Let’s say that a political third party wants to truly shake up American politics by becoming a genuine, legitimately realistic contender for the Presidency.
What are the ingredients it would need?
Having an enormous supply of money is a given, to even be within striking distance of the Republicans and Democrats. Let’s say, just for hypothetical’s sake, that this third party has $10 billion to spend on a presidential campaign; far more than the Republican or Democratic candidate has.
The gridlock, bickering and obstructionism by the Republicans and Democrats would have to reach such maddening levels that angry voters would defect to this political third party en masse.
The third party would need a truly inspiring, well-known, electable candidate who is admired by Americans across the spectrum of political beliefs. Maybe some really intelligent, well-spoken, wise and persuasive celebrity.
The platform would have to appeal to many conservatives and liberals in order to lure voters away - perhaps somewhat libertarian. Probably have to use a “Both sides are corporatists, big-government, support the interests of the 1%, etc.” argument. The candidate would have to appeal, “I’ll give you REAL change; not what the Republicans and Democrats have to offer!”
Needless to say, the third party and its presidential candidate would have to run an outstanding campaign from start to finish.
The third party would have to seem electable. From the very beginning, it would have to be polling at around 20% of the vote or more, and preferably getting into the 30% range as well in the middle of the election year.
Do you think this would be enough, or is the Republican vs. Democrat dominance of U.S. politics simply too great to overcome? What else might such a hypothetical third party campaign need?
This is the only one that really matters. Presidential candidates don’t run against theoretical candidates. They run against real people, with real flaws that make real statements.
We’ve seen independents win in state races (governors, senators) for localized reasons. But this candidate would have to win at least half the states to outright win the Electoral College (otherwise it goes to the House, where parties would matter). That means beating both parties in states with 270 Electoral votes.
Is there any imaginable real person that is so idolized to overcome these obstacles? Anyone?
Interesting, I didn’t know that. I thought one candidate could win 170 EVs, one candidate could win 170 EVs, and one candidate would win 198 EVs, and the one with the most would win.
You learn something new everyday.
I think #1 is the hardest obstacle to overcome. It’s hard to imagine anyone having the kind of money it takes to win a national election unless he/she is a billionaire like Ross Perot. Perhaps it could happen over time, but not anytime soon.
The fun part is that the VP is selected by the Senate in that case. We could actually end up with a President and VP from different parties again. Also interesting is that the House vote for President is based on one vote per state not one per Representative. Depending on the breakout that could also mean the majority party’s candidate would not be selected as President.
I think a variant of point 2 is the most important. The electorate really has to feel that both the Repubs and Dems have no legitimacy to govern. Dislike of both parties has to be vast. If this happens all bets are off.
A chances of a third party President will hugely increase if the US economy goes into near collapse and both Parties are blamed, both Parties seen as being unable to fix it.
The problem with most third party efforts historically is that they either are so regionally based or so cult-of-personality driven or so ideologically narrow that they can’t capture enough states to win. At one time I though that you could get there with a candidate who could take, say, the South and the West, but Republicans have pretty much been doing that.
As polarized as today’s politics are, I can’t think of anybody who could pull enough votes from both parties to get there, and they would have to pull from both parties otherwise they’d just play the typical spoiler role.
I also think that a third party would, as I think Perot’s candidacy did, combine the worst elements of each party positions, rather than the best.
The only way a third party will ever win is to start from the ground up, nominating candidates for House, Senate, Governorships, etc. And then it will ultimately supplant one of the existing parties rather than continue as a viable “third” choice.
I think the most likely third party scenario by far is what we’ve seen in the past, where the third party competes with the mainstream for one or two elections and then knocks one of the other two parties out of the ring. So say the Democratic party gets corrupt and incompetent, then the “Progressive Party” comes around and takes its place, and the Democratic Party is no more. Or with the Republicans if you prefer. The reason that we’ll never have a viable long term third party is that the current voting system favors a two party system, and any third party would suffer the effects of tactical voting against it. There’s a reason there’s been two parties for most of American history.
Kim Kardashian?
Seriously, it needs to be someone like Teddy Roosevelt. A political giant that for whatever reason didn’t get his party’s nomination and decided to go on his own.
Not a chance. Libertarians are an insignificant fringe element and Americans love their benefits (SS, Medicare).
It could potentially be someone like Bill Gates- unquestionably brilliant and successful, with the resources to compete with the parties.
Of course, what would this president do? He wouldn’t be able to pick up the phone and get an allied leader in the Congress. Most likely he’d spend four years getting sniped by both sides and be a lame duck from day one.
Heh. What if that was the third-party candidate’s pitch?
“I’ll never get to sign anything into law – because I’m going to veto each bill sent to me. If the Republicans and Democrats in Congress want to pass something, anything, they’re going to need bipartisanship every time; send me to Washington and the only thing you’ll get is a legislature that has to put aside its differences and work together.”
You’d need to start by getting this third-party candidate elected to some other high office: Governor of a state, Senator, or at least the House of Representatives. Despite what a vocal minority might say, Americans don’t actually like total outsiders.
And of course, while they’re at it, they could start trying to implement their policies at that lower level, even if they don’t win the presidency.
And further not be snapped up by one of the other two parties. Anyone who could conceivably win as a third party, would walk to a land slide victor if he ran as a member of one of the two parties. So given the opportunity it is highly unlikely that such a person would not try for the nomination of the party he most closely resembles, and it is highly unlikely that the party he chose would not nominate him.
I don’t think “I’ll veto everything” is a great pitch. Why should the two sides in Congress work together if their bipartisanship only leads to a veto? Or are you saying that it would be good if only those bills that can muster enough votes for an override should be law?
Leave out the pessimistic prediction, and just promise to veto anything that doesn’t have some specified minimum number/percentage of votes from both of the existing major parties, and it could be an appealing pitch. (The probable result would be paralysis as both sides got an effective veto over accomplishing anything, but it sounds good…)
