What will it take for a non Rep/Dem to become POTUS?

Great Debates
1

It seems to me that the current system in the US doesn’t allow for a 3rd party opponent to have any real shot at office. By current system I’m referring to our current catch-22 policy of having to own 15% of the vote before being able to participate and general tendency of the media to only focus on rep/dem candidates.

Even on the SDMB we only argue about Bush and Kerry. Not once have I heard anyone say that they’ll vote outside the major two parties. More than once I’ve wanted to jump into a debate just to add that there are other candidates and that you don’t have to vote Kerry just because “He’s not Bush” as there are several other options.

So what will it take and when, if ever, will we see a 3rd party POTUS?

2

Another Civil War - that’s what it took to change the names on the doors the last time it happened. But it won’t.

What platform would a third-party candidate use that one or both of the majors wouldn’t co-opt? What popular demand for change would there be that the majors couldn’t recognize was there and claim as their own, with the subtext that they could make it happen?

That’s how the process has worked, historically, the ones that have been based on a more than simplistic appeals to “they’re both corrupt, both the same, we’re not them”, that is. The Populists and related regional groups found their platforms taken over by the Democrats, the race-baiters appealed to by George Wallace found a home with the Republicans. The budget-balancers Ross Perot appealed to found budget-balancing adopted by both parties, at least for awhile (it was always in GOP rhetoric but never acted upon by either party).

What looks like rigidity and staleness, when you first look at the two-party system, is actually resilience and adaptability - what the Dems and Reps stand for now has little to do with what they stood for 50 or 100 years ago, except that they have historically staked out somewhat different positions along the big-government/small-government axis, with a lot of overlap (less now than at other times, though).

With a multi-branch system, with the parties having little to no constitutional or even legal status (yes, really), it may be inevitable for a two-party system to spring into being, and in fact we’ve virtually always had one when there wasn’t a Civil War. People of similar mind will tend to support and vote for each other and each other’s proposals, and suddenly you have a party. People of different minds than that will be concerned that they’re gaining too much power and taking over the process with ideas that they don’t like, and they’ll band together and suddenly you have a second party. Anyone left is out of the game, and will associate with one of the parties in order to have any influence, recognizing that the party structure is now part of the political structure.

That works for candidates for executive offices, too, except that the factionalism occurs among a different political group, the electorate. If you want to gain the support of a majority, you have to appeal to the same things that, surprise, one of the parties appeals to.

3

In the last several election cycles there have been a dozen or more third parties showing on one or more states. With a couple of exceptions, the vast majority of the voters view these folks goofballs, orbiting Mars. And with good reason.

Nader has run several times and is running again and many feel he had a big impact last time, but he has never gotten 3% of the total vote or been within 40% points of winning a single electrol vote, yet he still media attention and will probably get on the ballot in quite a few states this time.

One of the requirements of a strong third party is to have candidate(s) that are viewed by many as serious in tone and stature, taking positions of some popularity.

4

Well, I intend to vote 3rd party this year…probably liberatarian, once they figure out who they are going to run. But its more of a ‘none of the above’ choice for me, as I can’t stand Bush and don’t like Kerry.

Its doubtful that any third party will rise high enough in the near future to displace one of the big two. As ElvisL1ves said the big two are adept at adapting (or at least appearing to adapt) to popularlist movements and co-opting parts of their platform. Hell, in recent years the big two have co-opted each others platforms. Look at Clinton, a democrat, but who co-opted a lot of republican policies and plans. And look at Bush, sort of a republican, who has taken many democrat ideas and incorporated them into his strange presidency.

Personally, I wish there WAS a strong 3rd party for years like this when it seems to me the choice is between the lesser of two wevils.

-XT

5

You’ll just have to wait until I get my mind control ray working.

Either that, or my orbital 1920’s style “Death Ray.” But then, I would be DOTUS, not POTUS

6

The problem with third party candidates is that they are almost always from the fringe of the political spectrum, either far right or far left. The radicals of both major parties have nothing to lose by trying their wings as third party candidates, but their limited appeal never allows them to be anything more than spoilers. If a third party candidate arose that could claim the moderate center of both parties, he would have a good shot. John McCain springs to mind; unfortunately, he won’t abandon the Republicans to start a third party, and is still a little right of center to grab enough of the Democratic Party. But the center of the road is still the only fertile ground likely to germinate a viable third party candidate. If the the Democrats and Republicans continue to divide the nation with increasingly polarized ideologies, the likelihood becomes greater that someone, sometime, will make a successfull third party bid from the center.

7

Actually, the ascendancy of the new Republican Party did not result from the Civil War, it precipitated it – when Lincoln was elected in 1860 as the first Republican president, the Southern states found this unacceptable and seceded, as they had threatened before the election.

To answer the OP: It would help if we were to adopt a system of Instant-Runoff Voting (IRV), in which, if more than two candidates were running for the presidency (or any other office), the voter, instead of picking just one, would be able to rank-order them by preference. Thus, in 2000, a Nader supporter could have voted for Nader as his/her first choice, Gore as second choice, Bush as third, Buchanan as fourth. If Nader (inevitably) failed to win a majority, the vote cast for him would count towards electing Gore. Thus, Nader could have won without playing any “spoiler” role, that is, without dividing the opposition to Bush and siphoning votes away from Gore. (Whether he actually did siphon votes away from Gore is another discussion.) In fact, under an IRV system, Nader’s candidacy might actually have supported Gore’s, by increasing his voter turnout. For more information see the website of the Center for Voting and Democracy at www.fairvote.org.

However: While an IRV system would make the field more hospitable to minor-party candidates, it would not guarantee their election to any office. It would take several election cycles under IRV for the Greens or any other third party to grow to the point where they could run a candidate who would have a reasonable hope of victory. All the reasoning given in above posts would continue to apply.

8

What it would take is for each and every voting-age American to study the issues, pick the candidate that matches their views the closest, and actually get off their duff and vote for that person. Not to worry about "throwing their vote away. Not to “vote with the polls” just so they can say they helped pick the winning team.

I can guarantee, if people would spend even an hour really looking at their choices and voting with their hearts, we’d have a 3rd party POTUS the following year.

So, in other words, never gonna happen. :smack:

9

I tend to agree with Brainglutton that IRV would be a big step towards facilitating 3rd party ascendancy.

But I think that the right personality could come along a win the presidency as a 3rd party candidate. Suppose Schwartzenegger, for example, were to run as an independent (after we changed the constitution to allow him to run, of course). I actually think we are going to see many, many more “celebrity politicians” in the near future. You get yer instance name recognition, you get yer likeable guy, what else do you need? Either the 2 parties pre-empt this themselves, or we may well see it happen outside that system. Perot got almost 20% of the vote in '92 and who even knew who he was before he decided to run?

10

hehe politics sucks big time…

I agree 100% with whats been said above... now it funny how if the US were a multiparty system we would probably be complaining about smaller parties wielding way to much power as they bargain their support for more power.

The only chance of a 3rd party candidate winning is that candidate being extremely charismatic. Without a good base of voters its hard to even dent Rep/Dem voting numbers.
11

Well, sure, if everyone were doing it, it would make sense to do so. But are you suggesting that there’s something wrong with voting for a candidate who is not necessarily your favorite, simply because your favorite has no chance to win?

Back to the OP: I think it could quite realistically happen in a somewhat flukish fashion. Every few years a third party candidate (like Perot) comes along with some level of popularity. That candidate could just get lucky and happen to be running the same year that big surprise scandals broken concerning both of the major-party candidates, or something of that sort. There are certainly believable chains of events that could have resulted in Perot actually winning the election.

12

  1. Get a lot of money, or heavy financial backing.

  2. Be the best talker in the country, under all or most circumstances: debate, casual conversation, interview, bar talk, business and governmental.

  3. Get into debates with the best in the nation, and make them memorable enough to be covered verbatim.

  4. Put your money and your freedom where your mouth is; protest something and get arrested. During a campaign. however, don’t get in trouble for pistolwhipping someone or other such nonsense.

  5. Be friends to both conservative and liberal media pundits who would then gleefully repeat every word you say, not only accurately, but verbatim and using all inflections you use.

  6. When someone tries to kidnap your child, go Man on Fire on the perps, then display the bodies of the kidnappers during a press conference.

  7. Write a kick ass theme song, and sing it yourself, sell the song and promise the proceeds to charity. Or: get a kick ass slogan.

  8. Walk into Khyber Pass, in the Pakistani/Afghan mountainous border, pick up a major terrorist, and put him in custody, not unlike that girl who picked up a 40 pound trout out of the river on America’s Funniest Home Videos.

That’s about it from me.

13

The republicans have staked out the right to center. Democrats left to center. Someone to the right of republicans is not electable (See Buchanan) nor is someone to the left of Democrats (See Nadar).

As a previous poster said, a 3rd party candidate would have to come from the middle. But they would have the problem of being co-opted with their positions and they would not have the machinery to generate the multi millions of dollars required to get elected.

People ar so used to voting for the lesser of two evils now that I don’t see the system changing in the near future. I’ll use myself as an example. I break with Republican doctrine on many social issues, but they have the right answers for me on many more issues than the Democrats do. Therefore, I’ve voted Republican for President since 1980.

14

The problem with campaigning in the middle is that voters are drawn mostly to polarizing issues (abortion, war, etc), and you CAN’T take a “center” position on those kind of things. If you try, you just end up pissing off both sides, and no one will vote for you.

Someone pegged it above when they said that the American political parties are too adaptive. When something new and threatening comes along, they shift and absorb it.

Barring a 3rd dimension suddenly appearing on the political spectrum, the only chance I see of anything changing is for a HUGELY popular figure with the same politics as a major party but outside of their lines to show up and run, which isn’t likely. Nader certainly isn’t that person. Maybe something like Teddy did?

15

A double assasination a week before the election. Unless the VP is someone people like more than the third party.

16

The political “spectrum” is already multidimensional, Zagadka. Can we really classify, for instance, the Libertarians as being simply to the “right” of the Republicans? See the following relevant GD threads:

“What is the best scheme for mapping/classifying political ideologies?” –

“Four political tradition: Is this a good model?” –

“What would a multipartisan America be like?” –

“How many kinds of “liberals” or “leftists” are there in America?” –

“How many kind of “conservatives” are there in America?”

17

It could happen. Very unlikely, but it could happen. Consider these two scenarios.

Scenario 1.) It’s 2012. The Medicare Trust Fund is about to be depleted. If this happens, the millions of seniors who depend on Medicare will be forced into bankruptcy. Obviously the only way that Medicare can be saved is if a huge sum of money is poured in from the government treasury. But suppose that in 2012 we’re already running a huge deficit, in a recession, and facing high inflation and interest rates. Then rescuing Medicare just won’t be feasible. Candidate X, from third party Y, who happens to have a large personal fortune, spends zillions of dollars on ads reminding seniors that the Democrats and Republican failed to fix this mess when they had the chance. X then pledges to pay for Medicare by eliminating all the useless pork barrel federal programs.

Scenario 2.) The election takes place on Nov. 6. On Nov. 3, a huge terrorist attack occurs. On Nov. 4, person A is arrested for being the brains behind the terrorist attack. On Nov. 5, reports start circulating that person A indirectly gave huge sums of money to both major party candidates.

18

So he gets elected by pledging to do something he has no power to deliver? Oh well, it has happened before…

19

I’m coming late to the party here, but I want to comment on this.

  1. I don’t mean to belittle the importance of your vote, but the mathematical chance of everyone in California split exactly down the middle on the two major candidates, with your vote deciding the winner, is astronomically small. Yes, I know the difference in Florida 2000 came down to less than a hundred votes, but a 50-100 vote difference is a lot more likely than a 1 vote difference.

  2. If you vote for a major party candidate when you actually prefer a 3rd party candidate, your vote will be interpreted by the major parties as support for them and their policies. They will see no reason to change their ways, or even to co-op the ideas of your favorite candidate.

  3. A vote for a 3rd party candidate is in many ways a more powerful vote, because it can help that party maintain its place on the ballot in the next election, qualify for matching funds (except for the Libertarians, who refuse them on principle), and qualify for national debates. It takes a lot fewer votes to accomplish these things than it does to win an election, so your vote can actually carry more weight by voting for a 3rd party.

Cheers,

mr_moonlight (voting 3rd party since 1988)

20

My thoughts on the subject:

[QUOTE=mr_moonlight]

  1. I don’t mean to belittle the importance of your vote, but the mathematical chance of everyone in California split exactly down the middle on the two major candidates, with your vote deciding the winner, is astronomically small. Yes, I know the difference in Florida 2000 came down to less than a hundred votes, but a 50-100 vote difference is a lot more likely than a 1 vote difference.
    [/QUOTE=mr_moonlight]

This is true- but I think that we are all talking about blocks of voters that vote or not based on similar ideology. If you crack the reason why they vote the way they do, it’s not crazy to assume that you can create a strategy to reach them.

[QUOTE=mr_moonlight]

  1. If you vote for a major party candidate when you actually prefer a 3rd party candidate, your vote will be interpreted by the major parties as support for them and their policies. They will see no reason to change their ways, or even to co-op the ideas of your favorite candidate.
    [/QUOTE=mr_moonlight]

My only response to this is that most 3rd parties want to play in the ‘big game’ (national elections) without doing their time at ‘practice’ (local elections). You can’t build a truly national political machine overnight.

[QUOTE=mr_moonlight]

  1. A vote for a 3rd party candidate is in many ways a more powerful vote, because it can help that party maintain its place on the ballot in the next election, qualify for matching funds (except for the Libertarians, who refuse them on principle), and qualify for national debates. It takes a lot fewer votes to accomplish these things than it does to win an election, so your vote can actually carry more weight by voting for a 3rd party.

[QUOTE=mr_moonlight]

This also assumes that you really have nothing to lose by the opponent party winning. I do not have that luxury, thank you, nor do many of my friends and family. Neither do moist folks, actually, and that explains the ;lesser of evils’ approach to voting that has become so prevalent.
My theory is that the only way an independent will win the POTUS is if the US passes through a period of crisis unlike any I’ve ever seen (and hope not to live through) and a Leader emerges from it, winning on pure personality, resting on his laurels from his previous performance. Though I do think that he will have to be an independent- the existing 3rd parties are all too polarizing.