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.
If an independent was able to get enough electors pledged to him in all the states, he would qualify, so theoretically, it's possible an independent could win.
But a fully independent President would have to build a very strong bi-partisan cabinet and an equally strong caucus in both Houses to accomplish anything in his term.
In essence, such a President would need to build his own 3rd party made up from members of both the others to be able to govern.
That's a mighty steep hill to climb, especially since he would need a VP who as effective as he is.
There would be massive obstruction and opposition to such a President from both parties, and both the established parties have all the people and finances they need to oppose him.
These are some of the reasons why independent candidates align with the 2 major parties. It's a matter of having enough political resources needed to pull off a national campaign.
Our Constitution is almost totally designed to work with 2 political parties. While it allows for the formation of other parties, an independent or a 3rd party President still has to work under the Constitutional rules, so he would have to govern by shoe-horning a way to make 3 parties fit into a 2-party system.
The vast majority of people in this country don't even know who their own governors are, let alone ANYONE that represents them in their state house and senate. Everyone thinks their world turns by the decisions made in the White House.
I remember being excited to transfer from Parochial to Public High School, because they had a course on STATE HISTORY. But that year, they canceled the course. Bwaaaaaah.
If an independent was able to get enough electors pledged to him in all the states, he would qualify, so theoretically, it's possible an independent could win.
But a fully independent President would have to build a very strong bi-partisan cabinet and an equally strong caucus in both Houses to accomplish anything in his term.
In essence, such a President would need to build his own 3rd party made up from members of both the others to be able to govern.
That's a mighty steep hill to climb, especially since he would need a VP who as effective as he is.
There would be massive obstruction and opposition to such a President from both parties, and both the established parties have all the people and finances they need to oppose him.
These are some of the reasons why independent candidates align with the 2 major parties. It's a matter of having enough political resources needed to pull off a national campaign.
Our Constitution is almost totally designed to work with 2 political parties. While it allows for the formation of other parties, an independent or a 3rd party President still has to work under the Constitutional rules, so he would have to govern by shoe-horning a way to make 3 parties fit into a 2-party system.
WHOA! The official duty of the commander in chief is to EXECUTE THE LAWS ENACTED BY CONGRESS.
HE's not the "fearless" leader nor Prime Minister. He's the highest ranking public SERVANT.
Or at least that was the idea in the beginning.
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 05-01-2022 at 06:56 PM..
Reason: Please don't use the red font. This color is reserved for moderator actions. Thank you.
Our Constitution is almost totally designed to work with 2 political parties. While it allows for the formation of other parties, an independent or a 3rd party President still has to work under the Constitutional rules, so he would have to govern by shoe-horning a way to make 3 parties fit into a 2-party system.
"OUR constitution?"
Not likely.
The "People of the United States" in the Preamble, did not refer to the people of the United States of America.
---
"But, indeed, no private person has a right to complain, by suit in Court, on the ground of a breach of the Constitution. The Constitution, it is true, is a compact, but he is not a party to it. The States are the parties to it. And they may complain...."
- - -Padelford, Fay & Co. vs. Mayor and Alderman, City of Savannah, 14 Ga. 438, 520 (1854) Supreme Court of Georgia
---
"The Constitution was ordained and established by the people of the United States for themselves, for their own government and not for the government of the individual States."
- - -John Barron v. The Mayor and City Council of Baltimore, 7 Peters 204, (1822).
---
Remember, not all Americans could vote, and ratify that constitution. Those who could not vote, could not be presumed to give consent. Therefore, if we are the "private people" we're not parties to that compact, and if we are people of the individual States, we are not the "people of the United States" who are parties to that compact.
- - -
CITIZEN - ... Citizens are members of a political community who, in their associative capacity, have established or submitted themselves to the dominion of government for the promotion of the general welfare and the protection of their individual as well as collective rights.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Ed. p.244
"... the term 'citizen,' in the United States, is analogous to the term "subject" in the common law; the change of phrase has resulted from the change in government. ... he who before was a "subject of the King" is now a citizen of the State."
- - - State v. Manuel, 20 N.C. 144 (1838)
SUBJECT - One that owes allegiance to a sovereign and is governed by his laws.
. . . Men in free governments are subjects as well as citizens; as citizens they enjoy rights and franchises; as subjects they are bound to obey the laws. The term is little used, in this sense, in countries enjoying a republican form of government.
- - - Black's Law Dictionary, Sixth Edition, p. 1425
Under the republican form of government, no man can be governed by another without his consent.
"Citizens" established the [state] governments, instituted to secure rights of all people (sovereigns and subjects). They are subjects of their respective governments.
And the states formed a union, the United States of America, via the Articles (1777) and later, by the USCON (1787).
But all American governments were instituted to secure the endowed rights of the sovereign people (Declaration of Independence, 1776)
At the Revolution, the sovereignty devolved on the people and they are truly the sovereigns of the country.
Chisholm v. Georgia, 2 Dall. 440, 463 (1793)
Sovereigns and subjects are mutually exclusive.
P.S.- There is only one nation on earth with a republican form, where its people are sovereigns, with Creator endowed rights that governments were instituted to secure - not tax, regulate nor trespass. And millions of Americans have zero clue about their "consent" to surrender that birthright in order to migrate to the socialist democracy in power since 1933 ("The Emergency").
Last edited by Rachel NewYork; 05-01-2022 at 06:56 PM..
Reason: Please don't use the red font. This color is reserved for moderator actions. Thank you.
In my opinion it could never happen. The most successful 3rd party candidate in history was Teddy Roosevelt who ran as a Progressive in 1912 and won 27% of the vote. But TR was a special case. He was really a Republican who had already served (nearly) two terms as President and was seeking a third.
The most successful in modern times was H. Ross Perot who got 19% in 1992. He may have polled around 30% at some point before the election but in the end he really stood no chance.
The only reasonable scenario where a 3rd party candidate might win is if the D's nominate someone like Harris in 2024, the R's nominate someone like Bill Weld, and the Orange Man forms his own party. It's far fetched, I know, but that's the kind of scenario you would need.
I agree.
An Independent would have to draw votes from both parties equally, in high enough numbers they come close to the 2 party candidates.
In reality, the Republican Party is so divided the Independent would have to appeal to both sides equally, and that makes his job a 3-way split. A 4-way split if the Independent had competition from another independent or a 3rd party.
That's simply too much to ask for from one guy. Our Parties are too divided and too far away from each other. An Independent cannot appeal equally to both parties now. But he would sure get opposition from both.
Teddy Roosevelt got as far as he did because he was more popular than Trump and as divisive as Trump in a different time.
Back then, cities had 'political machines', powerful local organizations that controlled our national elections with a tighter grip on both parties than the Super PACs have on them today.
Roosevelt's popularity overcame most of those political machines, but he still lost the Republican nomination in the convention, so he formed the Bull Moose Party. And then, the machines over-ran him in the general election.
I'm sure a similar scenario would be the fate of an Independent. Today's Independent would have to woo 4-5 times more voters than Roosevelt won over. And then lost anyway.
Today, any candidate must have a party to support him. The costs are too high, there are too many voters to reach, and the candidate has to have enough party insiders helping him to win. That's the plain truth of the matter.
WHOA! The official duty of the commander in chief is to EXECUTE THE LAWS ENACTED BY CONGRESS.
WHOA! The official duty of the commander in chief goes far beyond that.
Yes, your comment is correct, BUT - The President has the power to either sign legislation into law, or veto bills enacted by Congress. The President also has the power to negotiate and sign treaties (which the Senate then ratifies). He is also the Commander-in-Chief of the armed forces, and appoints the heads of the federal agencies, and nominates/appoints judges, ambassadors, and other principal officers of the USA (subject to Senate confirmation).
You are correct of course, when you say that POTUS is the highest ranking public SERVANT.
First off, if an independent ran for the presidency, how would that work with the electoral college?
Second, and assuming the I won. Would that actually work? If he (she) doesn't belong to either of the other parties, can we actually get more done in this country? Or would literally nothing get done?
Thoughts?
Since Independents are a small fraction of Dems and Pubs, it is not mathematically possible to win the general election. There would have to be more Independent voters and the party would have to be more specific about what they stand for. Personally I would like to see a Centrist Party. One that has traditional American values, doesn't hate Christianity but, doesn't go all Taliban/Reich Wing about it--live and let live. Enforce immigration laws. Majority rules but, also have justice for all.
If there are enough dems and pubs that want to breakoff from their parties, it could happen. Personally I don't like the direction either party is going and hope some prominent politicians split, like Kennedy or Hutchinson.
In my opinion it could never happen. The most successful 3rd party candidate in history was Teddy Roosevelt who ran as a Progressive in 1912 and won 27% of the vote. But TR was a special case. He was really a Republican who had already served (nearly) two terms as President and was seeking a third.
The most successful in modern times was H. Ross Perot who got 19% in 1992. He may have polled around 30% at some point before the election but in the end he really stood no chance.
The only reasonable scenario where a 3rd party candidate might win is if the D's nominate someone like Harris in 2024, the R's nominate someone like Bill Weld, and the Orange Man forms his own party. It's far fetched, I know, but that's the kind of scenario you would need.
In terms of percentage of electoral votes, the most successful third party candidate was John Breckinridge who ran as a Southern Democrat in the election of 1860. In this election, four candidates received electoral votes. Breckinridge received 23.8% of the electoral votes.
Teddy Roosevelt was the second most successful third party candidate. He received 16.6% of the electoral votes.
George Wallace was the third most successful third party candidate in terms of electoral votes won. He carried five Southern states for a total of 46 electoral votes. This was 8.5% of the electoral votes.
The fourth most successful was Strom Thurmond in 1848 who carried four Southern states and 39 electoral votes, which was 7.3% of the EV.
Democrats have gone way too far to the left and Republicans way too far to the right. That leaves a lot of Dems and Repubs with no one to vote for who represents them.
For that reason, there SHOULD be a third party candidate but the way things are structured, it probably couldn't really happen. For one thing, it's all about money and a new centrist party couldn't get enough money to get on its feet, make the right connections, say the right things, get elected.
I think there are enough people in each party who are totally fed up and would vote for an Independent but the current parties are too far dug in and there is too much money involved, too much corruption, too much lobbying, too many politicians who "owe" other politicians, to make it possible to get out of the mire we are currently stuck in. If we could get rid of both political parties and just let the people vote, we'd get a centrist Independent. But that's not gonna happen.
I agree. I kind of wish those that formed the Lincoln project would take it a step further and simply form a 3rd party. They have (or had) the gravitas to do it. I think moderate republicans and democrats would be a powerful union.
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.
