Is our process of electing the president of the United States fair for third party candidates?

Question

Explain your answer

Answer 1

Of course not. These candidates are locked out of national debates for not polling 15% by none other than the Federal Debate Commission, which not coincidentally is made up entirely of Republicans and Democrats. R & D candidates automatically qualify for matching funds provided by you and me, John Q. Taxpayer. Do you think it's fair for R & D's to have their campaigns funded by unlimited PUBLIC money, as well as private money? Of course they won't poll 15%! Who can fight them when they have unfettered access to hundreds of millions that don't belong to them? These candidates are also forced to spend millions of dollars of privately raised money simply to be 'allowed' on the ballot. I don't recall R & D's EVER needing to petition for ballot access. I suppose their great names should be good enough for all of us.

Answer 2

The entire election process is unfair. It's not only voters who vote along party lines, but the politicians themselves are pressured to vote for whatever the party dictates. Presidential candidates often don't have very many real opinions any more as a result. Instead they pander to the party's dedicated voter base and use all the money sources that the party has to offer to get into office. Thank goodness some candidates this year are not taking any lobbyist money.

I think we should do away with parties, do away with certain states having primaries earlier than others, and do away with the electoral college. That way people can independently decide which candidate is best and everyone's vote can be completely equal. Then take the top four vote-getters in the primary and put them in the general election. It would never happen, but it seems pretty fair to me.

Answer 3

The short answer is no. Politics is a game that the two major parties have rigged in their favor. National campaigns cost tens of millions of dollars, which an independent candidate cannot compete with. The two party system survives by pitting itself against the other party to generate money from their respective supporters. Even if a third party candidate had the funding (Perot) and was able to get on every state's ballot, the electoral college ensures that a third party candidate will not win. In a one vote per person system rather than an electoral system, a third party candidate may be able to get the most votes in a split field. In our all or nothing electoral system, fears of voting for an independent candidate at the cost of electing a candidate you REALLY are opposed to are a very real concern. Perot voters helped get Clinton in office and Nader voters in key states helped get W. Bush in office.

Answer 4

No its not ! How is it possible when you have the two major parties collecting so much money for their campaigns and third parties only being able to collect a fraction of that amount. The sad truth about our election system is that its not the best candidate that ever wins, its the one that can collect the most money for the campaign and be able to do the most marketing and advertising with it. Not to mention using that money also to run negative ads for the opponent. Our hole system needs to be totally changed to a truely fair election process for all parties not just Republicans and Democrats. This country needs alot of BIG changes in government and politics and political process. Too many loopholes and crooks in our government. The sad part is that we have to choose which crook we want as our president. Its always which is the less of the two evils to vote for, not which is the best for our country. Thats how most americans vote nowadays. What a shame !!

Answer 5

It's not meant to be fair to a third party candidate. Even though a candidate can win with the plurality of votes, the legitimacy of having a majority of votes is key. Typically, a third party cand. is a single issue person anyway and has little hope of winning. But he/she can take away votes from a seemingly more popular candidate to sway the election. This happen to Bush 41, with Perot running.

The legislature itself is set up for a majority and a minority party representation. Third party elected officials rarely are appointed to any important committees etc.. on Cap. Hill.

Answer 6

No not at all. If the third party candidate is able to even get his/her name on the ballot in a few states, he/she doesn't stand a chance at winning. It would be quite a challenge for a thrid party candidate to win the popular vote in a single state. That being said, the electoral college is completely bias toward major party candidates. Even if a thrid party candidate were able to accomplish a second-place finish in any given state, they would recieve abslutely no votes in the electoral college, no matter how much of the polular vote he/she recieved.

Answer 7

We need third party candidates of any persuasion. At least they interject fresh and maybe to most "revolutionary" or "radical" ideas. The founding of this country under the flag of a DEMOCRACY was a very "REVOLUTIONARY and RADICAL" idea in the first place. It shook the status quo around the world hence the name the SHOT heard ROUND the WORLD. --------WE now more than ever need some type of viable THIRD PARTY not a Libertarian, Green, Constitutionalists or Independent PARTY. What we need NOW is an AMERICAN PARTY of the PEOPLE. One that can challenge and go head to to head with the en-trenched staus quo of DEMS and REPS that is leading us down th path of RUIN! Why not SHAKE "THEM" UP? -------Ted Kennedy is the poster boy for term limits and isn't that reason enough?

Answer 8

I think big money tends to corrupt things and many of the third party solutions would attack those big money sources so they don't gather the needed moolah to mount massive direct mail, telephone, TV/radio ad campaigns that are a necessary evil of campaigning.

My only problem with trying to find a way to regulate it is: I am also a huge believer in First Amendment rights and I have a hard time saying that those are invalidated by virtue of a person simply having more cash available to express them with.

If Bill Gates wants to spend $8 billion of his own dollars to buy every billboard from Los Angeles to Anaheim the day before the 2008 election saying "Vote in my guy/gal...he's/she's the best!" he should be able to do that..after all, it's his money, it's not ILLEGAL to express your political preference, so he should be able to do that.

I do think we can regulate how unions spend dues re:politics, simply because in a union shop you MUST belong to a union and you shouldn't be forced to contribute money to directly support election of a candidate you have disagreements with.

Please note: I am also opposed to the use of "unstated" polical backing such as in the case of my wife's former employer, who required that officers of her bank contribute to a banking PAC which tended to back Republican candidates. Your ability to advance in your career shouldn't be dependent on your holding the "right" political views, be they Democrat, GOP or something else.

This is a long way to go to say: Probably...but I think the attempted cure would probably be worse than the problem. I'd just like to see more 3rd party candidates hit that 10% threshhold and get fed matching funds so we have a more robust debate on policy issues.

Answer 9

Of course it's NOT... we are in desperate need of REAL campaign finance reform whereby you, the tax payer, do NOT fund ANY candidate for public office. How do you expect a third party candidate to compete when Democrats and Republicans automatically receive public funding for their campaigns? They simply can't... and we, the people should be outraged.

Don't buy into the doublespeak of the modern era!

Answer 10

Of course not. The whole point of the two party system is to keep independants out. You prefer the enemy that you know to the one that you don't know.
From the primaries to the electoral college, the entire system is set up to make sure that a member of one of the two "ruling" parties is elected president.