If more than 1 candidate from each major party were on presidential ballots,would "politics as usual" change?

Question

sorry i had to kind of shorten the question to make it fit and make sense...

if were several choices from each 'major' party on the presidential ballot each election day (in addition to so-called 'third' or 'fourth' parties) how would politics change?

would the major parties split into factions, or would their members unite together to keep hold of their political power? would they unite against other parties or each other? would smaller parties have a chance at all? would their be utter chaos, 'business as usual', or would a new system evolve rapidly? civil war?

here's another twist: keep the electoral college. if a candidate wins a state it's his (or hers) along with all its electoral votes. plurality (not majority) of electoral votes wins.

just curious if there's some way to tweak this idea to make it worth considering on some scale... what are your thoughts?

Answer 1

Even if they allowed this, I doubt many Republicans or Democrats would actually run against each other in a general election precisely because it would split their vote. Ultimately, Republican candidates generally have a lot in common and are much more harshly opposed to the Democrat candidate and vice versa. So, they would negotiate compromises to put forth the ticket with the best chance of beating the opposition. The reason why a 3rd party struggles to take root in America is because the divide between Dems and Reps is so strong that neither side is willing to weaken their block by sprouting into a third party.

The lesson from Perot and Nader was that third party candidates hurt the mother party (Republicans and Democrats, respectively), and fail to have any chance to win in all reality. The only way the 2-candidate system can break is if an immensely strong candidate who can easily win on name recognition chooses to go with a 3rd party.

For example, if General Petraeus were able to miraculously pacify the insurgency and right everything in Iraq in a year, followed by capturing Osama bin Laden and declaring victory over Al-Qaeda. He could be credited with winning the war on terrorism, and be a stronger candidate than Eisenhower was after WWII. If he then chose to run as an Independent in 2008 with some broadly appealing platform, then he could possibly dominate the race with no clear leader from either party.

That's just an extremely unlikely hypothetical and I have no idea what the General's political leanings are, but only a candidate who can stand on his own merits and name can ever give a real chance to a third party. Too many people just vote the party otherwise; that's "politics as usual"...

Answer 2

It wouldn't happen under the constitution. Dissaisfied party members may run as independants or as a coalition candidate for a third party interest, but only one may represent each party as a presidential candidate.

Answer 3

It could allow a less popular candidate a victory.

If you want an example of this, look at how clinton became president. Ross Perot split votes of conservatives.

Answer 4

you bring up some exellent points.