First of all, Ron Paul is running under the republican ticket, so if he wins, he will not be a third party president, even though he is philosophically libertarian. Fortunately, the chances of that ever happening are exactly dick.
2007-12-07 16:03:02
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
4⤋
Abraham Lincoln was effectively a third party candidate. Prior to him, the Democrats or Whigs had won every election since 1828. There were other party changes in the years before 1850 as well. At one point in the 1840s, the 2nd largest party faction in Congress was the Anti-Masonic Party.
However, we have had a stable two party system since 1860 and nobody not nominated by the Democratic or Republican parties has won the Presidency or come especially close. Since 1924, no third party candidate has won a single electoral vote except for the Dixiecrats Strom Thurmond and George Wallace. The last time a third party candidate even finished second was Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.
Ron Paul has a remote - extremely remote - chance of winning the Republican nomination. He has no chance at all of winning as a third party candidate.
2007-12-07 16:10:31
·
answer #2
·
answered by A M Frantz 7
·
2⤊
0⤋
I think whether or not Lincoln qualifies as a third-party candidate is debatable. Prior to 1860, the Republicans ran in 1856. They were the number two party in Congress heading into the 1860 elections.
Since the establishment of the pre-printed "Australian Ballot" in the late 1880s and the associated laws making it difficult for third parties to get on the ballots, no third party candidate has won. The closest to winning would have been the Progressive Party in 1912.
As to Ron Paul, his philosophy represents at most 20% of the Republican Party. As such, it would take a major miracle (including all of the candidates sticking it out to the end) for him to even have a mathematical chance at getting the nomination.
2007-12-07 18:10:46
·
answer #3
·
answered by Tmess2 7
·
0⤊
1⤋
Yes, Abraham Lincoln was from a third party, the first Republican ever elected president. Prior to the rise of the Republicans, the dominant parties were the Democrats and the Whigs, Millard Filmore being the last Whig to serve as president.
2007-12-07 16:11:19
·
answer #4
·
answered by Rick K 6
·
1⤊
0⤋
Depends on your definition of "third party". The two big parties today were not in existence early on, so the first Presidents came from other parties (see below). Abraham Lincoln won in 1860 as a what-was-then new and minor party, the Republican Party.
US Presidents by party:
no party - 1 (G. Washington)
Federalist - 1
Democratic-Republican - 4
Whig - 4
Democratic - 15
Republican - 18
And, no, Ron Paul has no chance of being elected President.
2007-12-07 16:07:10
·
answer #5
·
answered by Reverend Black Grape 6
·
1⤊
2⤋
yes we have , and ron paul does have a shot
When the Republican Party's candidate, Abe Lincoln, won the presidency in 1860, his was a minor party
Third parties in the United States are political parties other than the two major parties that participate in national and state elections, although there may actually be more than three parties. Historically, the U.S. has a two-party system. Following Duverger's law, the Electoral College with its "winner take all" award of electors in presidential elections has, over time, created the two-party system. Another contributing factor is the division of the government into three separate branches which differs from the parliamentary system.
Although third parties rarely win elections, they play an important role in democratic government. Third parties draw attention to issues that may be ignored by the majority parties. If the issue finds resonance with the voters, one or more of the major parties may adopt the issue into its own party platform. Also a third party may be used by the voter to cast a protest vote as if in a referendum on an important issue. Third parties do help voter turnout bringing more people to the polls.[citation needed] Currently 75% of the U.S. electorate consists of registered Democrats (42.5%) and registered Republicans (32.5%), with "independents" and those belonging to other parties consitituting 24.9% of the electorate.
2007-12-07 16:03:08
·
answer #6
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
2⤋
No, Ron Paul does not have a shot. He is so far to the right of the main stream that he cannot possibly be elected, and thank goodness - he'd be a disaster.
That said, of course we've had a third-party president. You don't think it's been Republicans and Democrats forever, do you? The country was originally dominated by the Whigs and the Federalist parties, and it was only later that the Democrats and eventually the Republicans emerged.
2007-12-07 15:59:30
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
3⤋
You have to go back a long way to find a President that wasn't dem or repub. In todays climate, a third party candidate probably can't win and would only take votes from one party more than the other. Case in point: Ross Perot did well enough in 1992 to swing the election to Bill Clinton, who won with only I believe 37% of the vote. Perot espoused values that pulled many republican voters to him.
Of course Ron Paul has a shot but with his stance on Iraq, better to keep him out!
2007-12-07 16:04:30
·
answer #8
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
3⤋
If you believe Freedom and Liberty have a shot, then you believe that Ron does, too. DOWN WITH H.R. 1955!
2007-12-07 18:36:05
·
answer #9
·
answered by Anonymous
·
1⤊
0⤋
His name was Lincoln.
The first Republican President.
2007-12-07 16:03:46
·
answer #10
·
answered by Anonymous
·
2⤊
0⤋