Topic: Is a Third Party Politically Possible?

[jpatrickham]

Filed under 2012 Election

 
"Trying to get elected as a third party candidate in America is extremely difficult if not impossible since the electing process is not by majority vote. Ballot access is also an obstacle since third parties have to meet additional criteria not required of Republicans and Democrats.

Third-party advocates are determined to maintain that they are making a difference. At best, they are not voting. Their third-party candidates don’t even register in the polls. Not a single state will be won. Not a single electoral vote will be won. John Anderson had more visibility in 1980 than any third-party candidate has today. After being beaten by Ronald Reagan in the primaries, Anderson launched his “Unity Party” campaign. See if the following sounds familiar:

Anderson felt that neither party, nor its candidates, represented American ideals: the Republicans were too socially conservative and intolerant, he said, and the Democrats’ tax-and-spend, social welfare agenda seemed to ignore economic realities. The ongoing oil crisis, which had manifested itself in terms of long gas lines and rampant inflation, was a serious problem, and Carter’s only response was to blame the public’s “crisis of confidence.” And Anderson feared that Reagan’s hawkish defense attitudes and social conservatism were bad for America.

While Anderson received nearly six million votes, he did not win a single electoral vote.

In 1992, Ross Perot ran on the Reform Party platform. He received nearly 20 percent of the popular vote (about 19 million votes), but like Anderson, did not garner a single electoral vote.

Some will point to Theodore Roosevelt’s third-party candidacy in 1912. He received four million votes in the popular election and 88 electoral votes. What is not often mentioned is that Roosevelt had been president from 1901 to 1909. His success as a third-party candidate was made possible by his previous two terms as president and his many other popular accomplishments. But even with all his notoriety, he could not win a third term as a third-party candidate."

Read more: Is a Third Party Politically Possible? | Godfather Politics http://godfatherpolitics.com/1785/is-a-third-party-politically-possible/#ixzz1cNnCwvsh

If a Romney wins in 2012 and steers the Country to the Center, I could envision a Sarah Palin mounting a charge from the Conservative Movement. The Republican Party is by no means, out of the woods. They screwed up The Reagan Revolution.

[Libertas]

If Romney is the nominee I'll bet Obama gets reelected!

Let's hope people are not truly stupid enough to make us prove that prediction correct.

My biggest fear is Romney gets the nomination and Palin endorses him...our prospects for a peaceful prosperous future will evaporate in an instant!

[AmericanPatriot]

Palin will support the eventual Republican nominee.
She is a strong party loyalist

[BMG]

http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/politics/2011/10/libertarian-party-tells-ron-paul-to-come-on-over/

This would, of course, guarantee that the democrats win in 2012.

If Paul does this and Cain is in the Republican camp - I'll vote for Cain in a heartbeat and not even think twice about Paul. The only way I vote for Paul in this instance is if Romney gets the nomination...and then, I will vote for Paul ONLY because Romney is a white Obama and Obama is a Marxist piece of crap. At least Paul is only an isolationist which is marginally better than Obama's Marxism and Romney's soft Marxism. /shrug

[Pandora]

Oh Good Grief!  Just kill me now!

[Libertas]

Libertarian Party wants Paul?

Well, duh!  What kind of a headlinen is that?!

This just in!  The sky is blue!  See the shocking details at 11!

Nothing of substance here, more of an attempt by meddlesome PaulBots to push their favorite cult of personality into the news at a time the surging Cain is experiencing coordinated attacks!

 

[BMG]

I'm leaning toward your way of thinking on this Libertas - but still, there is that nagging story from a couple days ago that had Paul dodging the question of whether he'd run as a third party candidate or not. So that has me thinking there's a not-insignificant chance that he's planing to do just that.  I'll see if I can find it...the story that is.

EDIT:

Here it is:

http://blogs.wsj.com/washwire/2011/10/30/paul-tamps-down-third-party-talk/

During a Fox News appearance last week, Mr. Paul declined to make a firm pledge that he wouldn’t run on a third-party ticket.  With a laugh, he offered this instead during the Fox interview:  “I pledge that I have no intention of doing it.”

[Libertas]

Yeah, I read that as "I am not going to declare I will do that, but if they draft me I would consider it".

It's a means of keeping his options open, which even if he intends to not run as a third candidate he can exploit for his own purposes while remianing in the GOP field.

I give Paul credit when it is due and I give him a lot of grief which he regularly earns...but one would have to measure his distaste of Obama against whomever the GOP nominee is to be able to make an educated guess as to his future plans.

[BMG]

http://www.infowars.com/ventura-decries-fascist-america-after-judge-tosses-tsa-case/

During his interview on the Alex Jones Show, Ventura put out a ‘come and get me’ plea to the Libertarian Party, indicating that he will run for President if they approach him. Ventura has also said he would seriously consider being Ron Paul’s Vice-President pick if the Congressman was successful in the Republican nomination or if Paul ran as the Libertarian Party candidate.

http://news.yahoo.com/ventura-miffed-court-says-hes-off-mexico-174718110.html

He vowed to apply for Mexican citizenship so he can live there more months of the year.

The former Navy SEAL said he had lost his patriotism.

"I will never stand for a national anthem again. I will turn my back and I will raise a fist," he said.

First off let me just say to Mr. Ventura: Thank you for your service!
Secondly let me just say to Mr. Ventura: Don't let the door hit ya where the good Lord split ya on your way out!

Now then, looks like Mr. Paul has some company in Loonieville if he should decide to run as a third party candidate!

[charlesoakwood]

Saw something about him shucking his allegiance and moving to Mexico???

[BMG]

That's correct Charles...and not only that, but giving the USA the bird and essentially saying, "Pi$$off America, you ain't worth fighting for!".

[charlesoakwood]

The brain is a terrible thing to waste.

                                                       Steroids

[Sectionhand]

Of course a third party is possible . So is a minority president like Woodrow Wilson .

[BMG]

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2011/11/18/ron_paul_warns_gop_not_to_capitulate_on_taxes_wont_rule_out_indy_bid.html

"I have no intention of doing that," Paul says of a third-party run if he doesn't get the Republican nomination. However, when asked several times by Hannity to rule out an independent bid, he would not.

If he does run on a third party ticket, Obama's going to win for certain. This is the 2nd or 3rd time he has been asked in the last month and wouldn't rule it out.

[rickl]

Yep, let's just keep on voting for the candidate with an R after his name, no matter what.

What was that definition of insanity again?

[BMG]

Well rickl, I understand your sentiment but there is a fatal flaw to your vision there. Even though an awful lot of people that vote for republicans don't like them, the alternative is democrats - which are way worse. We simply do not have a third party option...because if a faction from either R or D breaks away to form that third party then the opposing side is guaranteed to win.

Unless the situation changes I'm afraid that those of us that do not wish for the D team to get into power are, unfortunately, FORCED to vote for the R team.
Voting for a 3rd party = voting for a D.
Not voting = voting for a D.
That, unfortunately leaves me with the last option; voting for a R.

The trouble is that the parties are pretty much equal in size so any third party at this point in our history will simply siphon away votes from which ever side they happen to be closest to thereby handing a win to the opposite side by default.

I HAVE to vote for any candidate with an R after their name right now, even if I hate them...because the alternative is a name with a D after it which equals slavery for my children.

The only way a 3rd party becomes viable is if it COMPLETELY replaces one of the other parties. The only way that happens is if the third party starts out joining with and then overtaking the established party from the inside. In my opinion that is what the TEA Party is working toward with the Republican party. The Libertarian party is not doing that therefore, voting for Ron Paul on the Libertarian party ticket equals a democrat win in 2012.

If you can somehow show me an alternative, I'd be happy to see it. Until then, I guess you'll just have to call me crazy because I have no other choice.

[charlesoakwood]

Unless the situation changes I'm afraid that those of us that do not wish for the D team to get into power are, unfortunately, FORCED to vote for the R team.
Voting for a 3rd party = voting for a D.
Not voting = voting for a D.
That, unfortunately leaves me with the last option; voting for a R.

For verification see the 1992 election results.

Election Results:
Clinton/Gore: 370 electoral votes, 44.9 million popular votes
Bush/Quayle: 168 electoral votes, 39.1 million popular votes
Perot/Stockdale: 0 electoral votes, 19.7 million popular votes

At least 90% of Perot's votes would have been Bush voters.

[BMG]

Indeed CO...that's what I was attempting to say. Your brevity and illustration are preferable to my page of text though. Anyway, that isn't to say that I stubbornly vote R because I love them or something. I'm in a position where the team I vote for I despise. But the opposing team I absolutely HATE. I wish I had a better option, but I simply don't.

The republicans are on a bicycle, peddling the country as fast as they can toward the cliff. But the democrats are in a Ferrari with their foot mashed on the pedal laughing manically while they careen gleefully toward that same cliff. I have to vote republican in the hopes that we'll eventually be able to bring them back toward conservatism before the country is completely destroyed. Voting for Ron Paul if he switches to the Libertarian party is only going to insure that the democrats are able to continue their reign of terror.

I simply don't see any other option. 

[rickl]

BMG:  This is an argument that's been going on longer than I've been voting.  I've been on both sides of it at one time or another.

But this is ultimately how the ruling class keeps control.  There is little difference between the Republican establishment and the Democratic establishment.  It should be crystal clear by now that the Republican establishment despises both social conservatives and libertarians.  They are doing their utmost to marginalize us, while at the same time trying to convince us that we absolutely must vote for them, because where else are we going to go?

Some say that both parties are controlled by the big banks and the big corporations, and the whole two-party system is just a sideshow to keep the masses enthralled.  Certainly there are some on the left who think that Obama isn't leftist enough, and they are being told by the D's that they have to vote for him, or else those dreadful R's will win.

One thing I totally disagree with is this:

Voting for a 3rd party = voting for a D.
Not voting = voting for a D.

I completely reject that.  Voting for a third party candidate is voting for that candidate.  Not voting is not voting.  The ONLY way I'm voting for the D is if I ACTUALLY vote for the D.  That is an utterly dishonest argument which the R's use to keep us on their plantation, and nothing more.  (And the D's do it too, on their side.)

I guess it comes down to voting our principles and values, or voting out of fear.

You can vote for anyone you want and I won't call you crazy.  All I ask is that you do the same for me.

[BMG]

Oh, not to worry rickl, I've not called you crazy and I wouldn't anyway. And I understand your argument. It just happens that I strongly believe that you are right in your assessment...but you're also wrong. Right in that, the republican establishment is trying to reign in the conservatives and libertarians with fear (the progressives are doing the same thing on the democrat side). I don't dispute that...I agree with it. Where you and I part company though is in the notion that we could safely vote for a 3rd party and win.

The numbers just aren't there unless we're able to get a hefty portion of the republican voters that vote for the republican establishment candidates. That's like herding cats. We need to change the republican establishment from the inside and jettison all the establishment leadership. Doing it otherwise will end in failure. This has been tested and proven in past elections when third party candidates have run.