Will we ever have a non republican/non democrat president?

Question

I'm just curious to see how better or worse off our great country would be if neither of the two big parties had the white house. Any opinions out there of what might have become of us if Ralph Nader, Ross Perot or any other non-big party candidate won the election?

Answer 1

It is possible, especially in the 2008 cycle. The reason I state that, is largely because of the internet provides a medium in which to rapidly transfer ideas to a number of people, who are becoming more involved with the process of ideas.(Providing feedback involves the subject more than seeing ads on television or bumper stickers). Howard Dean ranks in the DNC because of his internet successes. Even though they didn't translate into a party nomination, he most effectively used this medium to reach out to a number of undecided voters.

The internet is still young enough so that the users don't always apply critical thinking and check the sources of the propaganda they receive.(Does anyone still get that email saying Oliver North said binLaden was the most dangerous man on the planet? It's not true, he named Abu Nidal, but I still get it from time to time, and usually get 5 or 6 of them within the course of a week).

==>One thing to remember, is that all legislation begins in the Congress, and without a strong national third party to negotiate the legislative process, there will be limits to budgetary approval and new laws. Might make for interesting gridlock and negotiations,

Right now (9/12/06), John McCain and Joe Lieberman would have the best chance to form a new party and made a decent run for the office of the Executive. Teddy Roosevelt was a third party candidate once, because of divisions in his native party. He didn't win on the Bull Moose Party candidacy. Ross Perot cost 41 the election, because he was took votes away from 41. A similar argument can be made for Nader costing costing Gore the 2000 election.

Sometimes I vote for a third party candidate, even though he can't win, because I feel I am sending a message that candidate raises issues others would like to have raised.

The same old arguments and excuses for solutions are pretty much ingrained in the two major political parties. If someone with the national presence of McCain/Lieberman were to form a new party, they would have the freedom to develop new solutions without the baggage of their existing parties. From that point they could negotiate from a position of strength, with experience and friends in the Congress.


Arguably there are strong advantages to have a number of strong political parties, but it is such an expensive business, with much ingrained political loyalties to overcome.

I watched the Bush/Gore candidacy closely. Ten days before the election, each was favored by about 25 percent of the potential voters who were polled, with nearly half undecided. This confirmed my suspicions that there are groups within both party who would vote for their party's candidate, regardless of what the qualifications were. This is the reflected in the term Yellow-Dog Democrats, who would vote for a yellow dog if that were the party's nominee. I don't know what the Republican analog would be called, but they do exist.

The fact the half the country are immovable in their political prefences, leaves the other half of us to make up our minds, including the possibility of voting for a strong third party candidate. But that candidate needs to come strong with some great ideas, lots of cash, a great pr machine, and the right opportunity in time.

Now would be a good time.

Answer 2

God, i wish we had more than two parties, because really, both parties are not representative of the nation. Most countries have at least three major political parties. For some reason, we have only two and it is a disservice to voters that they have to choose from only two candidates. Just think how terrible it would be if we had to choose between Bill Frist and Hilary CLinton for the next election. That would even be worse than the last one.

And by the way, Teddy Roosevelt did run under the Bullmoose party, and is credited with assisting Wilson to win the election of 1912 i believe.

Answer 3

Well i doubt anytime soon that there will be a pres. who isnt either a demo. or rep. and the reason y is cause we r still split apart by diff. parties it is kind of a way to sub class us and untill we can all just have our own opinion on things then we will still be seperated. Maybe one day we will be lucky andjust have a person instead of a party as a president and yes the whole worldwould be diff. if we'd of had Perot or Nader as pres. would it be better?? We will nvr know :(

Answer 4

Not in America, and Thank God Ross Perot and that poor old man with a hearing aid problem running for vice president didn't get elected! We would be in a horrible mess probably worse than Bush and Edward Kennedy put together!

Answer 5

Perot did well at the polls. Who knows what could have happened had he stuck with it? It's possible. All the minor parties have to stick together when it comes to ballot access. IMO the way the Democrats tried to delegitimize Nader was just sad.

Answer 6

To answer you question, probably not seeing as how Democrat and Republican are the biggest political parties. Not enough of the other parties have the kind of money it would take to get them all the way to White House.

Answer 7

I think those examples won't work. I always thought I wouldn't 'throw my vote away ' on a third party candidate, but I am thinking we need a 'populist party' candidate, rather than globalist labor or globalist capitalism.

Answer 8

Americans to get rid of the the two party system.

Answer 9

I wish! I'm not holding my breath though.

When Perot was running we finally had a chance to add a reasonably powerful third party. I didn't support him but I wish he had stayed in.

(Please don't say someone "got to him". That baseless conspiracy crap is irrational.)

Answer 10

I'm non republican/non democrat.