What would it take to elect a 3rd party president?

[TheMadCap]

In all seriousness, with both the Republicans and Democrats being as strong as they are?

 

How would it be possible for someone to overcome the massive advantage the bipartisans have by holding all the political cards? Does anyone think this could happen one day? If so, how could this be achieved?

 

Please discuss....

[erynthered]

In all seriousness, with both the Republicans and Democrats being as strong as they are?

 

How would it be possible for someone to overcome the massive advantage the bipartisans have by holding all the political cards? Does anyone think this could happen one day? If so, how could this be achieved?

 

Please discuss....

411621[/snapback]

 

 

 

Everyone is going to talk about a "grass roots" effort. I dont see it happening in my lifetime. Maybe a complete meltdown of the Gov. Or maybe a couple of Nukes going off in this country, dont know........

[Ghost of BiB]

In all seriousness, with both the Republicans and Democrats being as strong as they are?

 

How would it be possible for someone to overcome the massive advantage the bipartisans have by holding all the political cards? Does anyone think this could happen one day? If so, how could this be achieved?

 

Please discuss....

411621[/snapback]

 

You start by:

 

"Sitting on a park bench"

 

Seriously, without going into details I think the first right step would be to go with two serious candidates as prez and vice from the two established parties. A Rep picks a Dem for a running mate, or vice versa. The more neutral folks from either party could be introduced into the administration, effecting more neutral policies -maybe even using wisdom over partismanship. Were the electable, and also successful, I don't see any other way to introduce a third party in our lifetimes.

 

I think we need a ticket that comprises both the Democrat and the Republican party. That blurs the line. We can't have a viable third option without blurring that line.

 

(No, McCain is not the man)

[Tux of Borg]

Hulk Hogan...

[/dev/null]

a celebrity with $200 Million to burn

[VABills]

a celebrity with $200 Million to burn

411645[/snapback]

Didn't work for the celeb with billions to burn in Ross Perot.

 

It would take a sitting president who is has high poll numbers to switch parties to a 3rd party right before the election.

[Terry Tate]

I don't know that it will ever make a difference in any way, but I don't see myself ever voting for another R or D again. Or a meet-in-the-middle R/D ticket.

 

In February 1992, someone declared they were running for president as an independent on "Larry King"; just nine months later, after dropping out and re-entering the race (!) he received 19% of the popular vote (19,722,042 votes!).

 

I'm just saying, it could happen.

[/dev/null]

Didn't work for the celeb with billions to burn in Ross Perot. 

 

It would take a sitting president who is has high poll numbers to switch parties to a 3rd party right before the election.

411649[/snapback]

 

Perot wasn't really a celebrity, just a well known executive.

 

by celebrity i meant a media (tv, movie, music) celebrity.

[Adam]

I would settle for a bi-partisan ticket

[TheMadCap]

Didn't work for the celeb with billions to burn in Ross Perot. 

 

It would take a sitting president who is has high poll numbers to switch parties to a 3rd party right before the election.

411649[/snapback]

 

 

Ah, but some alledge that he could have won had he not dropped out of the race...

[KD in CA]

Didn't work for the celeb with billions to burn in Ross Perot. 

 

It would take a sitting president who is has high poll numbers to switch parties to a 3rd party right before the election.

411649[/snapback]

 

 

He made a pretty fair run at it though. He got more than 20% of the popular vote if I recall. Still well short of enough to win, but if you started with two people on the ticket who were more well known and more respectable (Ross had a little bit of that crazy thing that scared people), it might be possible.

 

But yes, it would take a mountain of cash.

[VABills]

He made a pretty fair run at it though.  He got more than 20% of the popular vote if I recall.  Still well short of enough to win, but if you started with two people on the ticket who were more well known and more respectable (Ross had a little bit of that crazy thing that scared people), it might be possible.

 

But yes, it would take a mountain of cash.

411731[/snapback]

You guys are all missing it. I don't think a third party could win no matter his/her cash.

 

I think the only way to make it happen is to have a well liked sitting president switch to a 3rd party right before the election. It would keep a lot of his "original" party votes, plus some of the other party and the "middle of the road" folks would probably swing towards him.

[SilverNRed]

Didn't work for the celeb with billions to burn in Ross Perot. 

 

It would take a sitting president who is has high poll numbers to switch parties to a 3rd party right before the election.

411649[/snapback]

If he hadn't dropped out and then re-entered the race.....

 

You never know.

[JimBob2232]

You would need a crazy left win democrat (Hillary) vs. a Crazy right wing republican (Newt).

 

Then a third party has a chance.

 

The biggest problem is the perception they have no chance. I voted for bush in 04, not because i liked him, but because virginia was close and I didnt want to throw my vote away because kerry scared the hell out of me. The Nader Syndrome (or Perot Syndrome) is the problem. If people voted for who they actually wanted, yes a 3rd party has a chance. The key is convincing the electorate that there is actually a viable chance of the 3rd party winning.

[Mickey]

In all seriousness, with both the Republicans and Democrats being as strong as they are?

 

How would it be possible for someone to overcome the massive advantage the bipartisans have by holding all the political cards? Does anyone think this could happen one day? If so, how could this be achieved?

 

Please discuss....

411621[/snapback]

I think that the people who would be interested in a third option are a fractured bunch politically. They have no dominant view that could weld them together. Many would disagree with eachother even more sharply than they do with either established party.

 

Some sort of cataclysm could do it maybe. A depression, that kind of thing.

[Reuben Gant]

Money

Charisma

an Angry Electorate

and:

 

a great plague in which successive Democratic and Republican administrations

prove to be equally incompetent.

[JimBob2232]

I think that the people who would be interested in a third option are a fractured bunch politically. They have no dominant view that could weld them together. Many would disagree with eachother even more sharply than they do with either established party.

 

No, I disagree. I agree with the republican philosophy (or at least their campaign philosophy). Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, strong defense, less government involvement in our daily lives, etc. etc.

 

However, they get in office and its more of the same old crap. Its troublesome. A 3rd party candidate (who stood for my values) would get my vote, if for no other reason but to send a message. Its not that I have no political backbone, far from it....its just that neither side of the isle is doing what I want them to be doing as my elected representatives.

[Adam]

You would need a crazy left win democrat (Hillary) vs. a Crazy right wing republican (Newt).

 

Then a third party has a chance.

 

The biggest problem is the perception they have no chance.  I voted for bush in 04, not because i liked him, but because virginia was close and I didnt want to throw my vote away because kerry scared the hell out of me.  The Nader Syndrome (or Perot Syndrome) is the problem.  If people voted for who they actually wanted, yes a 3rd party has a chance.  The key is convincing the electorate that there is actually a viable chance of the 3rd party winning.

411764[/snapback]

 

I agree- the thing that irks me about last year's election is when you hear people say if you vote independent that your vote doesnt count. Those people did not learn to count in grade school, nor do they understand what America is about. Every vote counts- whether its for someone who has a chance or not- it still affects percentages, and can make the race that much tighter.

[RuntheDamnBall]

Hulk Hogan...

411633[/snapback]

That just brings tears to my eyes, man.

[Typical TBD Guy]

No, I disagree.  I agree with the republican philosophy (or at least their campaign philosophy).  Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, strong defense, less government involvement in our daily lives, etc. etc. 

 

However, they get in office and its more of the same old crap.  Its troublesome.  A 3rd party candidate (who stood for my values) would get my vote, if for no other reason but to send a message.  Its not that I have no political backbone, far from it....its just that neither side of the isle is doing what I want them to be doing as my elected representatives.

411776[/snapback]

 

Have you considered the Libertarian Party?

[SilverNRed]

That just brings tears to my eyes, man.

411839[/snapback]

VOTE FOR THE HULKSTER, BROTHER!!!

[pope zimli]

You mean now? I suspect money would be an issue, so the two candidates vp and p, should have access to great amounts of money. One with Republican ties and one with Dem ties would be great. And they would have to run to the center. Republicans have moved very right, and dems have moved left. I can't think of two candidates to fit the bill though. Maybe Colin Powell as the "republican".

[KRC]

Since I am a former Presidential Candidate and currently an activist within the Libertarian Party, I thought I would weigh in on this.

 

It can happen, but it will take several things:

 

1) A big name (celebrity, etc). There are some people within the Libertarian Party who could put up a good fight, but it is just a matter of convincing them to run.

 

2) "Fuse" party candidates (an R or D can also get on the ballot as a Libertarian/Green/etc). Currently in Pennsylvania, fusion is only allowed if a R or D wants to fuse with a third party. The reverse is not allowed. I wrote legislation to correct this problem and it is close to being introduced in the PA General Assembly.

 

3) The election laws need to change. Currently, they are skewed in favor of the R's and D's. To give you an example: In Pennsylvania, if an R or D were to run in 2006 they would only need a maximum of 2000 signatures on the nomination petition. The Libertarians need 68,000. Yes, you read that correctly. The Libertarian candidate needs 34 times the number of signatures as an R or D. Now, add the buffer factor for the inevitable challenge to each and every signature (ala Nader) and you need a minimum of 100,000 signatures just to get your name on the ballot.

 

There are several other PA election laws that have been deemed unconstitutional in federal court. This is where I have been the most active within the Libertarian Party. I have been fighting to get the election laws fixed. I wrote legislation to start working on these problems so that we can make the system more equitable. I am close to having sponsors in the PA General Assembly and things look favorable for getting my legislation passed and signed.

 

I have a second bill, which is close to being finished, dealing with write-in candidacies. In PA, a write-in candidate for President has a major hurdle to overcome. The voter needs to not only write-in the name of the Presidential Candidate, but the name of the Vice-Presidential candidate and the 21 Presidential electors into something the size of a postage stamp. My legislation will correct this problem by allowing the candidate to file a declaration of intent to run as a write-in candidate. The candidate will then file his/her name, the name of the vice-presidential candidate and the names of the 21 electors. The voter then just needs to write in the name of the presidential candidate and the vote will count for the vice-presidential candidate and the 21 presidential electors.

 

4) Third Party candidates need to take a different approach to campaigning. Right now, they focus on whining and complaining about problems, but not providing solutions (sounds like the Democrats of late). They need to focus on practical solutions to the problems. New blood is being infused into the PA Libertarian Party to address this and provide those solutions. I am one of the people on the state-level pushing this into the public eye. We also have other people working with some of the candidates to change their approach to campaigning. The problem is getting quality candidates. You have the radicals who run every year, but they are not helping the party.

 

 

 

 

In essence, before any third party can truly become viable, the system needs to change. I am taking it upon myself to change the system in Pennsylvania. Others like me have been working in other states to fix their election laws. Until this is accomplished, you will need a big name to run.

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

If he hadn't dropped out and then re-entered the race.....

 

You never know.

411743[/snapback]

 

 

IIRC, he was leading in California before he dropped out and had performed well in the debates.

 

He blew it by dropping out.

[sweet baboo]

turn Arnold into a Libertarian...the biggest libertarian celebrity i can think of is Penn Jillette and I doubt he can magic his way into a victory

[Reuben Gant]

turn Arnold into a Libertarian...the biggest libertarian celebrity i can think of is Penn Jillette and I doubt he can magic his way into a victory

412317[/snapback]

 

Arnold would be a tough one, first you would have to change the Constitution to allow naturalized citizens to be Prez.

[Chilly]

3) The election laws need to change. Currently, they are skewed in favor of the R's and D's. To give you an example: In Pennsylvania, if an R or D were to run in 2006 they would only need a maximum of 2000 signatures on the nomination petition. The Libertarians need 68,000. Yes, you read that correctly. The Libertarian candidate needs 34 times the number of signatures as an R or D. Now, add the buffer factor for the inevitable challenge to each and every signature (ala Nader) and you need a minimum of 100,000 signatures just to get your name on the ballot.

 

There are several other PA election laws that have been deemed unconstitutional in federal court. This is where I have been the most active within the Libertarian Party. I have been fighting to get the election laws fixed. I wrote legislation to start working on these problems so that we can make the system more equitable. I am close to having sponsors in the PA General Assembly and things look favorable for getting my legislation passed and signed.

 

I have a second bill, which is close to being finished, dealing with write-in candidacies. In PA, a write-in candidate for President has a major hurdle to overcome. The voter needs to not only write-in the name of the Presidential Candidate, but the name of the Vice-Presidential candidate and the 21 Presidential electors into something the size of a postage stamp. My legislation will correct this problem by allowing the candidate to file a declaration of intent to run as a write-in candidate. The candidate will then file his/her name, the name of the vice-presidential candidate and the names of the 21 electors. The voter then just needs to write in the name of the presidential candidate and the vote will count for the vice-presidential candidate and the 21 presidential electors.

 

 

In essence, before any third party can truly become viable, the system needs to change. I am taking it upon myself to change the system in Pennsylvania. Others like me have been working in other states to fix their election laws. Until this is accomplished, you will need a big name to run.

411933[/snapback]

 

 

Unfortunately, not even just changing those laws will allow a 3rd party to become a major player in American politics without another party dropping out of the picture.

 

It's one of the basic theories of political party systems - Duverger's Law. SMSP systems (Single Member Simple Plurality) like the US is usually a 2-party system. SMSP systems provide incentives for a two party system to form.

 

For the Libertarian party to succeed, they'd need to replace a weeker party after they became a major party over a long period of time. I would think that due to the relative strength of the Republican party within its own ranks, the easier target would be the Democratic party right now.

[blzrul]

My husband is a Libertarian, and where I live the party is effective, but unfortunately due to labeling etc. a lot of people in other areas think of the Libertarian party as a bunch of radical wingnut anarchists. That's not true of course, Libertarians are in actuality closer to what Republicans pretend to be but...brand image is everything. Otherwise people would actually pay attention to facts an records, and vote accordingly. But this is America and people are too lazy to do their civic duty and be informed....so, it would take nothing short of a miracle or a major jolt of some sort (say the Dem and Rep candidates caught having illicit sex with each other) to give the vote to a third party.

[Ghost of BiB]

My husband is a Libertarian, and where I live the party is effective, but unfortunately due to labeling etc. a lot of people in other areas think of the Libertarian party as a bunch of radical wingnut anarchists.  That's not true of course, Libertarians are in actuality closer to what Republicans pretend to be but...brand image is everything.  Otherwise people would actually pay attention to facts an records, and vote accordingly.  But this is America and people are too lazy to do their civic duty and be informed....so, it would take nothing short of a miracle or a major jolt of some sort (say the Dem and Rep candidates caught having illicit sex with each other) to give the vote to a third party.

412628[/snapback]

 

 

You're so sexy when you say all that.

[Terry Tate]

You're so sexy when you say all that.

412700[/snapback]

What would be really sexy is if she said she actually voted for libertarians.

[Mickey]

No, I disagree.  I agree with the republican philosophy (or at least their campaign philosophy).  Smaller Government, Lower Taxes, strong defense, less government involvement in our daily lives, etc. etc. 

 

However, they get in office and its more of the same old crap.  Its troublesome.  A 3rd party candidate (who stood for my values) would get my vote, if for no other reason but to send a message.  Its not that I have no political backbone, far from it....its just that neither side of the isle is doing what I want them to be doing as my elected representatives.

411776[/snapback]

I was addressing the question of whether or not a third party could win, not just run and get some votes here and there. You have to have enough votes to win and the people most upset with the two parties just don't have enough in common with eachother politically. I don't see a group of disaffected democrats getting along very well with a group of disaffected republicans. Heck, many of the disaffected are so because they feel their party isn't extreme enough. This was really the problem that Perot had. He had plenty of people who were upset with the status quo but all for different reasons.

 

How do you form a party with enough votes to win out of people who want more gun control and people who want less? Is there a middle on the issue, yes but not the same middle on abortion or the same middle as exists on taxes, etc, etc. It could happen I guess but I don't see it, especially as polarized as we are now.

[KRC]

turn Arnold into a Libertarian...the biggest libertarian celebrity i can think of is Penn Jillette and I doubt he can magic his way into a victory

412317[/snapback]

 

I disagree. The biggest is Clint Eastwood. Combine that with the fact that he has successfully won an election (Mayor of Carmel, CA), and he is your best shot.

[KRC]

My husband is a Libertarian, and where I live the party is effective, but unfortunately due to labeling etc. a lot of people in other areas think of the Libertarian party as a bunch of radical wingnut anarchists.  That's not true of course, Libertarians are in actuality closer to what Republicans pretend to be but...brand image is everything.  Otherwise people would actually pay attention to facts an records, and vote accordingly.  But this is America and people are too lazy to do their civic duty and be informed....so, it would take nothing short of a miracle or a major jolt of some sort (say the Dem and Rep candidates caught having illicit sex with each other) to give the vote to a third party.

412628[/snapback]

 

I thought you said at one point that your husband was a Republican? Did he switch to Libertarian?

[KRC]

Unfortunately, not even just changing those laws will allow a 3rd party to become a major player in American politics without another party dropping out of the picture.

 

It's one of the basic theories of political party systems - Duverger's Law.  SMSP systems (Single Member Simple Plurality) like the US is usually a 2-party system.  SMSP systems provide incentives for a two party system to form.

 

For the Libertarian party to succeed, they'd need to replace a weeker party after they became a major party over a long period of time.  I would think that due to the relative strength of the Republican party within its own ranks, the easier target would be the Democratic party right now.

412372[/snapback]

 

Changing these laws is just the first step. You cannot create a fair system quickly. The two-party system has been in power for too long. This is a long-term fight and you have to win small victories along the way. Combine this with effective campaigning, effective press releases on hot topics and providing reasonable (not radical) solutions to problems and you will slowly start winning over the electorate.

 

It will not happen overnight.

 

There is no question that the Democratic Party is the weaker party at this point. They are also not doing much to change that. They are just waiting for the Republican Party to implode and are not doing much else to win people over. They have failed to realize that people are tired of just opposing everything and providing no solutions.

 

As Debbie mentioned, there is still the stereotype to overcome with the Libertarians. The radicals are getting the airtime and the common-sense Libertarians receive no air time. Things are slowly changing but we are fighting perception.

[blzrul]

I thought you said at one point that your husband was a Republican? Did he switch to Libertarian?

412880[/snapback]

in TX he voted in the GOP primary because the Libertarians wield no power; but he always voted Libertarian in the election until the Bushistas took over and then, as he said, he'd hold his nose and vote for ANY Democrat over them.

[KRC]

in TX he voted in the GOP primary because the Libertarians wield no power; but he always voted Libertarian in the election until the Bushistas took over and then, as he said, he'd hold his nose and vote for ANY Democrat over them.

412967[/snapback]

 

Is he involved with the Libertarian Party at all?

[Albany,n.y.]

You guys are all missing it.  I don't think a third party could win no matter his/her cash. 

 

I think the only way to make it happen is to have a well liked sitting president switch to a 3rd party right before the election.  It would keep a lot of  his "original" party votes, plus some of the other party and the "middle of the road" folks would probably swing towards him.

411737[/snapback]

 

I think you're on the right track, but you have it a little backwards. I see the 3rd party as viable when the sitting president is very unpopular, yet because of his power as an incumbent has been able to secure his party's nomination. Couple that with the other party choosing a candidate who is considered too far right or left.

Then, the most likely 3rd party winner would be the candidate who lost his party's nomination to the sitting president, yet is considered middle of the road.

Another possibility would be if there was a viable candidate who launched a 3rd party run and a candidate from one the major parties was way ahead, his opponent in the other party was considered a nut by many (Think of Howard Dean getting the nomination & then doing the scream at his acceptance speech). The candidate who is way ahead suddenly dies. The 3rd party candidate becomes the favorite.

The major problem with most 3rd party runs are they either come from a fringe that is basically unelectable. Ross Perot may not have been a fringe candidate, but he had no experience holding public office. Buchanan & Nader were too far out there to be taken seriously, although they did get enough votes to affect elections.

[pope zimli]

Lets say that the two existing parties polarize even more, and the disconnect from the beltway and the united states (hell..the beltway and the world for that matter) continues. An outsider with money and a penchant for reform coupled with a respected government reformer in government could win. Maybe a Bill Gates (hence the money issue solved) and Colin Powell. Then you have the problem faced by all revolutionaries...reform and renewal. running toward the center and establishing a meaningful reform would probably establish the third party and be the death knell of the first two after a few years (patronage and influence dry up and the parties become more and more marginalized.) The net result would be the one party in power (the "third" and a large number of minor parties.)

[Chilly]

Changing these laws is just the first step. You cannot create a fair system quickly. The two-party system has been in power for too long. This is a long-term fight and you have to win small victories along the way. Combine this with effective campaigning, effective press releases on hot topics and providing reasonable (not radical) solutions to problems and you will slowly start winning over the electorate.

 

It will not happen overnight.

 

There is no question that the Democratic Party is the weaker party at this point. They are also not doing much to change that. They are just waiting for the Republican Party to implode and are not doing much else to win people over. They have failed to realize that people are tired of just opposing everything and providing no solutions.

 

As Debbie mentioned, there is still the stereotype to overcome with the Libertarians. The radicals are getting the airtime and the common-sense Libertarians receive no air time. Things are slowly changing but we are fighting perception.

412881[/snapback]

 

And even if you DO win over the electorate, it will require one party to drop from power. You aren't going to create a permanent non two party system in America, without a fundamental change in the system's base of Single Member Simple Plurality, which isn't going to happen.

 

The libertarian's best shot is to overtake and force out of power either the Democrats or Republicans. Changing campaigning laws may allow them to overtake one of the big parties easier, but its not gonna kill the 2 party system - its just gonna make the Libertarians one party and either the Republicans or Democrats the other party.

[Chilly]

Lets say that the two existing parties polarize even more, and the disconnect from the beltway and the united states (hell..the beltway and the world for that matter) continues.  An outsider with money and a penchant for reform coupled with a respected government reformer in government could win.  Maybe a Bill Gates (hence the money issue solved) and Colin Powell.  Then you have the problem faced by all revolutionaries...reform and renewal.  running toward the center and establishing a meaningful reform would probably establish the third party and be the death knell of the first two after a few years (patronage and influence dry up and the parties become more and more marginalized.)  The net result would be the one party in power (the "third" and a large number of minor parties.)

413576[/snapback]

 

In this scenario you'd likely to have a coalition of "opposition parties" to that party form, ultimately leading to one major party in opposition of that party, thus another 2 party system.