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.
First off, if an independent ran for the presidency, how would that work with the electoral college?
It has nothing to do with the Electoral College. The EC neither helps nor hurts Independent Candidates.
Quote:
Originally Posted by riffwraith
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?
I think we've already seen this happen a few years ago. That Independent candidate would get pulled into one of the two major political parties and run as their candidate. The obstacle that blocks 3rd party candidates is money and how the two main parties have an overwhelming built-in advantage that prevents any new organization from gaining traction. Back in '92 absolutely no-one* believed Ross Perot had any prospect of winning. Votes for him were strictly protest votes. *No-one with an ounce of common sense and experience.
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.
Do you remember how that went down? I seem to recall that he pulled out half way through the race, and as a result, a lot of people lost interest in him. He eventually got back into the race, but it was too late.
Do you not think that had he stayed in there, he would have had a significant chance?
I'm a huge fan of Trump no lie... but I really do think that during this next election would likely be the most opportune time for a third-party candidate. Someone like Mark Cuban who could finance his own campaign. Not particularly fond of him one way or another, just using him as an example.
Do you remember how that went down? I seem to recall that he pulled out half way through the race, and as a result, a lot of people lost interest in him. He eventually got back into the race, but it was too late.
Do you not think that had he stayed in there, he would have had a significant chance?
I recall that, now that you mention it. I don't really remember the details of why he got out. Perot got some bad press after claiming Bush 41 sent CIA or FBI agents to spy on his daughter's wedding. Made him seem like a nut. And I remember Admiral Stockdale, a former Hanoi Hilton POW and true American hero, turned in a singularly bad performance at the VP debate and became the butt of jokes until Dennis Miller set the record straight on Weekend Update.
You'll have to convince me Perot had a good chance of winning 270 electoral votes (or even 27) in 1992.
Quote:
I'm a huge fan of Trump no lie... but I really do think that during this next election would likely be the most opportune time for a third-party candidate. Someone like Mark Cuban who could finance his own campaign. Not particularly fond of him one way or another, just using him as an example.
Mark Cuban, Mike Bloomberg, Howard Schulz, Ross Perot. Same thing. Schulz was talked about for 2016 and 2020 but decided against running. Bloomberg tried it and was only able to buy delegates from Guam. You have to have a message that nobody else has. You also have to really, really want it, and you almost have to thrive on the negative energy that's thrown at you (thinking of the Orange Man).
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.
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.
What he said.
You can make the argument that Trump was an independent candidate.
And that was one of Trump's problems. He was NOT a Republican establishment candidate and was opposed by both parties. As a result he had a hard time putting together a functioning government.
His management style and temperament didn't help matters.
But his policies were pretty successful, but he never got credit for them.
It is worth reading Jesse Ventura's book on being Governor of Minnesota as an Independent. Makes you hate political parties.
Political parties are expensive as extra layers of bureaucracy. The nation may become too poor to afford them. It may be gone and replaced by a bunch of small new nations when parties finally disappear.
The rap against third/fourth/fith.... parties in the US, is that they increase the likelihood of an EU coalition-style government, which is believed less stable than current US conditions, especially in times of crisis, when decisive action may be required.
Since it's never been tried, it's only a theory.
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 think you are thinking of H. Ross Perot. In 1992 he came in 3rd in all 50 states but in 2 of them, Maine and Utah he just missed being in second place and overall got just under 20% of the popular vote.
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?
I have wondered this as well. We need someone who can work with both parties. For either party to think it has to all be one-sided or it's my way or the highway attitude, nothing is ever going to get done and resentment builds up. There needs to be balance.
The rap against third/fourth/fith.... parties in the US, is that they increase the likelihood of an EU coalition-style government, which is believed less stable than current US conditions, especially in times of crisis, when decisive action may be required.
Since it's never been tried, it's only a theory.
That's pretty much my thought on this as well. I think it becomes a much bigger problem to get anything done... though, maybe that's not a problem?
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.
