll. Hagelin, meanwhile, rarely gets mentioned in opinion polls.

Buchanan joined the Reform Party last year, bolting from the GOP where he had run for president in previous years. Some of his views, particularly on abortion and homosexuality, have caused rifts in a party that tries to stay out of social issues.

Green Party candidate Nader initially appeared to be the best hope for people yearning for third party options this year. Polls placed support for the consumer advocate as high as 8 percent, but the numbers since have dwindled to 3 or 4 percent.

Many attribute the drop to Democrats who favored Nader but don't want to help Republican George W. Bush by voting for Nader, with a slim-to-none chance to win, rather than Gore.

In Michigan, some black union members changed their minds after Gore's speeches before the NAACP and the Democratic convention, said pollster Ed Sarpolus.

Today's economic prosperity makes it especially difficult for third parties.

"There is very little of the anxiety that is required to move people from the regular parties to the third-party options," said Cal Jillson of Southern Methodist University. "All of that concern with budget deficits and fiscal irresponsibility in 1992 invited Perot with an opportunity to gather votes. That's not here this time."

Perot burst into the 1992 presidential campaign and won the most general election votes for a third-party candidate in nearly a century. The Texas billionaire set a benchmark that even he couldn't match the next time around: He received nearly 19 percent of the vote in 1992; four years later, he received slightly more than 8 percent.

Gillespie said the hurdles against outside candidates "are just absolutely awful."

The Commission on Presidential Debates requires a candidate to gain 15 percent in the polls before earning a spot in the debates -- criteria being fought in courts by Nader and Buchanan. And many candidates spend much of their effort just collecting petition signatures.

"Probably a majority of the money Ross Perot spent on his 1992 campaign was spent just getting on the ballot," Gillespie said.

He said Americans increasingly have shown they yearn for third-party alternatives.

"We elected more third-party governors and people into office on third-party tickets than anytime since the Great Depression," he said. "The culture favors the emergence of a third party. Unfortunately, the cards are stacked against it."