Will a 3rd party candidate ever be elected President?

[Rocket Scientist]

I don't know how old you are, fam. half the people on this forum are over 50.

I'm 30.....half over 50 who taught yall how to log on?

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

People complain about Dems and Republicans yet no one supports or has taken 3rd party seriously in presidential elections why is this?

It won't work because the US isn't a parliamentary system.

The first-past-the-post system leads to two parties over time.

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

We really have a one-party system thats bought by corporations and lobby groups. Democrat/Republican is really interchangeable. The last viable 3rd party candidate was Ralph Nadar and that was 10-15 years ago. I actually agree with a lot of 3rd party platforms to a degree but they don't have the grass roots, money, or connections to make any real changes. The best thing they can do is heavily influence opinion and cause the public to force their Dem/Rep to add that topic into their platform.

People complain about Dems and Republicans yet no one supports or has taken 3rd party seriously in presidential elections why is this?

they'll have a lot of power and support from all of the third party senators and congressmen...

this isn't even it.

Its that first past the post voting always leads to two party system:

 

[Rocket Scientist]

It won't work because the US isn't a parliamentary system.

The first-past-the-post system leads to two parties over time.

never thought of it like that

 

[☑︎#VoteDemocrat]

never thought of it like that

The only way to seriously talk about 3rd party candidates is to change the entire way you elect people...Alternative voting



or maybe MMP

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

We really have a one-party system thats bought by corporations and lobby groups. Democrat/Republican is really interchangeable. The last viable 3rd party candidate was Ralph Nadar and that was 10-15 years ago. I actually agree with a lot of 3rd party platforms to a degree but they don't have the grass roots, money, or connections to make any real changes. The best thing they can do is heavily influence opinion and cause the public to force their Dem/Rep to add that topic into their platform.

Perot > Nader "At one point in June, Perot led the polls with 39% (versus 31% for Bush and 25% for Clinton)." "A Gallup poll showed Perot with a slim lead, but on July 19 he suspended his campaign, accusing Republican operatives of threatening to sabotage his daughter's wedding. (Them Neo-Cons) He was accused by Newsweek of being a "quitter" in a well-publicized cover-page article (Them Libs ). After resuming his campaign on October 1, Perot was dogged by the "quitter" moniker and other allegations concerning his character. On Election Day many voters were confused as to whether Perot was actually still a candidate."

Ended up with 19% in the '92 election. Perot drew pretty much equally from both parties too and all states, whereas Nader basically just drew some disenchanted Dems and Independents.

In 2nd grade, we had a mock presidential vote (96 perot/dole/clinton)...i was and went around campaigning for Perot by telling people if they didnt really care just vote for Perot. A young VMR liked his charts and knew no one really gave a fukk and wanted to mess with the teachers...Perot ended up winning the mock vote...the teachers were like

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

But to answer the question...yes. They will at some point. Ever is a mighty long time. One would think that at some point moderate voters and elected officials will become incredibly tired as each party strays to the end of each side of the spectrum while less gets accomplished and more feel that theyre not being represented at all. A legitimate third party could solve a lot of the country's political problems. It will take a LOT of money and very shrewd maneuvering to siphon off lobbyist groups...and most importantly they need to somehow get the media and states to treat 3rd party candidates as respectable and not wacko outsiders with no identity. 60% of the people in a state could like a 3rd party candidate the most but if its constantly said that that candidate has no chance to win then those voters are either going to stay home or vote for the lesser of two evils so they dont "throw away their vote". A lot of states have bullshyt laws for ballot candidacy and oftentimes won't even allow them to be in major debates too.

Edit to add:

Between 1992 and 1996, the Commission on Presidential Debates changed its rules regarding how candidates could qualify to participate in the presidential debates. As Perot had previously done very well in debates, it was a decisive blow to the campaign when the Commission ruled that he could not participate on the basis of somewhat vague criteria — such as that a candidate was required to have already been endorsed by "a substantial number of major news organizations", with "substantial" being a number to be decided by the Commission on a case-by-case basis. Perot could not have qualified for the debates in 1992 under these rules, and was able to show that various famous US presidents would likewise have been excluded from modern debate by the Commission on Presidential Debates.

Despite legal action by the Perot team, and an 80% majority of Americans supporting his participation in the debates, the Commission refused to budge and Perot was reduced to making his points heard via a series of half-hour "commercials". In the end, Perot and Choate won 8% of the vote

If a third party candidate is ever to have the chance..that third party needs to think incredibly long term and not shoot for the moon immediately if they don't have exorbitant resources for it. They have to slowly and consistently build and solidify their infrastructure, stay newsworthy and be selective with who they have as spokespeople, work the young people to ensure credibility for years, make as few enemies as possible by seeming as middle as possible and eventually just wait for the R's and D's to self destruct.

Ill be interested in seeing if Bernie Sanders decides to give it a go and whether or not he runs as a D or stays Independent. He's a legitimate good guy and Im rooting for him. I may even vote for him if he runs just to show viability to a 3rd party or Independent and to show frustration with the other 2 parties.

Im not sure how many of you are familiar with Jesse Ventura's governorship...but when he won, everyone was legitimately shocked. Apparently the FBI and the CIA made him get in a room with them for interrogation after because they wanted to know how he won.

 

[NkrumahWasRight Is Wrong]

Just wanted to throw 2 more quick notes:

1. @ this poll closing in 2018

2. It'd be gully as fukk if a candidate nominated by a major party got rogue last second and had a split ticket (R/D or D/R or Either one and a 3rd)..won the presidency then ran re-election campaign under a new coalition type party. They'd have to basically be willing to get assassinated but

 

[mc_brew]

one problem third parties have is they always want to go for the very top spot first.... who would a libertarian or green party candidate caucus with? just about the entire senate and house are either (R) or (D).... not to mention the same is true for almost all governorships and state legislatures... if i was a third party, i'd start at the state level... take over a few legislatures and a few governorships... get a few senators and congressmen elected... now that there is someone to caucus with, then go for the presidential spot... this can't happen overnight, but some third party out of the blue candidate getting elected president probably won't happen at all... and even if it did....

i used to laugh hard at paulites... do they not realize that if ron paul got elected president NONE of his agenda would passed the house or senate?.... start small folks....

 

[Rocket Scientist]

at 2018

 

[Domingo Halliburton]

@C.Holla I think the only way we see a 3rd party candidate is if someone from Silicon Valley says fukk the system. They have been "making the rules" in SF and the valley for a long time now. They have only gotten more wealthy and attained more connections as technology advances. IMO they would be the only ones capable of utilizing technology in such a way that they can neutralize the traditional two-party system. Kind of like Bloomberg in NY but as an independent.

so we're talking "atlas shrugged" here?

 

[Self_Born7]

We really have a one-party system thats bought by corporations and lobby groups. Democrat/Republican is really interchangeable. The last viable 3rd party candidate was Ralph Nadar and that was 10-15 years ago. I actually agree with a lot of 3rd party platforms to a degree but they don't have the grass roots, money, or connections to make any real changes. The best thing they can do is heavily influence opinion and cause the public to force their Dem/Rep to add that topic into their platform.

and thats who these politicians answer to, corporations and lobby groups. in 2008 Ron Paul was the best candidate, well the one who actually caught my ear. But I know its not up to voters. the puppet, I mean president, is hand selected by the Rockefellers and heavily financed by wall st and mainly the Koch brothers.

 

[AB Ziggy]

@C.Holla I think the only way we see a 3rd party candidate is if someone from Silicon Valley says fukk the system. They have been "making the rules" in SF and the valley for a long time now. They have only gotten more wealthy and attained more connections as technology advances. IMO they would be the only ones capable of utilizing technology in such a way that they can neutralize the traditional two-party system. Kind of like Bloomberg in NY but as an independent.

A nikka can't wait for the day when a Google representative becomes President brehs.

 

[Truth200]

We really have a one-party system thats bought by corporations and lobby groups. Democrat/Republican is really interchangeable. The last viable 3rd party candidate was Ralph Nadar and that was 10-15 years ago. I actually agree with a lot of 3rd party platforms to a degree but they don't have the grass roots, money, or connections to make any real changes. The best thing they can do is heavily influence opinion and cause the public to force their Dem/Rep to add that topic into their platform.

I respect your honesty here.

 

[J-Fire]

as long as you have the money.
plus you can build followers through social media.....even obama bought followers to get more people to follow him.

And i expect more candidates to run like the crazy election in cali that got the terminator in charge in the future.