Do you think it's possible for anyone except a Democrat or Republican to become president in the U.S.?

Question

Please explain.

Answer 1

Possible?????
Not only is it possible the American public has been starving for one since Regan. He was the last popular American Prez and even Reagan had a full time hate club.

Lets look at this seriously. Until Perot turned into a Democrap and had his paranoid freak out, he was going to win that election. If Perot could win what do you think would happen if a real leader stepped up and vyed for election? The American people would smother them with gratitude.

Even with constant media pressure to ignore independents and the interference by US Gov agencies, the IRS in particuler and a huge Media bias against independents, you are seeing them win elections today. You are also seeing more and more people totally disgusted with the two so called parties. Far as I'm concerned it's just two heads on the same monster. The heads blabber nonsense while the body does the same thing reguardless of what face you put on it.

Or in more sinister terms consider this. There were Repugnicans and Democraps voting for the Patriot act, the CDA, the Ricco act, as well as a host of other unconstitutional and corrupt laws. Those were not passed in a vacume. Those were also somehow ignored by the media while they were being considered as law. Sounds like a conspiracy to me. It has all the hallmarks of one.

Distraction. - While non-issues are waved in our face and we are encited against various other segments of our own population such drastic laws limiting our cival liberties are not only considered. They are passed by both parties and without any media attention at all.

Cohesive cooperation - While both parties supposedly cannot agree on the color of the sky they have passed laws which trample on the bill of rights and US Constitution. Prime examples. The Patriot acts complete suspension of all rights because of the label "Terrorist". The problem is ANYBODY can be labeled a terrorist. If the bill were only to apply to forign terrorists that would make sense. It is specifically targeted agaisnt US "terrorists". Or Al Gore's baby the CDA. How can anybody in a free country even consider making cussing a felony punishable by 5 years in prison. Cussing????!!!! It happened. Al Gore and the Clinton administration pushed the CDA right on through. No media coverage at all. Then when it was ruled unconstitutional there were several attempts to write versions that would pass the supreme court. What about no knock raids? How can a free country justify kicking in a door by heavily armed people wearing masks? If anybody could flush enough evidence, especially if the water were turned off, to make a case invalid then there really was not enough justification for 30 agents to make an arrest. The only justification for a no knock is to save lives in imediate danger. Hostage situations for example. Or if a biological agent was suspected in the house that could be released. Anyway the cohesive cooperation is proven by the passing of such bills. Not just passing but total lack of real opposistion. You might have found a few Democraps who made joking opposition to the Patriot act but nothing real.

Motive - This one is easy to see. The same big corps are also the same ones who benifit from the elections of these clowns. They are the same corps who fund directly or indirectly the campaigns of these clowns. They also as often as not happen to be the primary employers of these clowns before and after elections. The bills passed somehow have this way of benifiting these big corps. Even the big noise anti-corp bills somehow have a ton of loopholes. Again going back to cohesive cooperation aspects.

Abuse of Gov resources against private citizens - The Clintons were caught red handed doing it. They are not an anomoly though. Libertarian cantidates face extreme scrutiny by the IRS. So do any other legit independent cantidate. Politicians use the FBI and IRS on a reguler basis to spy and attack political threats. The media is used to spread disinformation about political groups. They will take a splinter group of idiots from a legit organization and color the entire organizations repuation from a couple possibly not even real members of that organization. Independents are portrayed in very negitive light to the public. Whether it be in biz or in politics, anybody not safely controlled is targeted. DeLorean is a great example. How many FBI stings did he survive before geting suckered into the cocaine one? How many IRS audits, how much survalience did he survive before the Feds happened on the coke idea? He was a threat. He had independent funding and had made a successfull car. That made him a threat to the automotive industry. If he did it then others might be inspired to do so. Lending institutions seeing the sucess of the others would be willing to back such ventures. Pretty soon no more automotive monopoly. The fact that the US Gov uses a single piece of Microsoft software. The Gov could save billions by ditching Microsoft. It would also gain security and compatability with our allies who've begun or have already switched to Linux. After the Anti-trust issues started all of a sudden Microsoft became a big campaing contributer. All of a sudden the anti-trust issues just went away. Can we say bribe? Cannot think of a more blatent example of the Gov extorting money from a US corp and a US Corp using money to make money out of the same entity.

So short and sweet all we need is a real cantidate who can stand up and stay out of prison somehow. Not an easy taskt he way the Gov and the media attack any true independent on the federal level. Jessie Ventura, Kinky Friedmen, etc and others are making inroads on the state level however.

Can the step up before we become to polarized to vote for a anyone which doesn't back a certain non-issue we subscribe too?
Look at some of the YA answers. Some of these people would vote for a Democraptic or Repugnican if they were a grasshopper rather than vote for any other cantidate.

Answer 2

Instant runoff voting would make a third party candidate a viable option:

IRV is a reform that allows voters to rank candidates in order of preference, so that in cases where there is no initial majority winner, a runoff recount can be conducted without a new election to determine which candidate is actually preferred by a majority of voters.

The IRV works basically as follows: Instead of just casting one vote for one candidate, voters rank the candidates: 1,2,3, etc. (hence, the motto, "it's as easy as 1-2-3."). If no candidate receives a majority of the #1 votes, the candidate with the least total of #1 votes is eliminated. The second choice votes from these ballots are then transferred to the other candidates. The ballots are recounted, and candidates are eliminated in this fashion until 1 winner emerges with a majority of the vote. The animated links to the left can help clarify this simple process, but let's talk about why it's a superior voting system, first:

When there are more than 2 candidates, it ensures the winner has a majority.
Without IRV, the winner can win with less than 50% of the vote. How do we really know they have a mandate?

It will allow more candidates, including independents and third-parties, to get involved in a race, without being accused of "spoiling" the elections.
Even if your favorite candidate comes in last, at least IRV allows your next favorite candidate to be counted. No more wasting your vote, and no more spoilers.

It will decrease negative campaigning. To win, candidates need to get some 2nd and 3rd place votes, as well as 1st place votes.
They'll be less likely to "go negative" if they need their opponent's voters, too.

IRV saves money.
Some states and local elections hold runoffs weeks later to pick the winner. IRV holds the runoff all in one election--saving money.

Answer 3

It is possible although it isn't likely at the moment that the Republicans or the Democrats will lose strength sufficiently in the near to medium term. In the longer term measured in decades or even centuries, it is quite likely that other parties will rise and have Presidents elected as their candidates.

In the past, there were Presidents who weren't Democrats or Republicans in their modern version. They were:

* George Washington (no party)
* John Adams (Federalist)
* Thomas Jefferson (Democratic-Republican)
* James Madison (Democratic-Republican)
* James Monroe (Democratic-Republican)
* John Quincy Adams (Democratic Republican)
* William Harrison (Whig)
* John Tyler (Whig)
* Zachary Taylor (Whig)
* Millard Fillmore (Whig)

Andrew Jackson was the first President from the Democratic Party as we know it to be elected in 1828 and Abraham Lincoln was the first Republican in 1860. While the American Party system has been stable since 1864, there have been strong third-party candidatures by Theodore Roosevelt, George Wallace and Ross Perot which have won state votes. It is quite conceivable that a third-Party could emerge resulting in the election of a President.

Answer 4

While possible, it is extremely unlikely. Any way you look at it, the current parties in power must ALLOW a legitimate third party to rise in order for it to happen on a large scale. Otherwise, it will take a Perot-like individual with virtually unlimited resources to win the presidency and/or start a new major political party. A slightly different question is whether a new party will emerge that replaces one of the existing major parties, which is something that happened several times throughout our early history.

Answer 5

I do, but probably not anytime soon.

The Republican party, remember, was once a third party, that's why Lincoln was a minority President. I think it's possible that another third party could slowly build and overtake a major party, but I think it would take a major shakeup at one point in the US, since people today are very complacent and don't seem to want to do what they haven't done before. So, in the next ten years? No. In the next fifty? Maybe. In the next 75 years? Totally.

Answer 6

I guess it is possible but unlikely. For instance Theodore Roosevelt who ran , after he was no longer President, for the Bull Moose Party. Even though he was well thought of and liked he lost. Usually third party candidates take votes away from one party or the other. Ralph Nader will go down as the man who cost Al Gore the election. We would live in a different country and probably would be in a war but in Afghanistan after Osama, instead of where we are now.

Answer 7

The deck is stacked against any Third Party candidate, I should know. I used to belong to a Third Party and nothing useful ever came out of it. The Truth is this: there are two parties, choose the one the you like most and stick with it. Stick with it to the end. It would be nice if there was a way for more than two parties could be involved in American politics, it would lessen the polarization that we currently find ourselves in. But, that just ain't goin ta happen. If you want to have any kind of effect in politics or voting, you must support one of the two parties. The old saying 'Lead, follow, or get out of the way'; voting for Third Parties is 'getting out of the way'.

Answer 8

Honestly no. The Republicans and Democrats are the two MAJOR parties in the United States. Meaning that those two parties are what most of the population are members of.

Answer 9

It's always possible, but not probable. Most people believe that if you don't vote Democrat or Republican, you're throwing your vote away bacause Independents are never considered to be a possibility of winning.

Answer 10

Of course those have not always been the parties, and parties do change over time.

But at this time, too many people still vote only party regardless of issues. And without the money and backing of a major party, it is really not realistic