Presidential Election Question

[xaeniac]

Is there only one (D) and one (R) Candidate on the presidential ballot? If so, why is it set up like that?

 

[IndyColtsFan]

Is there only one (D) and one (R) Candidate on the presidential ballot? If so, why is it set up like that?

Think about the big picture for a second. Let's say the Democrats run 2 candidates and the Republicans run 1 candidate. What do you think the result might be, assuming each of the Democrat's candidates were roughly equal in popularity among the Democrat base?

(Also, some parties have run multiple candidates in the past for various reasons and it has backfired in many cases -- see the election of 1800 for one example. Admittedly that isn't an apples-to-apples comparison since back then, the runner-up in the election was the VP, but from the results, you should be able to see what I'm getting at above.)

 

[Meghan54]

Is there only one (D) and one (R) Candidate on the presidential ballot? If so, why is it set up like that?

What are you asking?

Either you're asking:

Why do the D's and R's only nominate one candidate for President?

--OR--

Why are there only D's and R's on the ballot for President in the national election?



The answer to the first question should be obvious.....dilution of the vote.

The answer to the second question is there have been numerous 3rd party candidates in the national election for President with the predictable results.

 

[cbrunny]

American politics is the least sophisticated politics on the planet. Adding a third candidate is too complex so it fails constantly, despite the outrageously positive effect it would actually have if it were to be successful.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

American politics is the least sophisticated politics on the planet. Adding a third candidate is too complex so it fails constantly, despite the outrageously positive effect it would actually have if it were to be successful.

The question wasn't really about adding multiple candidates; the question was adding multiple candidates from the same party. There is a big difference.

 

[cbrunny]

The question wasn't really about adding multiple candidates; the question was adding multiple candidates from the same party. There is a big difference.

Of course. A few posts as well about the ambiguity of the question as well though, and my opinion is just fine.

 

[glenn1]

American politics is the least sophisticated politics on the planet. Adding a third candidate is too complex so it fails constantly, despite the outrageously positive effect it would actually have if it were to be successful.

You only think that because you want it to be true. In most mutli-party nations the options beyond the top 2 offer much except for deciding which of the dominant 2 parties they'll form a coalition with (and extracting concessions in turn). It's not hugely different than a "moderate" Republican or Democrat who demands policy changes in return for his vote with the majority when passing legislation, or Bernie Sanders running for POTUS so he can "pull Hillary to the left."

Plus the enthusiasm for them doesn't even consider that many 3rd parties represent anti-democratic factional/separatist like Bloc Québécois, or some overtly racist outfit like Jörg Haider's diet neo-nazis in Austria.

 

[cbrunny]

You only think that because you want it to be true. In most mutli-party nations the options beyond the top 2 offer much except for deciding which of the dominant 2 parties they'll form a coalition with (and extracting concessions in turn). It's not hugely different than a "moderate" Republican or Democrat who demands policy changes in return for his vote with the majority when passing legislation, or Bernie Sanders running for POTUS so he can "pull Hillary to the left."

Plus the enthusiasm for them doesn't even consider that many 3rd parties represent anti-democratic factional/separatist like Bloc Québécois, or some overtly racist outfit like Jörg Haider's diet neo-nazis in Austria.

You only think that because you want it to be true. In Canada third and in some cases fourth parties add a tremendous amount to the national discourse, including the Bloc (even if, like me, you think they're bananas) and are elected.

Parliament is vastly different than the Presidential system. To suggest a third or fourth party in any country is the same as a moderate R or D is ignorant. It doesn't even come close to the same thing. Parliament has non-confidence votes.

 

[glenn1]

You only think that because you want it to be true. In Canada third and in some cases fourth parties add a tremendous amount to the national discourse, including the Bloc (even if, like me, you think they're bananas) and are elected.

Parliament is vastly different than the Presidential system. To suggest a third or fourth party in any country is the same as a moderate R or D is ignorant. It doesn't even come close to the same thing. Parliament has non-confidence votes.

For those that don't know, in Canada the NDP Party is the Elizabeth Warren analogue (left wing populists who worry about "fairness" and equality) whereas Liberals (center-left) are Bill Clinton style "New Democrats" and destroyed in the last election. You can argue that having the left/right intramural discussions be done via party vs. primaries is an improved approach but ultimately it comes down to the same damn thing.

 

[cbrunny]

For those that don't know, in Canada the NDP Party is the Elizabeth Warren analogue (left wing populists who worry about "fairness" and equality) whereas Liberals (center-left) are Bill Clinton style "New Democrats" and destroyed in the last election. You can argue that having the left/right intramural discussions be done via party vs. primaries is an improved approach but ultimately it comes down to the same damn thing.

You have no idea what you're talking about.

 

[fskimospy]

American politics is the least sophisticated politics on the planet. Adding a third candidate is too complex so it fails constantly, despite the outrageously positive effect it would actually have if it were to be successful.

More than two candidates is actively discouraged by the system set up by the constitution, so it doesn't happen (or happens in a very small, usually inconsequential way).

Yes it's dumb, but it would require a massive lift to change. Not going to happen.

 

[Jaepheth]

If a billionaire wanted to bankroll their own candidacy and had the charisma and experience to pull it off, they might have a shot.
Ross Perot got nearly 19% of the vote. (According to wikipedia)

 

[cbrunny]

More than two candidates is actively discouraged by the system set up by the constitution, so it doesn't happen (or happens in a very small, usually inconsequential way).

Yes it's dumb, but it would require a massive lift to change. Not going to happen.

I agree with you, 100%.

 

[DrPizza]

The question wasn't really about adding multiple candidates; the question was adding multiple candidates from the same party. There is a big difference.

And, a Republican or a Democratic contender could also run under a 3rd party. But, each party controls their money for advertising campaigns, etc. Thus, they're not going to dilute the effects of that money. E.g., if Donald Trump wanted, he could make a run for President as a Republican. If the Republican party didn't nominate him, then, he could run under a different party, say Right to Stupidity, in the Presidential election, assuming he got enough signatures to run, etc. He'd have to finance the majority of his campaign himself, with whatever other contributions his new party might toss his way.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

And, a Republican or a Democratic contender could also run under a 3rd party. But, each party controls their money for advertising campaigns, etc. Thus, they're not going to dilute the effects of that money. E.g., if Donald Trump wanted, he could make a run for President as a Republican. If the Republican party didn't nominate him, then, he could run under a different party, say Right to Stupidity, in the Presidential election, assuming he got enough signatures to run, etc. He'd have to finance the majority of his campaign himself, with whatever other contributions his new party might toss his way.

Exactly. I know it wasn't a presidential election, but a few years back, didn't Lieberman lose his spot on the Democrat Senate ticket in the primaries and then ran as an independent and won the seat anyway?

 

[dank69]

Exactly. I know it wasn't a presidential election, but a few years back, didn't Lieberman lose his spot on the Democrat Senate ticket in the primaries and then ran as an independent and won the seat anyway?

yes

 

[Moonbeam]

More than two candidates is actively discouraged by the system set up by the constitution, so it doesn't happen (or happens in a very small, usually inconsequential way).

Yes it's dumb, but it would require a massive lift to change. Not going to happen.

Imagine building a machine that self destructs, the inevitability of its purpose concealed in the design by the fact that number of minds required to see its aim, and stop it, gain that insight only after destruction is insured, a machine, in other words, built of the notion that a majority will surrender to the a belief that change can't happen. How would one live with such knowledge?

 

[Rakehellion]

The idea of a two or any number of party system is ridiculous. It implies that politics is as simple as a coin toss.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

yes

Several of us (by us, I mean citizens of Indiana) pleaded with Senator Lugar to do the same thing when he lost in the primaries several years back, but he just wanted to retire. He would've won the seat had he run as an independent, just like Lieberman did.

 

[glenn1]

The idea of a two or any number of party system is ridiculous. It implies that politics is as simple as a coin toss.

Pretty much is and hasn't changed much since the Plebians and Patricians of the Roman Empire days. Tell me your party and I can predict your responses to nearly any political question with near total accuracy.

 

[cbrunny]

Pretty much is and hasn't changed much since the Plebians and Patricians of the Roman Empire days. Tell me your party and I can predict your responses to nearly any political question with near total accuracy.

Which is also one of the reasons why American politics are the least sophisticated on the planet.

 

[Darwin333]

Is there only one (D) and one (R) Candidate on the presidential ballot? If so, why is it set up like that?

Because they don't want to split their base vote.

 

[Darwin333]

More than two candidates is actively discouraged by the system set up by the constitution, so it doesn't happen (or happens in a very small, usually inconsequential way).

Yes it's dumb, but it would require a massive lift to change. Not going to happen.

And it just keeps getting more and more impossible. With the sheer amount of money involved it's almost impossible for a new party to gain any significance. You have to be significant to get significant funds but can't get significant funds without being a significant contender. Same reason a ton of people want to vote 3rd party but don't because they believe it's throwing their vote away.

 

[nickqt]

Is there only one (D) and one (R) Candidate on the presidential ballot? If so, why is it set up like that?

First past the post voting is why.

If it weren't for the fact that politicians are in charge of the political process, we could change to a transferable vote system. This won't happen, though, because it allows third parties the ability to both run for an office, without also acting as a spoiler, which both political parties depend on.

 

[hal2kilo]

yes

You forgot to add damn it after the yes.