Can a Third Party Candidate win the 2008 presidential elections in the US?

Question

www.IndependencePartyofAmerica.com

Are people ready for real change in the American political system?

Answer 1

Can they? Yes. Will they? No.

Answer 2

The real simple way to answer it: No. The American political system is in a stranglehold to the two main parties we have currently. They are both well established, well funded, and indoctrinated into the American public as either the only existing parties, or the only acceptable parties. That, coupled with the general ignorance of the American people, does not bode well for a third party candidate.
Plus, 2008 marks the most "diverse" election to date, with an African-American, a woman, and a Mormon in the running. The excitement about all of that will further push the third party candidate out of the spotlight.
The current political parties are all about power, and will do anything to keep it. The third-parties have a long way to go to be able to compete at the presidential level.

Answer 3

Not one of you gets it. It's not about getting a majority of votes, or the fact that so many people are either Republican or Democrat. To win a presidential election, a candidate must win 270 electoral votes. That's why there was such confusion in 2000 about whether Al Gore or George W. Bush had won: because Florida's electoral votes were needed to raise the total of either candidates' final tally. The same thing happened in Ohio in 2004.

As long as we use the electoral system in this country, a third party candidate can only cause chaos and confusion in November. There are fewer than 540 electoral votes in this country. Let's say a third party candidate had enough clout, charisma, and concerted effort to compete with the Democrats and Republicans on a national scale. We wouldn't just have a deadlock in one state. We'd have three strong candidates, not one of which had enough votes to even think about declaring himself (or herself) the winner. It would then be kicked to the United States Congress to make a decision, a body that is still overwhelmingly comprised of Democrats and Republicans.

For a third party candidate to win, he (or she) would have to be incredibly popular and have incredible support across the country. He wouldn't need a huge amount of support from both Democrats and Republicans; he'd need virtually all of them on his side. And that is why a third party cannot win.

The question you should ask is, how can we change either the Democratic or Republican Party from the inside so that it resembles a third party?

Answer 4

Yes, it is possible for a third party candidate to win an election. While no third party winners for a presidental election are immediately coming to mind, a particular case comes to mind. Theodore Roosevelt created a third party that he called the Bull Moose party. One has to remember that T.R. was a very outspoken president, and at the time of the creation of his party, no one really cared about what he had to say. Another third party that I recall is the Green party. While they might get a percentage of an elections' total votes, the percentage is usually so small it is hardly worth mention. Indeed, I can not recall a time where they ever held a significant amount of the votes to really pose a threat to the two major parties, Democrat and Republican. The Democratic party is very old, and stems from the creation of the government that is currently in place (which was created 1789 and ratified the either the same or following year). The Republican party stems from the time of Lincoln, when he, or rather his campaign managers, created it for the upcoming election. The third parties are usually local to a particular town, county or region in a state. Usually.

Answer 5

There is a greater chance of a third party winning some congressional seats than the presidency for several reasons.

First, most likely third party candidates do not have the experience in government needed to be a viable candidate. The last person to be elected President without holding elective office was Eisenhower and he had been Supreme Commander of the Armed Forces in Europe.

Second, if no candidate gets a majority of all electoral votes, the choice of President between the top 3 candidates goes to the House of Representatives. If there truly were a viable third party candidate running neck and neck with the Republican and Democratic nominee (and the closest we have come to that was 1912), it would be rather difficult for any of them to get a majority.

Third, as noted in other answers, it is very difficult for a third party candidate to get on the ballot in any particular state much less all fifty states. Each state that is missed reduces the chances of a third party candidate getting enough electoral votes to win.

Fourth, unlike the major parties who have lots of people to pick and choose from in getting electors, third parties and independents do not have a long list of loyal activists to consider in making their selection. This creates a real risk in a close race of losing an elector to another candidate that the major parties do not face.

Bottom line is that the third parties have not built up at the grass roots enough to put forward a serious candidate for the presidency. Most candidates who have done well as independents or as third party candidates either started in one of the major parties and left (e.g., Anderson, Wallace, Buchanan) or had sufficient money to self-finance (e.g., Perot) or were famous outside of politics before running (e.g., Nader).

Answer 6

A Third Party Candidate has never won a presidential election before, mainly because the media controls what you hear about each candidate and who you hear about.

However, considering how difficult it is to control the content of the internet, certain Candidates are getting way more attention then would have been possible otherwise. So I think it is possible, just look at Ron Paul (my favorite candidate!). They don't like mentioning him on the news but just Google Ron Paul and see how many resources there are for him made by normal people who want him to have a chance. (Ron Paul is a Libertarian running as a Republican to give himself more of a chance at winning, Does that still count as a Third Party Candidate?)

Answer 7

No, a third party doesn't stand a chance in '08. Not while there is a war raging and immigration is such a hot topic. The basic psychology of being at war means this nation will not be comfortable electing an unknown quantity. And to them, a third party would represent an unknown. They will go with what they know - and that is either someone from the Democratic or Republican Party. People are indeed ready for change, a drastic one. But to most, that simply means exchanging a Republican President for a Democratic President. I think that's as far as the general comfort factor can and will go while we are at war.

Answer 8

No. The problems being money, electoral process, coverage, and volunteers. On money, the problem is simple, the eventual winner ( and of course their party) will spend about 250 million dollars for the seat. The big money contributors are already tied to parties as they exist, so now you must go grassroots, which would involve finding a million people willing to part with 250 dollars. In general, 125 million people will vote in a given election, and of that 100 million will identify themselves as democrat or republican. This gives you a pool of 25 million, one in four that you have to convince that change makes sense, your change is the right one, and that their money will make a difference.
Problem 2 is the electoral process. Lets say you convince all 20% of the independants that you have the right system and are worth their vote. You still have the problem of the other 80%. Even if you pull the moderate voters of each party and get 40%, and lead the way in the electoral college with 220 votes, you haven't won. Since no candidate has won the majority of the electoral college votes, the vote goes to the house, and i think it fair to assume the percentage of congresspersons voting for your party would be considerably less than the public at large. So, in order to overcome this obstacle, you must win the electoral college outright.
Problem 3 is coverage. This is a catch-22 situation. It takes coverage to convince the voting public tht you are worth supporting, but you only get the constant national coverage if in fact you've already shown you are viable. While you can buy ad time in newpapers, radio and television, you don't get the daily blurbs of the major parties.
The last problem is knowledgable volunteers. The major parties already have networks setup that know each states process for getting on the ballot, when it must be done, how it must be done, and who in their organization will be doing it. So, to overcome this obstacle, you must have enough people in place ealy enough to abide by the ballot process and sign all the proper forms to insure your name appears.
I think the problem is trying to attack a broken system from the top. Its the same problem the reform party had and why it is now just a gust of wind. With considerable time and resources, and a country ready for new ideas and different paths, they chose to go for the top position with everything they had. The way to make a viable third party is by thought and planning. In 2008 there will be three senate seats that are in trouble in states that traditionally are open to new ideas, New Hampshire, Minnesota, and Colorado. In my opinion, if you truly want to make a difference and start a change, this is where you put your resources, if you can win just one of those, you begin to get the coverage you need, to get the money you need to make significant changes in the future. Peace-Phil

Answer 9

No third part has won the presidency and that includes when Teddy Roosevelt, a former president ran a third party bid. However the greatest negative to a third party is they can determine the loser. Perot caused G H W Bush to loose in 1992; Nader siphoned enough Democratic votes in 2000 to cause the defeat of Gore. I agree with a post that there should be a runoff to force the top 2 to obtain a majority. But considering this year, that would give a campaign that lasts forever.

Answer 10

Most of the people on here are correct, in so much as media and money in politics, and the voters familiarity with the two parties make it extraordinarily difficult for a third-party to win the Presidency.
However, this year the stars are beginning to aling for a strong third-party bid. First, there has to be a strong candidate that is familiar to voters. Ross Perot was able to rise up from obscurity to garner 19% in 1992. In today's political environment, to become president, the electorate has to already consider you to be "presidential-worthy." You have this candidate in Michael Bloomberg. By now means is he perfect (none of our candidates ever will be, we are human), but he is a stellar third-party choice.
Second, there has to be animosity with the big-horse candidates; and this animosity has to be above-and-beyond the normal cynicism that has always existed in American politics. The best odds right now are Hillary Clinton and Rudy Giuliani (The GOP candidate is much more up in the air right now -- Thompson and Romney make up 3/4 of GOP poll results right now). Hillary has unfavorables of 49%; and this number hasn't moved for over 10 years. This is the highest unfavorable for a front-runner in the modern era. Rudy is a great independent candidate, but he doesn't exactly set a fire under the Republican base -- his is very liberal on issues, and his personal life makes Bill Clinton's look mild.
Third, in my opinion, this is a historically weak field especially when this is the most wide-open nomination in a century. So if the candidates underneath the front-runners garner the nomination there are even larger holes for a third-party bid.
Fourth, you need to have money to run for high offices. There is always money to go around in politics, and a guy like Bloomberg can actually blow a billion dollars on a presidential bid. Understandably, this will turn him off to many; but you could argue he won't be sold out to special interest; as our front-runners are.
Fifth, in my opinion, you need to be qualified, or at least have some sort of professional experience doing something. Many, many independent candidates lack this -- they are in essence more accurately labeled "political hacks" than the major party candidates sometime seem.

Finally, they need to actually run.

Answer 11

Not in 2008. But in the next decade, I believe we will see more independents winning elections for governor, house, and senate, maybe even president. We'd just be continuing the trend. Here's some examples: Texas billionaire Ross Perot almost 20% of the popular vote in 1992, and would have beat Bill Clinton and Bush Sr. had he not stopped campaigning right before the election. Illinois gubernatorial election 2006: Rich Whitney, the green party candidate, got 10% of the vote! People were just fed up with Blagojevich and Topinka, and all the mudslinging in that election. If we see more 3rd party candidates winning elections, we may soon see a 3 party system!