Quote:
Originally Posted by jackwinkelman
Ross Perot lost because he quit the campaign with a big lead then joined back again. He might have won the popular vote if he stayed in but the problem is if you don't get to 270 electors congress decides the president.
|
Who knows? If Perot had a party behind him, I think it's possible he wouldn't have backed out at all. An argument could be made either way.
But one thing is for sure. Without a party, any independent must convince electors to abandon their own party to vote for him in the electoral college.
That makes things doubly hard, because electors are the most committed voters; they have to seek their own election within their party to join the college. So the electors are more dedicated to their party than the average voter.
And it is the electoral votes that decide every election. Except in the few winner-take-all states, every electoral voter must vote the way his party goes on the first electoral college ballot. If there is a tie in that ballot, only then are the electors released to vote for whomever they wish.
That's why forming a party that can appeal to a lot of voters is so important. The only way I can see to form a new party that can draw a big base is by making it a place for all the unhappy moderates in both the majors.
I don't see guns as being an issue that will block the formation of such a party or restricted abortion either. Most moderates, I think, want to see some reasonable restrictions on both, but don't want either banned or wide open.
What they do want is an end to the You Lose, I Win mentality that has infected both the majors, where winning has become more important than governing.
I also think moderates are all real tired of the Winner Takes All mentality as well, where winning means the winners get everything they want with no opposition at all, even toward the most extreme things that are wanted.