why not a third party system in the u,s,?

Question

it seems to me that since our present political system is controlled by politics within the belt way it certaintly makes sense to find a canidate from out side and show our present politicians we want america and our people first,and I don't mean our rich oil conglormates or corporate swindlers, (the people) s third party could turn things around and listen to the people instead of taking away their money for their own interst and our freedom,so it will be entirely up to the people to choose or if they are so ignornant they think the next dem or rep will be different, this would be a good forum to use to get a grass roots organization started, or support some independant party which can't be any worse than what we have. folks if you really are concerned that we came in , i 6th place this year in technolgy, we were 1st and so many other areas where we have grown weak in because of our weak and selfish political system, America should be leading the world not the underdog, PLEASE

Answer 1

Because the electoral college, as implement by the states, makes it almost impossible for a third-party candidate to secure enough votes to get an absolute majority.

We need to get states to change the system, and not give all-or-nothing electoral votes based on state majority, but rather pro-rated percentage electoral appointments based percentage votes within the state. That will go a huge way toward allowing a third-party candidate.

Think independently. Vote libertarian.

Answer 2

You have raised a number of valid points and observations - however, your proposed solution is somewhat idealistic. Over the years, there have been a number of attempts by a third party candidate. Each time, they often failed to get a double-digit percentage of votes. Those that did were in the low teens.

Let's say, however, that your independent candidate won the race for the President. In the end, he or she would be unable to function except in the most simple of matters. Currently, the Republicans dominate all three branches of government - but they are still short on the number of votes they have to prevent a filibuster. An Independent President would have no power or control over the Senate or the House of Representatives. So - to implement the programs that you suggest, you not only need to elect a President, you need that same party to be represented in the Congress and it is not going to happen anytime soon.

Answer 3

It is sad that american politics has risen to the state of being controlled by money- or lack thereof.In the old days it seems that even a poor man could be president, however that's no longer the case.There are other parties in the system but they don't have the financial resources or a stand-out person to give the other parties a run for the money(there's that money thing again).The world, including the U.S. , is run by big money, so get used to it.There aren't enough people, such as yourself, to make a change in the status quo.It'd never happen in this lifetime.

Answer 4

I think people are too black and white nowadays. There are either on one side of another. Each party has their stance on most political issues that matter to people.
I mean to be technical, Independants and the Green Party have drawn enough votes from other candidates in the past to change the outcome of an election. But, I guess as far as a 3rd major party, they would just have pick and choose between repulican and democratic platforms to really have a chance. The question is which ones do you choose to gain a large following?

Answer 5

There are other parties, but the key is getting something like seven percent (I'm pretty sure that's the minimum) of the vote in the next election in order to participate in the debates for the FOLLOWING election in 2012. Also, I agree, a third party is a marvellous idea, but perhaps you should try campaigning for a decent party that is already around, for example to Green Party, who got SIX percent of the vote in 2000. A pre-established party has a much better chance of succeeding than any new party, currently, that's just a fact of life based on our government right now.

Answer 6

No such thing in a winner-take-all-system. In a parliamentary system--sure, now would be the time. But where you get 100% of the electoral votes of a state if you get one more vote than any of your opponents, it's impossible for a third party to do anything but spoil it for one of the two mainstream parties. It's not politics--it's math.

Answer 7

money money AND extra money. it is the wanting it. once you have democrats and republicans elevating 1000's of tens of millions for his or her marketing campaign, there is little a third social gathering candidate can do to compete. And in case you additionally can call better than a million or 2 0.33 social gathering applicants while each and all the media insurance is on Hilary, Obama, Edwards, Romney, Thompson, and Guiliani, then you definately're probable interior the a million percentile.

Answer 8

Everything you said is true. Here is the problem - money. A third party has to have support or the Dems and Republicans will squeeze them out, but I agree. I voted independent when bush and Gore ran in 2000...

Answer 9

A third party is what got us in this mess back in 2000. If it had not been for a liberal third party, Gore would have scored big and won easily. No, we don't a third party, we need the Democrats to replace the Republicans as the Majority Party in the Congress. Forget the third party, please.

Answer 10

there is the independent party, the green party, and several others.