Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
I think more and more people are understanding that both parties are only good at wasting money on wars and stupid programs, spying on us, and destroying our constitution. I think in states Like Montana, Wyoming, Idaho, Utah and maybe even Oregon, Washington, and Colorado could go for a different candidate.
way to soon for this to happen: I imagine the OP is thinking libertarian party, but they have to start at the bottom. Instead of putting up candidates for President, give it up, concentrate on local candidates, push for state reps and in the next 20 years there may be one that could be a viable Pres. candidate.
In 20 years there could be a viable candidate? Like a two-term governor? Gary Johnson fit that description, but he was dismissed by the media as a fringe candidate despite having more executive experience than anyone in the general election . Despite all that, Gary Johnson did get a record vote total, so there is a success that can be built on in 2016. The Libertarian party is growing, and if they play their cards right (as they have been) they will continue to grow.
In several other countries with plurality voting systems similar to our own formerly minor parties have experienced success in recent years. The typical pattern is for a minor party to experience a "breakout" on the back of popular sentiment, in which they will capture 15-30% of the national vote and greatly increase their seats, graduating to major party status, even without displacing one of the previous major parties. It's likely that the same pattern would repeat here in the United States, where the Libertarian or Green parties could suddenly explode in popularity.
The strategy of targeting a few states is a sound one, and I believe the third party should target safe states with small populations where they already perform well. For the LP that would be Wyoming and Montana, and for the Greens that would be Maine and Oregon. The smaller population makes grassroots organizing easier and the lack of two-party competition means it's easier to get the third party's message out. Safe states also come with the added bonus of lessening the lesser-evil factor, since the "other guy" doesn't have much of a chance to start with.
I think the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties should keep the presidential campaign, since it acts like a lightning rod for potential voters and demonstrates that they're serious about running a nationwide party, which is what they want to be. To turn a minor party into a major party all aspects of the party structure must be built up, and you need to win races in state houses, Governorships, House seats, and Senate seats. As for a third party winning states in 2016, if a candidate got media coverage and had a message people wanted to vote for (enough to overcome the cancer of lesser-evilism), then that candidate will win regardless of what party he's in. If a third-party candidate got 20-30% of the national vote and was particularly strong in a region like New England or the West, then you'd definitely see states flip. Ross Perot was 8 points away from flipping Maine with a relatively dispersed 19% of the national vote.
Some seem to be under the impression that third party candidates are forever condemned to low vote totals, but even today that isn't the case. In 2012 there were six Senate and Gubernatorial races in which a third-party candidate got over 5% of the vote. In 2010, when more Governorships were available, there were nine such races. In Maine in 2010 not one but two third-party candidates crossed the 5% mark, and one came within 2 points of winning. In 2012, third parties not only got high vote totals in many states, but two Senate seats were won by third-party candidates. Angus King took Maine by 22 points, and Bernie Sanders won 71% of the vote in Vermont. A third-party win may not be common, but when I hear people claim that third parties cannot win or even be players in any significant race I have to laugh at the ignorance.
In 20 years there could be a viable candidate? Like a two-term governor? Gary Johnson fit that description, but he was dismissed by the media as a fringe candidate despite having more executive experience than anyone in the general election . Despite all that, Gary Johnson did get a record vote total, so there is a success that can be built on in 2016. The Libertarian party is growing, and if they play their cards right (as they have been) they will continue to grow.
In several other countries with plurality voting systems similar to our own formerly minor parties have experienced success in recent years. The typical pattern is for a minor party to experience a "breakout" on the back of popular sentiment, in which they will capture 15-30% of the national vote and greatly increase their seats, graduating to major party status, even without displacing one of the previous major parties. It's likely that the same pattern would repeat here in the United States, where the Libertarian or Green parties could suddenly explode in popularity.
The strategy of targeting a few states is a sound one, and I believe the third party should target safe states with small populations where they already perform well. For the LP that would be Wyoming and Montana, and for the Greens that would be Maine and Oregon. The smaller population makes grassroots organizing easier and the lack of two-party competition means it's easier to get the third party's message out. Safe states also come with the added bonus of lessening the lesser-evil factor, since the "other guy" doesn't have much of a chance to start with.
I think the Libertarian, Green, and Constitution parties should keep the presidential campaign, since it acts like a lightning rod for potential voters and demonstrates that they're serious about running a nationwide party, which is what they want to be. To turn a minor party into a major party all aspects of the party structure must be built up, and you need to win races in state houses, Governorships, House seats, and Senate seats. As for a third party winning states in 2016, if a candidate got media coverage and had a message people wanted to vote for (enough to overcome the cancer of lesser-evilism), then that candidate will win regardless of what party he's in. If a third-party candidate got 20-30% of the national vote and was particularly strong in a region like New England or the West, then you'd definitely see states flip. Ross Perot was 8 points away from flipping Maine with a relatively dispersed 19% of the national vote.
Some seem to be under the impression that third party candidates are forever condemned to low vote totals, but even today that isn't the case. In 2012 there were six Senate and Gubernatorial races in which a third-party candidate got over 5% of the vote. In 2010, when more Governorships were available, there were nine such races. In Maine in 2010 not one but two third-party candidates crossed the 5% mark, and one came within 2 points of winning. In 2012, third parties not only got high vote totals in many states, but two Senate seats were won by third-party candidates. Angus King took Maine by 22 points, and Bernie Sanders won 71% of the vote in Vermont. A third-party win may not be common, but when I hear people claim that third parties cannot win or even be players in any significant race I have to laugh at the ignorance.
I lived in NM when he was governor and he was popular but it isn't the medias fault he couldn't make it. Frist he ran as Republican and got nowhere. He just doesn't have what it takes to run the country. Then he tried as a Libertarian and he couldn't get any support from the media then at all. Perot did got plenty of media coverage and had name recognition; the same with Anderson in 1980, but it just isn't going to happen. I do think, if a strong Libertarian started at the congressional level he/she could move on up, but it takes someone who is strong and switching parties during the election year does nothing but hurt a candidate. No, right now, we are nowhere near ready for a viable 3rd party, but someday probably. Oh and as for Johnson getting a new high number of votes for a Libertarian, he still had not much of a % period. No, he didn't really make a good showing.
No. Our system is rigged in favor of 2 parties by having our idiotic Electoral College along with lack of runoff or preference voting. Shame our founding fathers were shortsighted boobs in putting together our government.
No. Our system is rigged in favor of 2 parties by having our idiotic Electoral College along with lack of runoff or preference voting. Shame our founding fathers were shortsighted boobs in putting together our government.
don't take it out of our wonderful fore fathers or anyone else. Who could have ever imagined the country as it is today. 50 years ago we couldn't to be truthful. And remember amendments are exactly that: they are made to adjust the constitution as time goes by.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
. Despite all that, Gary Johnson did get a record vote total, so there is a success that can be built on in 2016. The Libertarian party is growing, and if they play their cards right (as they have been) they will continue to grow.
