Can a 3th party win enough electoral votes (in theory)

[omega3]

When Michael Bloomberg said he wouldn't run, he argued it's not possible for a 3th party candidate to win enough electoral votes (EVs), but is that actually true?

Correct me if i'm wrong but from what i've read most states are winner-take-all and more important, you only need to have the most votes in a state to win it, a 50% majority is NOT required per state.

So if in a state a 3th party candidate gets 40% of the vote and Clinton and Trump would each get 30%, then as i understand it in most states that 3th party candidate would get ALL the EVs for that particular state. So basically the 3th party candidate has to win enough states just like Clinton and Trump need to do in order to get to 270EVs.

If that's correct, then I don't think it's really that impossible for a 3th party candidate to get 270EV and become president. Am i correct about this or am i overlooking something?

 

[nickqt]

It depends on what you mean by 3rd party.

In an election between Bush(R), Clinton(D), and Perot (I), there were three parties, and even though Clinton won, he didn't win a majority of the overall US popular vote, but still won in the Electoral College.

Sure, it's totally possible for a third party to win. I'm sure a Raptor Jesus/Zombie George Washington ticket could easily beat out Clinton and Trump this election, had Raptor Jesus/Zombie George Washington existed and got their party listed for the general election.

 

[Fanatical Meat]

Bloomberg decided not to run because there simply was not enough time to get on all the ballots and build a staff.
With the D & R candidates having historic disapproval ratings its hard to imagine a better setup for a 3rd party but I'll bet they screw it up.
I agree with the poster who said all the 3rd parties are trying to build a house roof first. They really should concentrate on local elections and build from there but that's not exciting.

 

[DrPizza]

"In theory" every single person in the country could vote for the same 7th party candidate, provided that candidate managed to get in the ballot in every state. It will never happen.

 

[Moonbeam]

Why would the ruling class, the wealthy, want to finance a third party? It's expensive enough buying two.

 

[omega3]

I was hoping for some less biased replies. I was just wondering if a candidate only needs the most votes in a state (so not 50%) in order to get all the EVs for that state.

 

[brycejones]

I was hoping for some less biased replies. I was just wondering if a candidate only needs the most votes in a state (so not 50%) in order to get all the EVs for that state.

Well that is how it works...See the election of 1992.

 

[DrPizza]

I was hoping for some less biased replies. I was just wondering if a candidate only needs the most votes in a state (so not 50%) in order to get all the EVs for that state.

Yes, in most of the states. There are a couple of states that divide it up. Maine and Nebraska. They each give two electoral votes to the popular vote winner, and then one each to the popular vote winner in each Congressional district (2 in Maine, 3 in Nebraska). Maine has never split electoral votes though, and it's only happened once in Nebraska.

As far as "less biased" - you're the one who put "in theory" in the OP. Theoretically, those in the electoral college can vote for someone else.

 

[zinfamous]

Sure, it's totally possible for a third party to win. I'm sure a Raptor Jesus/Zombie George Washington ticket could easily beat out Clinton and Trump this election, had Raptor Jesus/Zombie George Washington existed and got their party listed for the general election.

You think a toothless, treasonous, slave-owning aristocratic fancy lad could win a US election?

pleaeassssse.

 

[fskimospy]

Duverger's law.

By the way it's not ironclad, but generally no.

 

[omega3]

Well that is how it works...See the election of 1992.

What was different in 92?

But if a 3th party candidate can win with 40% of the vote in most states, then I don't see why a 3th party candidate wouldn't be able to win. People like Jill Stein and Sanders may mean well but they are too weak for major league politics. Somebody like Bloomberg could do it. I like his environmental engagement. Strange he pulled out this time.

 

[DrPizza]

What was different in 92?

But if a 3th party candidate can win with 40% of the vote in most states, then I don't see why a 3th party candidate wouldn't be able to win. People like Jill Stein and Sanders may mean well but they are too weak for major league politics. Somebody like Bloomberg could do it. I like his environmental engagement. Strange he pulled out this time.

It's possible, but incredibly unlikely. I don't think Bloomberg could have done it either. I think it would be really difficult to overcome the states that are very red or very blue - and that would result in a 3 way split with no majorities. For a better idea for you, read more about Perot's campaign. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992

 

[dullard]

Yes, it is possible. In most states you need the plurality (most votes of any candidate, not necessarily more than 50% though) of votes and you get the entire state's worth of electoral college votes.

But, it is highly unlikely.
1) You need to get enough signatures or enough prior election votes in each state to get on the ballot. So basically, you need to be strong in the past elections to even get onto this election. That makes it hard for the newly risen Raptor Jesus Zombies to even get on the ballot even if they are more popular than our current selection of candidates.

2) Then you need the funds to run a campaign. Campaigns are running in the billion dollar range now. That is not an easy hurdle to cross. Billionaires don't like to gamble that size of money on long-shots. Perot was willing to spend $100 million, that won't get you anywhere now. Even billionaire Trump is asking for donations.

3) Get past hurdles #1 and #2 and the media will still barely cover you and you might not even qualify for the debates. So your two main opponents get hours of free prime-time coverage and you get nothing.

4) Then what fskimospy said. In reality, a vote for a 3rd party candidate generally helps the candidate that you HATE the most. That is a tough pill to swallow. And you have to convince at least 20 million people to have faith in swallowing it. Duverger's law has more exceptions than actual results, so calling it a law is pretty shameful, but the general concept that our voting system makes 3rd party candidates get few votes is still correct.

5) Next, our electoral college system reinforces this all. Get one vote shy of the plurality in a state and you get absolutely nothing for it. So doing okay is not an option. Gradually building support is not an option (which loops back to issue #1) since you get nothing until you get it all in a state. You need to do great, on your first go, and do it in the correct states. But even that might not do it. Suppose the electoral votes were split roughly evenly with the third party getting a bit more than the others. That is about the best that a 3rd party can hope for. But, in that case, the 3rd party doesn't have 270 electoral college votes needed to win. In that case, the constitution says that the US House votes on who wins, and you can almost be guaranteed that a voting block of almost all republicans and democrats won't be voting for the 3rd party candidate president.

6) Finally, even if you do win the presidency, the historical trend is that now you still go back to two parties. The only difference is that one of the old parties will be absorbed into the new 3rd party. This absorption dilutes the 3rd party's new ideas down and the whole process really gets us back to where we started.

 

[Brainonska511]

If third parties want to play a larger role, why do they only come out of the woodwork every 4 years? What about building bases of support - winning seats in local and state governments or running in Congressional elections?