3rd Party President in Your Lifetime

[MovingTarget]

No, though Ross Perot came close.

That will likely be the closest we will come to a third party candidate for POTUS. Of course, if the GOP implodes after losing in November, that chance goes up, but only slightly.

 

[Lemon law]

Yes I think its possible but remore.

First a given third party would have to get enough votes in the previous election to have their name automatically in the ballot.

Then both the democrats and the republicans would have no nominate total turkeys who both get hit with huge scandals post covention.

And then the third party candidate would have to have mainstream views acceptable to democrats and republicans.

In short, possible but very improbable.

 

[a777pilot]

No, though Ross Perot came close.

No, there were others that got closer.

 

[Infohawk]

Not until there's electoral reform. The two party system is a natural result of the first past the post system. If you want more parties you need a proportional system like in Europe.

 

[Smoblikat]

Yes I think its possible but remore.

First a given third party would have to get enough votes in the previous election to have their name automatically in the ballot.

Then both the democrats and the republicans would have no nominate total turkeys who both get hit with huge scandals post covention.

And then the third party candidate would have to have mainstream views acceptable to democrats and republicans.

In short, possible but very improbable.

Obama - Birth certificate, past college records, libor scandal, Fast and furious
Romney - Tax evasion, offshore accounts, bain greed

Both parties HAVE nominated total turkies and yet one of them is still going to get in.

 

[soulcougher73]

No. What's the point of electing a third party? We don't even need two.

Can you stop posting please? You are an embarrassment.

 

[NoStateofMind]

Yep, and the only resolution is effectively blocked by them since they would have to approve of surrendering power.

The theoretical division of powers between the judiciary, legislative and executive branch does not effectively exist, or if so it's so subordinate to party control that it's irrelevant.

The hierarchy of power in government is Republicrat. That's it.

I'll consider it one entity since they use the same mentality to govern, that being their way or the highway. In theory Obama ought not to have any connection with Congress in terms of legislation and vice versa and most people don't even realize it. What we are supposed to do is pick a President or Representative who may belong to a political party, but we pick a party and they control both, and sometimes judges depending on the office. Even when this is not the case, parties pick who can be appointed. Consequently the government as intended is a farce, an illusion, that some cling to and others openly defy in place of partisanship.

George Washington was right.

Oh stop it! You might discourage people from voting!

 

[soulcougher73]

Oh stop it! You might discourage people from voting!

You mean the electoral college alone doesnt discourage people from voting? My guess is most people are too lazy to know much about it or how it really works.

 

[Sonikku]

You are an embarrassment.

That's what my parents said, but that sure as fuck didn't stop me.

You people see something that doesn't work and try to attempt something else at the first sign of trouble. But a true American follows their heart and passion no matter what. A real American keeps doing wrong until it becomes fucking right.

 

[soulcougher73]

That's what my parents said, but that sure as fuck didn't stop me.

You people see something that doesn't work and try to attempt something else at the first sign of trouble. But a true American follows their heart and passion no matter what. A real American keeps doing wrong until it becomes fucking right.

My point stands.

 

[Agent11]

You have to start at the bottom. Get people elected to the state government, then get some congressmen and senators.

If this is done all over the country then laws and redistricting can be changed to be more fair for 3rd parties.

Then you will have a chance at running for president. But more importantly you will have made the senate and congress more functional than they are now.

 

[Londo_Jowo]

No, there were others that got closer.

Not in my life time.

 

[CallMeJoe]

No, there were others that got closer.

We all appreciate your comprehensive listing of those more successful candidates.

 

[Fayd]

We all appreciate your comprehensive listing of those more successful candidates.

teddy roosevelt got 27% of the vote in 1912... ahead of the republican, but behind the democrat.

 

[a777pilot]

Not in my life time.

I guess that depends on how old you are.

 

[a777pilot]

We all appreciate your comprehensive listing of those more successful candidates.

You are by a computer, aren't you?

OK, I'll post it for you. Geeish what a lazy soul. Must be a Democrat.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election

 

[wirednuts]

This

The ideal scenario is that after Romney gets elected, people will be like "Hey, republicans suck" then they will be like "hey, we put in a republican because theyre better than democrats, who suck even more" THEN maybe, just maybe, people will be like "If these two guys suck, lets try some other options"

Basically whats going to happen is everything I said will be true until the maybe part, the rest will go like this "Hey, Romney sucks, lets get obama back so he can hope us back to health"

We just need a revolution.

um... if that sort of stuff went on, people would have been voting 3rd party for decades.

reality is people are just retarded and they believe whatever people with money tell them.

 

[a777pilot]

When the Constitution was written it was assumed that the person with the most Electoral votes would be President and the person that came in second would be the Vice-President.

That did not work. So changes were made and we have a two party system by default. It has worked pretty damn well for over two hundred years. It's not so broke that we can't work with it. Leave it alone.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

When the Constitution was written it was assumed that the person with the most Electoral votes would be President and the person that came in second would be the Vice-President.

That did not work. So changes were made and we have a two party system by default. It has worked pretty damn well for over two hundred years. It's not so broke that we can't work with it. Leave it alone.

Not broke? Heck George Washington knew that political parties were broken. It hasn't worked nearly as well electing people who put their party far behind other considerations, but if they did that party whip would be right there. We have Lame and Lamer, and who that fits depends entirely on one's perspective. We habitually elect the lesser of the two evils, because that's what we are given. You might as well say that Hobson's Choice has worked just fine too since they are effectively the same. Party uber Alles is what we have and it's so impossible to work we that it can't be fixes. Those in charge (the Dems and Reps) won't allow you to. You think either are going to surrender power to another? No, and they'd both rather see the nation burn first. You are old enough to know that.

 

[a777pilot]

We need a Congressional leader and a President that understand how the system really works. I am reminded of Clinton/Gingrich and Reagan/O'Neal.

The system is not broken but the leadership is.

 

[Fern]

You have to start at the bottom. Get people elected to the state government, then get some congressmen and senators.
-snip-

Exactly, and this is why it won't happen in my lifetime.

You need a huge infrastructure in place to mount a realistic campaign for President. You need one in every state just to get on the ballot. You need that infrastructure to raise campaign donations. You need it for grassroots type efforts, knocking on doors etc.

I think Ross Perot proved that not even a billionaire has a reasonable shot at it from the top-down. It must bottom-up.

And no, the electoral college system has nothing to do with it.

Fern

 

[werepossum]

I don't think it will happen because that's one issue that both parties can agree on: a third party is a threat to their power. They will make sure that the deck gets ever more stacked against a third party. They can't stack the deck against each other because the two powers are roughly equally divided, but they can (and do) work together to make sure nobody else steps on their collective turf.

Agreed. If a third party gets close enough to threaten both parties, both parties will change the rules.

 

[Rainsford]

Exactly, and this is why it won't happen in my lifetime.

You need a huge infrastructure in place to mount a realistic campaign for President. You need one in every state just to get on the ballot. You need that infrastructure to raise campaign donations. You need it for grassroots type efforts, knocking on doors etc.

I think Ross Perot proved that not even a billionaire has a reasonable shot at it from the top-down. It must bottom-up.

And no, the electoral college system has nothing to do with it.

Fern

Agreed, that was pretty much what I was thinking about this. You don't need artificial restrictions when the natural restrictions effectively keep almost everyone out. It's not some big conspiracy so much as getting elected leader of a huge country with 300+ million people is an enormous undertaking. That can't be a party's first real step in politics.

The other problem is that I don't think the magic third party idea is enough by itself, although it clearly appeals to a lot of people. Some people see third parties (it hardly seems to matter WHICH third party) as infinitely better than the two major choices we've got now, but I don't think that's at all an obvious conclusion for most people and the third party supporters don't do a very good job selling it, IMO.

 

[werepossum]

Agreed, that was pretty much what I was thinking about this. You don't need artificial restrictions when the natural restrictions effectively keep almost everyone out. It's not some big conspiracy so much as getting elected leader of a huge country with 300+ million people is an enormous undertaking. That can't be a party's first real step in politics.

The other problem is that I don't think the magic third party idea is enough by itself, although it clearly appeals to a lot of people. Some people see third parties (it hardly seems to matter WHICH third party) as infinitely better than the two major choices we've got now, but I don't think that's at all an obvious conclusion for most people and the third party supporters don't do a very good job selling it, IMO.

When people say third party they are free to imagine a third party that encompasses all their own beliefs. In the real world, third parties are subject to the same real world compromises and conflicts as are the major parties. For instance, I usually vote Libertarian even though I have some very severe differences with their stance on regulatory reform, especially environmental regulations. Were the Libertarians truly competitive, I'd have to take these into consideration.

Also, if any third party starts getting traction on a particular issue, one or even both major parties will co-opt their position, on a state or a national basis as needed.

 

[ky54]

Do you think there will be a president that is not Republican or Democrat that is elected in your lifetime? I feel this would be a great thing and shake things up politically.

Considering I have more years behind me than in front I'll guess no.