I am talking about when the newly formed Whig Party put different candidates on different state ballots since they could not find a candidate in which the northern, southern, and western voters could agree on.
So for today the Republicans could put Guliani on the ticket in the Northeast and another candidate for the rest of the country.
Or the Democrats can put Edwards on the ballot for the southern states, and another candidate for the rest of the country.
The ultimate goal would be to eliminate a big state from the other party. However, if it goes anything like it did in 1836, it could be considered a failure.
2007-04-27 18:02:39 · 5 answers · asked by freemanbac 5 in Politics & Government ➔ Elections
diabetes: I am not talking about third parties stealing votes away from the big parties, I am talking about one of the big parties putting one candidate on one ballot and another candidate on another.
2007-04-27 18:25:37 · update #1
Anything can happen in an election just like the U.S. House election of 1836 which was an election for the United States House of Representatives.
Although Democrat Martin Van Buren was elected president, the Democrats continued to lose seats in the House. The Whigs played off the unpopularity of Jackson's refusal to compromise with Congress or cooperate with the Supreme Court, as well as the continuing decline of the single-issue Anti-Masonic (based on the distrust of Freemasonry) and Nullifier (based on the principle of states' rights) parties. Despite Whig gains, the Democrats held on to a majority.
2007-04-27 18:12:24 · answer #1 · answered by FRAGINAL, JTM 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Well it was very close in 2000 presidential election. With Ralph Nader representing the Green Party, Al Gore with Democrats, and George W Bush with the Democrats. Nader took over the "big state" Florida. Gore had California and Bush got IL, Ohio, and NH (TX is not a big primary state but Bush got this state also.) Then it was .193 percent difference in Florida with Bush having about 1500 votes over Gore. So Gore requested-- then had to demand and go to supreme court-- to get a recount. Nader upset Florida sweeping with a single candidate.
So it already occured. in 2004 Kerry was only 1100 votes short of Bush but he did NOT request or go to court for a recount. And AGAIN the missing votes or DOUBLE counted votes occured in Florida; Kerry saw that Kathryn Harrison was STILL the secretary of state in Florida; so he knew that Gore failed to get an honest recount under Harrison in Florida.
The answer is-- 1836 WAS repeated in 2000-- a third party candidate DID create a "failure" for all parties. Nader has stated he MAY run in 2008; but he failed to apply for presidential candidate ballot by the March 20, 2007 deadline. So he can not run legally now and will not be on any legal ballot. But of course every voter can WRITE IN their own candidate if they choose.
2007-04-28 01:18:38 · answer #2 · answered by diabetescomm 1 · 0⤊ 0⤋
all that would do is cause a lower vote count, whichever party had split candidates wouldnt win, they would just try to steal the votes away but it indeed would fail because it would be 2 lets say republicans, split in different areas, vs one democrat getting votes from all sides, he has a bigger spread, and more odds of getting more electoral votes.
now if the two candidates could combine their votes and become a president duo...that would be cool =P
2007-04-28 01:13:17 · answer #3 · answered by xhopefullookx 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Lets try not to repeat history, but Learn.. lol..
Thats would be cool. sum what jst like. ' Bush sr, B.Clintion, Bush jr, H. Clintion.
4 8 8 4-?
years.. of the same people..
thats kinda like repeating history.. its seem like tha of king,queen days. prince, etc-etc..
2007-04-28 01:23:01 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
No that couldent work in todays world.
2007-04-28 01:11:52 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋