Could an Independent President actually happen? Would it work? (FBI, highway, Clinton)
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.
The issue has nothing to do with Congress or a Constitutional Amendment. The issue is 100% in the hands of state legislatures.
What specifically are you saying state legislatures CANNOT do?
If the residents of a state vote for President "A," but the state electors instead decide to vote for President "B," ... going against their majority, this would go against prior decisions of the court.
Quote:
Originally Posted by djmilf
No, the US Constitution doesn't require a popular vote for the selection of presidential electors.
No, you're misunderstanding what I'm saying. The states can pick and chose whomever they want as their electors. But the "president" is elected by the popular vote in the state, which the electors then vote for.
The law is rather vague, and while there's no specific Federal law that requires electors to vote one way or another, the U.S. Supreme Court has previously upheld the ruling that electors cannot simply vote however they want.
In effect, this would never work. The only way to change the law so that election of the president is held by "popular vote" at the national level, would require a constitutional convention, or an amendment to the constitution through the normal process... which requires 3/4ths majority vote.
I would expect as well, after this next mid-term election... with polling the way it is, we'll likely see whatever vestiges of these laws getting scrapped except for places like NY and California. Realize though, all of this is extremely unlike it ever gets to this point.
Getting an independent winning as president is not that hard... it doesn't require any of the silly stuff being mentioned. It only requires someone to get the most electoral votes. Someone with a lot of money can come in and win. Jeff Bezos could likely win if he decided to run for one of the other parties. Most people who want to run as President, generally will run under the Democrat or Republican party because it comes with funding / financing.
Trump likely would have won as an independent had he run as one in 2016.
I did a little research to refresh my memory after KellyXY's post...
The 20th Amendment has a section that, in the case of an inability to to choose the POTUS and VPOTUS by Congress, then Congress may by law provide for a temporary resolution to the impasse, and declare as temporary acting POTUS anyone they so choose, who shall serve in that capacity until the contingent election impasse is resolved for either POTUS or VPOTUS.
It's really, really threading the needle, but it is a path toward getting an independent to become the acting POTUS.
Getting an independent winning as president is not that hard... it doesn't require any of the silly stuff being mentioned. It only requires someone to get the most electoral votes. Someone with a lot of money can come in and win. Jeff Bezos could likely win if he decided to run for one of the other parties. Most people who want to run as President, generally will run under the Democrat or Republican party because it comes with funding / financing.
Trump likely would have won as an independent had he run as one in 2016.
No, it's not 'the most electoral votes', it's a majority of electoral votes. I refer to the US Presidential Election of 1824, when Andrew Jackson received the most electoral votes, but lacked a majority of votes. The election was tossed to the US House, which picked the person with the second most electoral votes, John Quincy Adams, as POTUS.
If Donald Trump had run as an independent in 2016, he would have had to gain 270+ electoral votes in order to avoid the contingent election. I don't believe that Mr. Trump would have been successful in a 2016 contingent election in the House.
An independent president would be incredibly ineffective beyond wielding veto power.
Presidents are figureheads, salesmen, and cheerleaders for the gigantic policy apparatuses they are allied with via the party label. The system is designed to prevent one person having enough power to move the needle on his own. You need armies of political operators, elected and otherwise, to get stuff done.
An independent president would be incredibly ineffective beyond wielding veto power.
Presidents are figureheads, salesmen, and cheerleaders for the gigantic policy apparatuses they are allied with via the party label. The system is designed to prevent one person having enough power to move the needle on his own. You need armies of political operators, elected and otherwise, to get stuff done.
I suspect for the first term or so, probably true. But depending on how successfully they governed, they might increase support and thus gain prominence as a party, and begin picking up a few house seats. But I suspect without a "sea change" or some type of "black swan" event to dissuade a large group of people from one party to another, or the significant disenfranchisement to both parties, then either Dem / Rep will likely continue to hold the house and/or senate. We do have a few senators... two I think that are "Independent." You've got Bernie Sanders who caucuses with the Democrats for mostly everything...
Less I think in the House, I can't remember... I seem to remember there were a lot more at one point.
Many years ago, we had one guy... can barely remember his name. He owned a software company that build software for the VA. He ran during the election between Clinton and Bush Sr. I can't remember his name, and too lazy to look it up. But there was a strong chance of him winning. He was polling around 30%... which of course means the others were too.
I read this and thought, "Seriously? He can't remember his NAME?" But then I realize that I am old, and this was 30 years ago. Ross Perot. I voted for him.
His company was Electronic Data Systems, which was used for Medicare and other governmental programs. An interesting story that many seem to have missed is that two EDP employees in Iran were arrested and imprisoned at the time of the 1979 Revolution. Perot organized and paid for a rescue mission to break them out of prison bring them back to the United States. The story is told in the book On Wings of Eagles by Ken Follett, and it's a fascinating true tale. Ross Perot died in 2019.
Back to the topic, it appears that no one here has watched the series Designated Survivor, in which the President, Vice President, and all of Congress except for two members are killed when the Capitol is destroyed in a terrorist attack. The Designated Survivor then takes over the Oval Office (played by Kiefer Sutherland, a Canadian playing an American President). He is an Independent who was the head of HUD with no political experience, and much of the show is him caught between the machinations of the two major political parties.
Spoiler
At the end of the three seasons, he is re-elected, but he realizes he has become what he always fought against.
I read this and thought, "Seriously? He can't remember his NAME?" But then I realize that I am old, and this was 30 years ago. Ross Perot. I voted for him.
YES! Thank you... I couldn't remember his name and didn't feel like looking it up. I remember he was a really nice guy, and very intelligent... but he "failed" in his run because half-way through I think he gave up. He was doing exceptionally well, but decided to pull out of the race, only to then get back into the race. He still had a significant number of votes, but ultimately it mostly pulled from Bush, which ushered in Bill Clinton.
I voted for Bill Clinton in 1996 (during reelection). I'd just turned 18, and it was the first president i was able to vote for. I'd be lying if I said I really knew what I was voting for, I just did so because our teachers told us to vote for him if we were old enough to do so. At that time, his views and my views were mostly in-sync though... at least what they are today. I think a lot has changed, and I've come to very much dislike George H.W. Bush senior. I don't want to make claims I'm unsure about, but he seemed to be very establishment, and from what I later learned, was fiercely opposed to Ronald Reagan, who I've always revered. Reagan only picked him because he wanted to "unite the party" as they say. Things have gotten really crazy, there's literally no one on the left today that I could vote for... the things they advocate for are just so far detached from what I consider to be normal... much of which I believe is predicated on maligned influence campaigns from foreign governments. The Democrats believe they are supporting the people, but the "people" they listen to are mostly fake, or an extreme minority voice. The polls pretty much suggest this.
We could definitely use someone like Ross Perot right now... definitely not a Nader, but Ross Perot, yes.
If the residents of a state vote for President "A," but the state electors instead decide to vote for President "B," ... going against their majority, this would go against prior decisions of the court.
Sure! I don't believe anyone here has claimed it wouldn't. But that doesn't answer the question of what state legislators cannot do.
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.
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.
Ross Perot. I voted for him. 