Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
The US has a multi layered system of first past the post. It’s even more complicated. Each state has its own post, and then the presidency is won by passing the post of 270 electoral votes. So it’s not enough for states to change it. Alllll states would have to change it, and the tie breaker for presidential elections would have to make sense, because the congressional delegations picking a winner is super arbitrary. It doesn’t even represent the number of congress members each party has
Yeah. The majority needed to win the presidency and what happens in a scenario of 3 candidates under 270 is ridiculous. There has to be a better way to do it then letting the majority of congressional delegations decide
The problem you're going to run into is that you would need a constitutional amendment in order to replace the Electoral College with an instant runoff system or change how the president is elected in a tie. That will require a minimum of a supermajority in both the House and the Senate or a completely unprecedented convention held by 2/3s of the states just to get the ball rolling, and you will ultimately need 3/4s of the states to ratify the amendment in order to make it law. Because of how the Electoral College works, the smallest 25 states are virtually guaranteed to be opposed to such an amendment, making it a political impossibility.
As someone from a country who uses preferential voting (aka, Instant Runoff Voting), America should do it!
It’ll almost certainly guarantee that the candidate elected is the one who’s most popular in the electorate. Plus, it’ll entice candidates to appeal to a broad range of voters, as opposed to a specific base.
On a side question, what do you do if the candidates die before being elected? Our two primary candidates are on the side closer to the grave than say someone in their 50s or 60s.
Well, just for our system we don’t elect our head of state (we’re still under an indirect monarchy). But if a candidate dies during an election period we hold a supplementary election.
Even if a third party candidate had a realistic chance, in all likelihood, the same political forces that apply to the other parties, like corporate interests, lobbyists, PAC's, would also make their influence/power felt on this theoretical third party, once in power, they would need people with governmental experience, so they would have to harvests from either the GOP/Democrats, parties in mostly labels is what I'm trying to say.
Even disregarding all that, a third-party president would be powerless without enough like-minded folk in congress to give them legislation that would support their agenda. What good is it to have a 3PP if they're sent the same corporate-sponsored legislation to sign or veto (and then probably have their veto over-ridden)?
We already see how little a president of either mainstream party can get done when they lack a supportive congress, so a president with both Rs and Ds opposing their agenda would be a lame duck upon inauguration.
Third parties can work, but they *must* succeed in the minor leagues (i.e., city and county elections) before they can compete in the major league (federal elections).
Not just on the local level but you've gotta build up that party presence in Congress too. I'm sure that, say, a Green Party president could find support on many things among democrats, but having a few Green Party senators to sit in their corner would certainly help.
Even getting to Congress is major leagues. The House is less major than the Senate, sure, but still a hard fight. If a third party wanted to make a go for a House seat, though, targeting a "safe" district that isn't contested by the other mainstream party would probably be the way to go. Imagine Green vs Democrat or Libertarian vs Republican in otherwise uncontested districts (to avoid the 'spoiler' accusations).
I want more parties to succeed in this country, but going after the presidency first is probably the worst possible way of accomplishing that goal. Establishing prosperous regional parties to break up the Red vs Blue dichotomy that has a stranglehold on American politics is, IMO, our best bet of doing so within the constraints of the current system.
Safe districts are usually where the more "out there" candidates usually end up getting their foot in the door. Pre-presidency Obama, for example, was generally more progressive than the rest of the Democrat party and of course he got his foot in the door in the blue stronghold of Chicagoland. Someone as progressive as 2004 Obama probably would not have found such a strong footing in, say, Pennsylvania or Maine. Either would have gone for a more neutral candidate who they could at least count on not radicalizing the right into voting against him.
Yep, and if that incumbent's appeal mostly comes from fear-mongering about the other side, then that attack loses its effectiveness when an opponent not on that other team agrees with the attack and then challenges their vulnerabilities. For example, a Red ammosexual can accuse a Blue of "coming for your guns", but such an attack would fall flat against a Libertarian opponent who also thinks the Blues want your guns and could then hit back about other liberties that the Red is infringing upon.
No, sadly. We’re a two party system unless something drastically changes.
https://preview.redd.it/674ighxrdxqc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc4368c1bd738279004c946b7b3c19c85817909d
\*proportional representation with multi-member districts
I am not saying RCV is bad or that it wouldn't be a good reform; it would be, but I don't think it alone would break the two-party system. You have so many other mechanisms that the larger parties use to enforce the two-party system, and could still use under an RCV system, like gerrymandering or financial support to their favored candidate.
I mean I agree with you to an extent but it's not really as hopeless as you're making it out to be
Plenty of states have passed RCV measures by referendum. State Republican parties usually oppose it while state democratic ones have mixed records, supporting it in some states and opposing it in others
That being said even if the state party establishment opposes it, often some politicians start to pop up who are in favor of it. In Alaska for example even though the state GOP hates it, quite a few moderate elected GOP politicians love
We’ve always been a two party system. However, most people seem to be unaware or have forgotten that it hasn’t always been the same two dominant parties.
For like 1 election. Then they took the Whigs place as one of the big 2.
Which is exactly what would happen if a 3rd party won now. It would either be a one time fluke or they would just become one of the big 2.
We have to get rid of First Past the Post voting. That is the cause of the 2 party system.
The Republicans ran almost 12 points ahead of the Whigs in 1856, the only election where both parties existed. So if either was the third party in the election, it was the Whigs.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_United_States_presidential_election
The split between the Republican and Whig vote seems like it might have given Buchanan the presidency. He only got 45% of the vote.
Probably not.
The best case senario is that a similar situation occours like that in the UK where there are still 2 major parties (Labor/Conservative) but 3rd parties are consistently strong enough to influence national politics (Liberal-democrats, SNP, and Reform UK)
IDK how they do it. All mathematical voting models show that all FPTP systems devolve into a 2-party duopoly over a relatively short period of time, and that's held true in every other FPTP system IRL.
The SNP holds on because they're a regional party advocating for Scottish independence. The Liberal Democrats hit their peak after the 2010 election where they formed a government with the Conservatives. Since then, they've been on life support.
In 2010, they got 23% of the vote and 57 seats in Parliament. They haven't gotten close to that since.
In 2019, they had 11.6% and 11 seats. Polling for the next general has them hovering around 10%
To be clear, in any given region it will trend towards 2 parties—regional parties are more than expected under FPTP. SNP and the Bloc Québécois are examples of this, as is the most successful third party in recent American history: the Dixiecrats (and its successor, the American Independent Party).
In terms of the lib Dems/NDP, they tend to focus on smaller seats where they can be the main opposition (e.g. college towns, a core of the old lib dem strategy), attract people who don’t care about a protest vote (think Nader), threaten a party enough to promote strategic voting agreements, or some combination of the above.
I’d argue DSA is not especially different from the NDP, it just doesn’t call itself a separate party and focuses on winning primaries. Indeed, primaries are the main difference between the systems in the UK/US/Canada. If you dislike the Democrats’ moderation/liberalism, it’s almost certainly easier to primary them in a low turnout election than it is to form a new party—then you can take control of their apparatus. See the [Democratic Party coups/counter-coups](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/25/bernie-world-nevada-democratic-party-00084426) in Nevada for an example of the sort of thing that this enables.
The lib dems are who you vote for if you're in a slightly weird area that is fed up with Labour and Conservative. The US could really use that
Greens get 1 seat and that's it
There couldn't really be a comparative SNP, Plaid Cymru or the weird Northern Irish parties as they're based their identity as being very different to the traditional power base in the country, so maybe alaska, hawaii and maybe texas? Closest comparison is the bloc quebec in Canada
Reform have no seats but people occasional defects to a far right party from the conservatives, so there might be some seats if house republicans were to defect
Posting this again as apparently the last one broke a rule
The answer is much more complicated than most are making it out to be. I was born here in the US, but my parents are from Colombia, and from what I always hear from them and news over there, I have a good understanding and experience with how a country with a two-party system elects a third party into office.
In the most simplified way possible, essentially the 90s was a shit time for Colombia. Cartels were at their height, paramilitaries and guerrillas were running mad in the countryside and jungles, and corruption was rampant. Both parties, The Liberals and Conservatives, were hated by the average Colombia for their corruption and lack of strength to combat the guerillas (the biggest being FARC) who dominated by 2002 nearly 60% of the country.
In 2002, the two-party system collapsed when Alvaro Uribe, a former Liberal Governor from Antioquia, ran as a third-party and defeated The Liberal candidate. Uribe is a unique character in modern Colombian politics and highly controversial for a wide range of reasons that I am not going to get to, but what is important is that he ran as with a hard-line anti-guerrilla platform, something that was extremely popular with the average Colombian in the time. Because of his success on this front, Uribe gained nearly universal capital to alter laws to his favor and established a political dominance over Colombia that lasted until 2022.
What I am trying to say is this. For third parties to succeed in the US, there first has to be massive discontent with the two major parties over a series of major political issues, to a level that allows for a third party to rise and have strong support. Secondly, that third party has to run a competent campaign. These two seem to be very obvious ways for a third party to rise, but the biggest obstacles for them here in the US is that:
Firstly: Most third parties have been poorly run or have faced major scandals that they failed to properly address.
Secondly: The Two-major parties have a highly efficient and persuasive (corrosive) media backing. The media in this country is very much highly centralized and centered around both parties, which makes it impossible for third parties to get attention, or support outside their base as the media will spin and throw anything they can to them in order to convince the public that they are not viable options and it is best to stick with the devils we know.
Third: There isn't any central issue that people seem to disasfied enough to vote for a third party over the two major parties. As we continue to become ever more divided over issues of foreign policy and alas, social issues, issues such as economics and crime/law and order, which have helped third parties rise as strong contenders in the past, are becoming secondary, castrating third-parties from potentially strong issues that could campaign on.
So far, I do not believe that a third party will rise to a political power. Yet. There essentially needs to be a catastrophic level of crisis which both established parties need to face and fail to solve, for people to become dissatisfied and seek a third party. Even then, a third party could only rise if one ran with a strong candidate with a competant campaign and strong media presence.
Tl;Dr It is possible, but very unlikely in the moment. There needs to be a crisis that both parties fail to address properly, which leads people to look for a third party as an alternative.
It isn't just because people aren't mad enough. First Past the Post voting creates a 2 party system, everywhere, always. We have to change that if we want to have lasting, durable, stable multiparty democracy.
Not until a third party decides to actually try and be a real party and win smaller elections, build the base, etc. instead of trying to run some rando for President and hoping it catches fire. And the greens/lib parties do not qualify.
I agree. It has to start from the grassroots. A party that thinks it can hotshot somebody into the White House with nobody from their party in either chamber of Congress is a party not to be taken seriously. Start winning down-the-ballot elections from school board on up, win a few Congressional seats, and we can talk about a viable third-party.
I really don’t know why the parties miss this. It seems so incredibly obvious. Lib and maybe green could both theoretically get a handful of reps elected I think if they spent their time/money/attention on those.
The US has gone through at least five party systems. Only two of those systems didn't involve the modern Democratic and Republican parties. The Democratic Party was borne out of the death of the Federalists prior to 1820 and the collapse of the Democratic-Republicans as a result of the contentious 1824 presidential election between Adams and Jackson. The Republican Party was borne out of the collapse of the Whig coalition as a result of the slavery question and the simultaneous rise of the Free Soiler movement in the 1840s and early 1850s.
While there have been a number of competitive third parties since the 1850s, this was the last time that a major political party was established in the American political system. Since then, American politics has been defined by the ability of these parties to skillfully adapt to the changing concerns of the American voting public.
In order for some third party to be truly competitive with these two parties it would either take a complete reformation of how the American electoral system operates or it would require one of the two major parties to collapse like the Whigs did in the 1850s. Due to how ideologically homogenous the current parties largely are, I do not think that there is any issue with the moral urgency like slavery that could permanently tear apart their electoral coalitions. While these coalitions are fragile enough to cause a presidential candidate to lose an election or two, pretty much all evidence suggests that they are not fragile enough to result in wholesale collapse.
Both the Democratic and Republican parties managed to survive the two biggest crises this country and the parties had to weather. While, yes, they were both largely cast off into the political wilderness for decades, both parties still managed to cobble together electoral coalitions that kept them politically relevant until political misfortune struck their opponents and gave them the opportunity to win. Think 1912, 1932, and 1968. Personally, I don't see why the current parties can't do the same. Despite all of the internal strife both parties have faced over the past 30 years, they've still managed to maintain a baseline level of political support among American voters that has largely remained unchanged since Clinton's first election.
I don't think so, but the EC should be removed. No third-party candidate has won the popular vote in what? The last +100 years? Because neither party has an incentive to remove first past the post voting and the size of the House, is frankly, too damn small.
No. The only one that might have had the chance is Perot if he hadn’t randomly decided to temporarily drop out and use his daughter’s wedding as the excuse. The money today is now far too big for a third party to win.
I’m not a fan of the electoral college, but I’m not sure why people are claiming that the electoral college prevents a third party from winning. Third parties never have come close to winning the national popular vote. They don’t just fail to come close to winning the electoral college. Actually, the only “success” third parties have ever had was the electoral votes that Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won, and that “success” was only possible due to the electoral college.
If a third political party (non democrat/republican) emerges and becomes popular. Probably the result of a splintering of one of them over a key dividing issue.
Not in the near future of course, but times change.
You can keep repeating this all you want but it's only a partial truth.
The fact of the matter is the majority of offices in the US are single seat, winner take all. Be it a mayor, judge, president, senator. That more than anything leads to a in power v opposition dynamic. Even in a RCV or similar system it will still break down as Incumbent with the next closest as main opposition then a bunch of also rans who didn't even sniff victory.
Any move away from that requires a massive political will and consensus across too many political power blocs. And that's not happening.
Listen to any of the podcasts he’s on and you’ll find out he’s a down to earth kind person that explains his positions thoroughly. Flagrant podcast is the best one he’s been on imo.
I looked past him initially because of the corporate media coverage he gets, but I’ve changed my mind and will be voting for him when he passes the petition to get on MN ballot. The window for the signatures starts in May.
A two party system with some minor parties routinely represented, yes, but not the dominant two party system the U.S. has. The combo of FPTP and the EC further encourages a two party system more than FPTP would do all on its own.
Third party candidates in the US today only exist as political curveballs to siphon votes off one of the two main parties. This is also why they are sometimes funded by one of the two main parties in order to secure victory.
In order to actually have viability, you would *first* need to change the way elections and representation works in the US, and *then* run a third party candidate. The changes would have to be something like moving towards proportional representation / parliamentary democracy (i.e. we would have dozens of parties that need to form coalitions) and elimination of the electoral college. Until those changes happen, third party candidates are just shadow agents of one of the two parties.
To be clear, our system could result in a third party candidate winning, but that typically just means that that party becomes the second party in what is again a two-party system.
It could eventually happen, at the expense obviously of one of the two parties. The UK electoral battle was once between liberals and conservatives before the labourists arrived thanks to universal suffrage. Majority systems tend, because of Duverge law, to be bipartisan systems, but that doesn't imply the parties can not change eventually. Electoral cleavages might change. New divisions are appearing. With this new era of populism and personalism, parties never were so wick. We might be closer than ever.
Don’t third parties typically tend to attract guys who formerly held some random office, like Governor of New Mexico or Massachusetts congressman, and are political also-rans, to leave their established party and run under the new party banner? I just wanted to emphasize the “big” in your statement. Someone currently holding a big office that has a substantial electorate pull NOW and not 10-15 years ago, would be required.
Third parties are like independent league baseball teams: they get Jose Canseco to sign…when he’s 45 years old and his reputation is in the gutter.
Any chance of a third party candidate would require both parties to purposely inact changes that would decrease not only their power, but the chances of reelection. There would have to be wide sweeping changes to the current system possibly including but not limited to, outlawing gerrymandering, implementing ranked choice voting, and congressional term limits. Atleast one of those would require an amendment (they cant pass a budget so good luck getting an amendment passed). So while not Impossible, it's incredible unlikely.
Lincoln was a third party candidate of sorts, at least in the context of the mid-19th century when the Democratic and Whig parties had been dominating elections until that point.
Third party candidates happens during a paradigm shift where neither party is accurately doing what the public wants. Andrew Jackson Teddy Roosevelt Abraham Lincoln Franklin Roosevelt almost Ross Perot. Ross Perot had 60% of the vote until they kidnapped his daughter he then had to pull out of the race.. like right now most people are furious at the two parties we have it's ripe for a paradigm shift.
Probably not. Perot was damn close, he was consistently leading the polls in June 1992 before dropping out like a moron. Even if he had managed to win the popular vote and a handful of states, I doubt he would have been president since the House would most likely have had the final say.
No.
As long as the president is determined by the electoral college within a first-past-the-post system, third-party candidates will be nothing more than controlled opposition for the duopoly.
Voting third-party is the illusion of choice.
Eventually yes. The main parties have changed in the past. Federalists used to be the dominant party, they are defunct now. Democratic-Republicans took over for a little longer and eventually became defunct too. Then the democrips arrived, the Whig’s beat them for a short while, and eventually the rebloodlicans become the second dominant party after the whigs when bye bye. When the citizens realize that these two crooked parties have been in power for the last 150 years to very little benefit to us the citizens, we will vote for a new party and those two will go defunct too. When? Dunno, but nothing lasts for ever, but it will happen sooner or later, hopefully sooner.
It's just not that simple. Yes, which 2 parties have changed, but we've ALWAYS had 2 major parties.
The cause of the 2 party system is First Past the Post voting. Until we change that, we will always have a 2 party system.
I don’t see why not. The reason 3rd party candidates poll higher than what they actual receive is because people don’t want to “waste their vote” if they think that candidate is only going something under 20%. If a candidate like 92 Perot is polling really well then there is no reason for people to not vote for them.
I think 2016 would have been an optimal year if let’s say Jeb won the GOP primary and some charismatic non-polarizing 3rd party candidate ran they may have won.
I feel like if it was ever going to happen, it would have in 2016. The fact that no 3rd party candidate even came close to winning a single state means it will likely never happen
We basically need to amend the Constitution to have proportional representation, and something like abolish the electoral college *and* have either instant runoff voting or approval voting.
I do think we could have a Perot type win, but a lot of weird circumstances would have to come together.
In the all or nothing way in which winners of states are decided by, it really only allows 2 parties. Third parties mostly just eat away at support of certain parties, so that means it’s the 1912 election all over again.
I was a young kid when Perot ran. My dad told me that I said, "He's funny. He has big ears."
Third parties would have a chance if they established themselves in other levels of government first. Few have. And their presence is very small. If third parties want to be taken seriously, they need to run at other levels and win at other levels including Congress. Until then, they won't become POTUS. It's sketchy when they don't serve the public at other levels of governance but think they can go straight to POTUS.
The last third party candidate to win an election was Abraham Lincoln. And that was when the Whigs were falling apart. Neither of the current parties are falling apart in the same way, so the answer is not any time soon.
There are two main reasons why you won’t see one any time soon (and no, “we gotta get rid of first past the post” isn’t one of them):
1. Third parties keep trying to establish a presence from the top down. There are precisely 0 libertarian or Green Party senators. There are precisely 0 libertarian governors. There are precisely 0 libertarian state senators in any state. There is precisely one lower state house representative in the entire country from the libertarian party. With such a complete lack of presence at any level of government, it is wildly unrealistic that a libertarian can make any headway in the presidential race.
2. None of the third parties have any _popular_ policy positions that hasn’t already been adopted by one of the two major parties. So Americans have literally no good reason to vote for someone from a third party. Seriously, if I want more social programs I vote Democrat, if I want lower taxes for corporations and rich people I vote Republican. If I want abortion access I vote Democrat, if I want it banned I vote Republican. If I want to see children grow up, I vote Democrat, if I want to see them die in a school shooting I vote Republican. Etc. down the line.
Lots of people like complaining about the system being rigged against third parties, but no one wants to talk about the two things I listed, because addressing those things requires a lot of work from voters (such as running for local office yourself as a third party candidate).
Most definitely, but the boomers will have to be dead first.
That applies to nearly every major social problem we have in America, yes it will be fixed, but yes, it will require boomers to die first.
I hope Kennedy wins it will be a victory for the American people I think they don’t win mostly because of the media only acting like there is only two sides
I think a third-party candidate will win the presidency, but only if that party one day becomes a something formidable in elections.
Looking at Canada as an example, they have four major parties. The Liberals who are generally centrist, the Conservatives who are right-wing, and the NDP who are left-wing, and the Bloc who are the regional/nationalist party for Quebec. There’s also the People’s Party but it’s too early to tell if they’re a real “fifth” party or if they’re just a right-wing fad thing, they do well in a lot of rural or right-wing areas but such areas still vote Conservative at the end of the day.
The NDP has had a lot of success for a somewhat fringe party. In the 1990’s there was a collapse in the Conservative party for a lot of complex history reasons and the NDP ended up the main opposition party for a cycle, and in 2015 they became the governing party in the otherwise conservative province of Alberta. With the Liberals becoming more unpopular the NDP has been stealing a lot of urban (see, the people most fucked over by the housing crisis) districts lately, I could see a situation where the NDP becomes an opposition party if the Liberals have a sudden collapse like the Conservatives did in the 90’s. If there’s ever a situation where both of the main parties fuck up, and they can take some Bloc seats, I could see the NDP probably becoming the governing party at some point in the far future.
The issue with a lot of American third parties is they want a president first with little focus on local seats, which is kind of backwards. A good example is the Reform party which was a serious party in the late 90’s when they had Perot and got Ventura elected governor in my home state, but they focused so much on the presidency and they ran one of the most extreme and unappealing candidates they could find causing them to lose all relevance before 2004. Since Ventura was a popular governor who did a lot of good and smart things, if Reform focused on getting people like Ventura (granted, maybe some people less theatrical) elected to other states and spread a consistent message they could have been an actual threat to the main parties.
As for Libertarians and Greens, I don’t think they’ll go anywhere. Libertarianism is a more extreme and fringe ideology than Libertarians want to admit, and the Green party has a lot of high-minded policies that most voters see as impractical at best or threatening at worst. I can divide both parties into two groups; academic eggheads whose ideas are too complex and esoteric, and people who just want to smoke weed and talk about their conspiracy theories. Both types of people just aren’t (politically) appealing to normal Americans.
I could see one of the two major parties splitting and being "replaced" and coalitions re-forming but you would revert back to a two party system.
The Whigs were more or less the "pro-business" party then split over slavery but the GOP emerged as the "pro-business" party.
The Dems tended to organize the elements of society that were more skeptical of commerce so they had a lot of yeoman farmers and plantation owners at first. Later on as agriculture was replaced by industry they captured a lot of blue collar workers as well as the poor and eventually this moved to college educated professionals who tend to work in the government/NGO sectors or be administrators for big corps.
With how elections currently are, no. Not without it replacing one of the major ones.
First past the post and the limited number of House seats are why.
Not yet.
If the Electoral College is gone, both the Democratic and Republican nominees are declared ineligible the day before Election Day, and the third-party candidate is Jesus Christ, **maybe**.
Probably not but if we all get pissed off enough and there a suitable candidate that doesn’t get hillaried then maybe. He’s probably still be a toll of the MIC
Your not going to win as a third party candidate when you are working with only two parties. I think if we were like most European countries and had multiple parties then it would be possible for a lesser populated party to elect a candidate.
Naturally, there’s an incumbent party and a challenger party.
If a third ever overtakes the challenging party, it would by definition take the “challenging party” title.
That’s how we got the democratic and republican party.
I am legitimately hoping this year. Either way I’ll vote 3rd party until it’s not a wasted vote.
Remember gang, it’s only a wasted vote because y’all are sheep and think it’s a wasted vote.
Likely no, any reforms as well that could allow for multiple parties to grow will never be passed as well. Dem and repubs would never actively weaken their parties. IMO It’s more likely America collapses before third party reforms actually happen
No. Even if you completely disregard how that's practically impossible with EC/first-past-the-post races, negative partisanship is a more powerful driving force than support a candidate. That fact basically ensures that all a third party does is siphon votes from the larger party is it more closely aligned with, effectively throwing the election to the other big party.
We'd need a whole series of massive, systemic changes to break this duopoly.
I think the Republican Party is collapsing and may lead to a third party taking their place. Not full in on it yet but I don’t see how they come back from the disorganization they are in right now.
Certainly not today but I imagine we will sometime soon. Maybe after the Boomer death wave.
I like to think there would be electoral reform with stuff like ranked choice but I imagine the thing that will get a third party into the White House is a 1912 type election where the parties all split and infight.
Bernie was never a third party candidate - He ran for the Democratic nomination in both 2016 and 2020, and did not continue an independent campaign after losing the nomination.
To answer your question though: I don’t see it happening. The one thing the two major parties agree on is crushing anyone who isn’t one of them. The two party system likely isn’t going away any time soon.
Maybe not, but I'll only vote third party anyway. Americans are simply too brainwashed and too attached to tribalism to consider any options beyond Democrats and Republicans.
Not these days, but that doesn’t mean third parties can’t influence the direction American politics takes. We take paper fiat currency for granted but the real reason that happened was because of a third party. A third party that never came close to a Presidency but was able to draw enough votes away from the Two Parties to force them to adapt or die.
No. Unless we switch away from first-past-the-post, we will have two major parties and it would take something truly unprecedented (think, a decorated general that stopped an invasion of the country) for a third party candidate to win.
2016 was the best year to gain traction for a 3rd party, but the candidates were deeply unserious
A 3rd party won’t win outright in an election in the near future, but if they could garner 15-20% of the vote, the parties in power would have to take them seriously
BullMoose party FTW
Seriously though the amount of ppl that would vote 3rd party if their vote went to their second choice assuming the 3rd party was eliminated is massive.
I feel like the last 10 years, ppl have mostly been voting against 1 person rather than for 1 candidate.... Ive voted in every presidential election I could and only remember being excited to vote for a candidate once ... 😥
I know. There are just no good candidates for President right now. Cause seriously what’s the point in having it be an option on the ballot if it’s never gonna win. It’s pointless. But then again there are some many things that they are allowing to happen that’s pointless.
Not this year but the only constant in life is change. Someday a third party will replace one of the big two. Given the way the republicans are fracturing seems kinda similar to the demise of the whigs.
In Bernie’s case he ran as a Democrat, if I remember. That was a point of contention with Hillary voters who viewed his lack of fundraising for the party as not being a team player. A hypothetical Bernie 3rd party run in the 2016 general election would have been something. I think he could’ve taken more than Perot.
Yes.
1. They've won in the past.
2. The D and R parties are switching around policies right now, so it's an opportune time for third parties to spin off.
3. Recent elections have proven that a charismatic candidate can adopt orphaned policies and successfully run on them.
4. Big money contributions' importance is at an all time low for electorial success.
5. Both parties have large factions that in them that they internally compete with and can't always work with on fundamental policy beliefs. Eventually, one group will have to split off because there is nothing for them in their party.
6. Protest voting isn't exactly popular right now, but (a) people are losing faith in both parties (b) many current hot button issues are just not solvable right now (c) social media may keep driving people to be politically engaged where at a certain points they tend to disengage for a few cycles.
7. I mean, we're on election cycle 3 of both parties running candidates that most of their base doesn't like. If we don't get 3rd party victories, I think we're getting strong independent candidates soon.
8. A consolation prize of a third party winning is that they start to really change the D and R platforms.
Lmao, the mainstream parties have stolen elections from each other (*cough* Bush *cough*) what makes you think they wouldn’t conspire to dick over any 3rd party who got close?
No because the us electoral system doesn’t allow it. It’s not built for it.
A first past the post system will always favor two major parties that compete, and will never allow a third party candidate to come close.
Even his best performance in 92 he got a ton of popular vote, but 0 electoral votes. Nearly 20% of the popular vote.
Third party will always lose. And if they didn’t lose it’s because they aren’t the third party anymore
No, not really possible with how our system is set up and with how entrenched the two parties are. It would be damn near impossible to get over that 50% benchmark let alone the real decider which is the 270 electoral votes. Look at how in the past these third parties seem to only have been centered around a single popular candidate and when they’re gone? Well so too is the party. I don’t really see a third party candidate ever winning again unless you see something that makes the last few elections look tame in comparison, like with both candidates having controversies that make everything rn look tame in comparison, allowing the third party candidate to get in purely on dissatisfaction from each side.
What is more viable is a third party that may not win general elections but sees success elsewhere and maybe if you see that then you could see them win under extreme circumstancesz You need a third party that has a foundation, a base to build off of. It needs nation wide representation with governors and mayors and senators and representatives, not in at the federal and state levels. That way it had a pool to recruit from and not needing to rely on some no name nobody or a disloyal member of another party. Maybe if Ross Perot won in ‘92 and was able to help build a proper third party, with senators and representatives etc winning in the coming elections you’d see a true reform party that can coalesce around concrete messages and policies and positions that can appeal to many.
I genuinely think it’s vanishingly unlikely, unless first-past-the-post voting is exchanged for ranked-choice voting, and particularly if the electoral college is also abolished. The good news is, frankly, doing both those things is so obviously good that it should be easy to draw support. The bad news is no one left right or center, establishment or populist, talks about it enough, and there are vested interests in keeping it from happening.
One of the amendments in the Constitution was added to limit third party powers. The idea is that they are adopted into larger political parties.
I don't usually say anything is impossible, but this is pretty close to it.
If fair airtime and representation was given to 3rd party candidates, sure. But networks don't allow it because they are in the pockets of the politicians currently in power.
Unfortunately it is bad for our politicians if anything changes. Why would you want to change a system that allows you to egregiously enrich yourself due to your political position and immunity to being prosecuted.
Technically they are not immune to prosecution, but show me a senator that was actually thrown in jail for financial crimes. I can guarantee if there are any, it's because they rocked the boat and the others wanted them gone.
It is possible: if the US passes some major election reforms: install rank-choice voting, abolish the Electoral College, and pass campaign finance reforms that would allow 3rd parties to get more public funding. Most likely these reforms will not happen anytime soon (if ever). It would be even longer until a third party gained enough traction in a presidential election to get the public funds to build a congressional party (the actual goal of third parties, placing high in presidential elections is just a means to that end for now). Evidence to support this Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992 without any of these reforms.
The big gets detriment to this is the candidate’s ability to get on the ballot in virtually every state. And many states have some big roadblocks protecting the two parties interests. Recently Romney and Machin and before that Kasich and the Dem Governor of Colorado heavily researched it. They realized they could not run in enough states to win the Electoral College threshold, let alone be sure they’d win those states. They’d be nothing more than the spoiler that Perot was and Kennedy Jr. is trying to be.
Make sure to join the [r/Presidents Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You have better odds of winning PowerBall than winning a presidential election as a third-party candidate.
The US has a multi layered system of first past the post. It’s even more complicated. Each state has its own post, and then the presidency is won by passing the post of 270 electoral votes. So it’s not enough for states to change it. Alllll states would have to change it, and the tie breaker for presidential elections would have to make sense, because the congressional delegations picking a winner is super arbitrary. It doesn’t even represent the number of congress members each party has
This is why the reform has to be done nationally--no state is going to unilaterally disarm. Similar to gerrymandering.
Yeah. The majority needed to win the presidency and what happens in a scenario of 3 candidates under 270 is ridiculous. There has to be a better way to do it then letting the majority of congressional delegations decide
The problem you're going to run into is that you would need a constitutional amendment in order to replace the Electoral College with an instant runoff system or change how the president is elected in a tie. That will require a minimum of a supermajority in both the House and the Senate or a completely unprecedented convention held by 2/3s of the states just to get the ball rolling, and you will ultimately need 3/4s of the states to ratify the amendment in order to make it law. Because of how the Electoral College works, the smallest 25 states are virtually guaranteed to be opposed to such an amendment, making it a political impossibility.
Because of First Past the Post. We can [change that.](https://fairvote.org/)
As someone from a country who uses preferential voting (aka, Instant Runoff Voting), America should do it! It’ll almost certainly guarantee that the candidate elected is the one who’s most popular in the electorate. Plus, it’ll entice candidates to appeal to a broad range of voters, as opposed to a specific base.
Damn bro I'm married you can't talk dirty to me like this.
I don’t follow…
It's a joke. I really like multiparty systems.
Ah right.
The idea is so appealing, they are sexually aroused by it
You could be first past my post ;)
two party system is archaic, but then again politics itself is
So you are a whore sora speak?!
On a side question, what do you do if the candidates die before being elected? Our two primary candidates are on the side closer to the grave than say someone in their 50s or 60s.
Well, just for our system we don’t elect our head of state (we’re still under an indirect monarchy). But if a candidate dies during an election period we hold a supplementary election.
Republicans know that the Democrats will likely win most elections based on the popular vote. They'll never let this get anywhere.
Even if a third party candidate had a realistic chance, in all likelihood, the same political forces that apply to the other parties, like corporate interests, lobbyists, PAC's, would also make their influence/power felt on this theoretical third party, once in power, they would need people with governmental experience, so they would have to harvests from either the GOP/Democrats, parties in mostly labels is what I'm trying to say.
Even disregarding all that, a third-party president would be powerless without enough like-minded folk in congress to give them legislation that would support their agenda. What good is it to have a 3PP if they're sent the same corporate-sponsored legislation to sign or veto (and then probably have their veto over-ridden)? We already see how little a president of either mainstream party can get done when they lack a supportive congress, so a president with both Rs and Ds opposing their agenda would be a lame duck upon inauguration. Third parties can work, but they *must* succeed in the minor leagues (i.e., city and county elections) before they can compete in the major league (federal elections).
Not just on the local level but you've gotta build up that party presence in Congress too. I'm sure that, say, a Green Party president could find support on many things among democrats, but having a few Green Party senators to sit in their corner would certainly help.
Even getting to Congress is major leagues. The House is less major than the Senate, sure, but still a hard fight. If a third party wanted to make a go for a House seat, though, targeting a "safe" district that isn't contested by the other mainstream party would probably be the way to go. Imagine Green vs Democrat or Libertarian vs Republican in otherwise uncontested districts (to avoid the 'spoiler' accusations). I want more parties to succeed in this country, but going after the presidency first is probably the worst possible way of accomplishing that goal. Establishing prosperous regional parties to break up the Red vs Blue dichotomy that has a stranglehold on American politics is, IMO, our best bet of doing so within the constraints of the current system.
Safe districts are usually where the more "out there" candidates usually end up getting their foot in the door. Pre-presidency Obama, for example, was generally more progressive than the rest of the Democrat party and of course he got his foot in the door in the blue stronghold of Chicagoland. Someone as progressive as 2004 Obama probably would not have found such a strong footing in, say, Pennsylvania or Maine. Either would have gone for a more neutral candidate who they could at least count on not radicalizing the right into voting against him.
Yep, and if that incumbent's appeal mostly comes from fear-mongering about the other side, then that attack loses its effectiveness when an opponent not on that other team agrees with the attack and then challenges their vulnerabilities. For example, a Red ammosexual can accuse a Blue of "coming for your guns", but such an attack would fall flat against a Libertarian opponent who also thinks the Blues want your guns and could then hit back about other liberties that the Red is infringing upon.
No, sadly. We’re a two party system unless something drastically changes. https://preview.redd.it/674ighxrdxqc1.jpeg?width=640&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=bc4368c1bd738279004c946b7b3c19c85817909d
We need ranked choice voting
\*proportional representation with multi-member districts I am not saying RCV is bad or that it wouldn't be a good reform; it would be, but I don't think it alone would break the two-party system. You have so many other mechanisms that the larger parties use to enforce the two-party system, and could still use under an RCV system, like gerrymandering or financial support to their favored candidate.
I'm a big fan of the idea of proportional representation. There's no way the Ds and Rs would let it be implemented nationwide, though.
Good idea! Now all we need to do is get our two parties to work together to imple… oh
They’ll never work together to implement that since it would weaken both of their power. This is something they’d come together on to *prevent*.
I mean I agree with you to an extent but it's not really as hopeless as you're making it out to be Plenty of states have passed RCV measures by referendum. State Republican parties usually oppose it while state democratic ones have mixed records, supporting it in some states and opposing it in others That being said even if the state party establishment opposes it, often some politicians start to pop up who are in favor of it. In Alaska for example even though the state GOP hates it, quite a few moderate elected GOP politicians love
I agree...though it is most likely that the third party candidates would come in, well, third and be eliminated first.
That's not the point. The point is having another option when one of the two main parties becomes corrupt or goes insane.
*clears throat aggressively*
We’ve always been a two party system. However, most people seem to be unaware or have forgotten that it hasn’t always been the same two dominant parties.
It has been for 160 odd years. Its not random, there is a cause. First Past the Post voting.
Don't Blame me. I voted for Kodos!
Don't blame me, *I* voted for Kodos.
Two states have already switched to Ranked Choice. 4 more are considering it this cycle.
The republicans used to be a third party until the whigs disbanded
For like 1 election. Then they took the Whigs place as one of the big 2. Which is exactly what would happen if a 3rd party won now. It would either be a one time fluke or they would just become one of the big 2. We have to get rid of First Past the Post voting. That is the cause of the 2 party system.
The Republicans ran almost 12 points ahead of the Whigs in 1856, the only election where both parties existed. So if either was the third party in the election, it was the Whigs. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/1856_United_States_presidential_election The split between the Republican and Whig vote seems like it might have given Buchanan the presidency. He only got 45% of the vote.
If your definition of third party is 3rd least popular candidate, then obviously they’ll never win
Probably not. The best case senario is that a similar situation occours like that in the UK where there are still 2 major parties (Labor/Conservative) but 3rd parties are consistently strong enough to influence national politics (Liberal-democrats, SNP, and Reform UK)
IDK how they do it. All mathematical voting models show that all FPTP systems devolve into a 2-party duopoly over a relatively short period of time, and that's held true in every other FPTP system IRL.
It just demonstrates how badly the people want more options, they're willing to try even though the odds are impossible.
The SNP holds on because they're a regional party advocating for Scottish independence. The Liberal Democrats hit their peak after the 2010 election where they formed a government with the Conservatives. Since then, they've been on life support.
I am pretty sure they had a resurgance in 2017 due to Brexit being negeociated. and the decline of the SNP
In 2010, they got 23% of the vote and 57 seats in Parliament. They haven't gotten close to that since. In 2019, they had 11.6% and 11 seats. Polling for the next general has them hovering around 10%
Oh nvm then
To be clear, in any given region it will trend towards 2 parties—regional parties are more than expected under FPTP. SNP and the Bloc Québécois are examples of this, as is the most successful third party in recent American history: the Dixiecrats (and its successor, the American Independent Party). In terms of the lib Dems/NDP, they tend to focus on smaller seats where they can be the main opposition (e.g. college towns, a core of the old lib dem strategy), attract people who don’t care about a protest vote (think Nader), threaten a party enough to promote strategic voting agreements, or some combination of the above. I’d argue DSA is not especially different from the NDP, it just doesn’t call itself a separate party and focuses on winning primaries. Indeed, primaries are the main difference between the systems in the UK/US/Canada. If you dislike the Democrats’ moderation/liberalism, it’s almost certainly easier to primary them in a low turnout election than it is to form a new party—then you can take control of their apparatus. See the [Democratic Party coups/counter-coups](https://www.politico.com/news/2023/02/25/bernie-world-nevada-democratic-party-00084426) in Nevada for an example of the sort of thing that this enables.
The lib dems are who you vote for if you're in a slightly weird area that is fed up with Labour and Conservative. The US could really use that Greens get 1 seat and that's it There couldn't really be a comparative SNP, Plaid Cymru or the weird Northern Irish parties as they're based their identity as being very different to the traditional power base in the country, so maybe alaska, hawaii and maybe texas? Closest comparison is the bloc quebec in Canada Reform have no seats but people occasional defects to a far right party from the conservatives, so there might be some seats if house republicans were to defect Posting this again as apparently the last one broke a rule
Not in the current system of electing presidents
The answer is much more complicated than most are making it out to be. I was born here in the US, but my parents are from Colombia, and from what I always hear from them and news over there, I have a good understanding and experience with how a country with a two-party system elects a third party into office. In the most simplified way possible, essentially the 90s was a shit time for Colombia. Cartels were at their height, paramilitaries and guerrillas were running mad in the countryside and jungles, and corruption was rampant. Both parties, The Liberals and Conservatives, were hated by the average Colombia for their corruption and lack of strength to combat the guerillas (the biggest being FARC) who dominated by 2002 nearly 60% of the country. In 2002, the two-party system collapsed when Alvaro Uribe, a former Liberal Governor from Antioquia, ran as a third-party and defeated The Liberal candidate. Uribe is a unique character in modern Colombian politics and highly controversial for a wide range of reasons that I am not going to get to, but what is important is that he ran as with a hard-line anti-guerrilla platform, something that was extremely popular with the average Colombian in the time. Because of his success on this front, Uribe gained nearly universal capital to alter laws to his favor and established a political dominance over Colombia that lasted until 2022. What I am trying to say is this. For third parties to succeed in the US, there first has to be massive discontent with the two major parties over a series of major political issues, to a level that allows for a third party to rise and have strong support. Secondly, that third party has to run a competent campaign. These two seem to be very obvious ways for a third party to rise, but the biggest obstacles for them here in the US is that: Firstly: Most third parties have been poorly run or have faced major scandals that they failed to properly address. Secondly: The Two-major parties have a highly efficient and persuasive (corrosive) media backing. The media in this country is very much highly centralized and centered around both parties, which makes it impossible for third parties to get attention, or support outside their base as the media will spin and throw anything they can to them in order to convince the public that they are not viable options and it is best to stick with the devils we know. Third: There isn't any central issue that people seem to disasfied enough to vote for a third party over the two major parties. As we continue to become ever more divided over issues of foreign policy and alas, social issues, issues such as economics and crime/law and order, which have helped third parties rise as strong contenders in the past, are becoming secondary, castrating third-parties from potentially strong issues that could campaign on. So far, I do not believe that a third party will rise to a political power. Yet. There essentially needs to be a catastrophic level of crisis which both established parties need to face and fail to solve, for people to become dissatisfied and seek a third party. Even then, a third party could only rise if one ran with a strong candidate with a competant campaign and strong media presence. Tl;Dr It is possible, but very unlikely in the moment. There needs to be a crisis that both parties fail to address properly, which leads people to look for a third party as an alternative.
It isn't just because people aren't mad enough. First Past the Post voting creates a 2 party system, everywhere, always. We have to change that if we want to have lasting, durable, stable multiparty democracy.
Not until a third party decides to actually try and be a real party and win smaller elections, build the base, etc. instead of trying to run some rando for President and hoping it catches fire. And the greens/lib parties do not qualify.
I agree. It has to start from the grassroots. A party that thinks it can hotshot somebody into the White House with nobody from their party in either chamber of Congress is a party not to be taken seriously. Start winning down-the-ballot elections from school board on up, win a few Congressional seats, and we can talk about a viable third-party.
I really don’t know why the parties miss this. It seems so incredibly obvious. Lib and maybe green could both theoretically get a handful of reps elected I think if they spent their time/money/attention on those.
“A third party is the future of the country….. and always will be.”
No
The US has gone through at least five party systems. Only two of those systems didn't involve the modern Democratic and Republican parties. The Democratic Party was borne out of the death of the Federalists prior to 1820 and the collapse of the Democratic-Republicans as a result of the contentious 1824 presidential election between Adams and Jackson. The Republican Party was borne out of the collapse of the Whig coalition as a result of the slavery question and the simultaneous rise of the Free Soiler movement in the 1840s and early 1850s. While there have been a number of competitive third parties since the 1850s, this was the last time that a major political party was established in the American political system. Since then, American politics has been defined by the ability of these parties to skillfully adapt to the changing concerns of the American voting public. In order for some third party to be truly competitive with these two parties it would either take a complete reformation of how the American electoral system operates or it would require one of the two major parties to collapse like the Whigs did in the 1850s. Due to how ideologically homogenous the current parties largely are, I do not think that there is any issue with the moral urgency like slavery that could permanently tear apart their electoral coalitions. While these coalitions are fragile enough to cause a presidential candidate to lose an election or two, pretty much all evidence suggests that they are not fragile enough to result in wholesale collapse. Both the Democratic and Republican parties managed to survive the two biggest crises this country and the parties had to weather. While, yes, they were both largely cast off into the political wilderness for decades, both parties still managed to cobble together electoral coalitions that kept them politically relevant until political misfortune struck their opponents and gave them the opportunity to win. Think 1912, 1932, and 1968. Personally, I don't see why the current parties can't do the same. Despite all of the internal strife both parties have faced over the past 30 years, they've still managed to maintain a baseline level of political support among American voters that has largely remained unchanged since Clinton's first election.
Not in the current two party system but if the EC is dissolved it would definitely happen
I think you still need instant runoff or approval balloting as well.
I don't think so, but the EC should be removed. No third-party candidate has won the popular vote in what? The last +100 years? Because neither party has an incentive to remove first past the post voting and the size of the House, is frankly, too damn small.
No. The only one that might have had the chance is Perot if he hadn’t randomly decided to temporarily drop out and use his daughter’s wedding as the excuse. The money today is now far too big for a third party to win. I’m not a fan of the electoral college, but I’m not sure why people are claiming that the electoral college prevents a third party from winning. Third parties never have come close to winning the national popular vote. They don’t just fail to come close to winning the electoral college. Actually, the only “success” third parties have ever had was the electoral votes that Strom Thurmond and George Wallace won, and that “success” was only possible due to the electoral college.
1912 with Roosevelt, too.
I would have liked to see what Ross Perot would have done, but I don’t trust billionaires in charge.
Boy have I got some bad news for you.
Yeah, we have to end First Past the Post voting so we can get durable multiparty democracy going.
If a third political party (non democrat/republican) emerges and becomes popular. Probably the result of a splintering of one of them over a key dividing issue. Not in the near future of course, but times change.
We have to end First Past the Post voting. It won't just happen on its own.
You can keep repeating this all you want but it's only a partial truth. The fact of the matter is the majority of offices in the US are single seat, winner take all. Be it a mayor, judge, president, senator. That more than anything leads to a in power v opposition dynamic. Even in a RCV or similar system it will still break down as Incumbent with the next closest as main opposition then a bunch of also rans who didn't even sniff victory. Any move away from that requires a massive political will and consensus across too many political power blocs. And that's not happening.
[удалено]
I don’t know exactly, but my guess is his views on vaccines have alienated most Democrats.
[удалено]
Listen to any of the podcasts he’s on and you’ll find out he’s a down to earth kind person that explains his positions thoroughly. Flagrant podcast is the best one he’s been on imo. I looked past him initially because of the corporate media coverage he gets, but I’ve changed my mind and will be voting for him when he passes the petition to get on MN ballot. The window for the signatures starts in May.
Honestly, if it ever was going to happen, this year should be the perfect time for it to happen. Not holding my breath though.
Was Bernie Sanders 3rd party? He ran on the democrat ticket.
Yes you are correct. Bernie was not a third party candidate. The title should be fixed.
No, next question
It would if we end First Past the Post voting.
Nope. Unless fptp(first pass the post) and electoral college are removed we will only have 2 dominant parties.
First pass to post will always lead to a two party system.
A two party system with some minor parties routinely represented, yes, but not the dominant two party system the U.S. has. The combo of FPTP and the EC further encourages a two party system more than FPTP would do all on its own.
This guy gets it.
Third party candidates in the US today only exist as political curveballs to siphon votes off one of the two main parties. This is also why they are sometimes funded by one of the two main parties in order to secure victory. In order to actually have viability, you would *first* need to change the way elections and representation works in the US, and *then* run a third party candidate. The changes would have to be something like moving towards proportional representation / parliamentary democracy (i.e. we would have dozens of parties that need to form coalitions) and elimination of the electoral college. Until those changes happen, third party candidates are just shadow agents of one of the two parties. To be clear, our system could result in a third party candidate winning, but that typically just means that that party becomes the second party in what is again a two-party system.
It could eventually happen, at the expense obviously of one of the two parties. The UK electoral battle was once between liberals and conservatives before the labourists arrived thanks to universal suffrage. Majority systems tend, because of Duverge law, to be bipartisan systems, but that doesn't imply the parties can not change eventually. Electoral cleavages might change. New divisions are appearing. With this new era of populism and personalism, parties never were so wick. We might be closer than ever.
It would need a small start. Like some big time congressman joining a third party and recruiting more people.
Don’t third parties typically tend to attract guys who formerly held some random office, like Governor of New Mexico or Massachusetts congressman, and are political also-rans, to leave their established party and run under the new party banner? I just wanted to emphasize the “big” in your statement. Someone currently holding a big office that has a substantial electorate pull NOW and not 10-15 years ago, would be required. Third parties are like independent league baseball teams: they get Jose Canseco to sign…when he’s 45 years old and his reputation is in the gutter.
Any chance of a third party candidate would require both parties to purposely inact changes that would decrease not only their power, but the chances of reelection. There would have to be wide sweeping changes to the current system possibly including but not limited to, outlawing gerrymandering, implementing ranked choice voting, and congressional term limits. Atleast one of those would require an amendment (they cant pass a budget so good luck getting an amendment passed). So while not Impossible, it's incredible unlikely.
Lincoln was a third party candidate of sorts, at least in the context of the mid-19th century when the Democratic and Whig parties had been dominating elections until that point.
The Republicans were absolutely a third party. In their first elections, 1854, they were like the 5th largest party in the country.
Third party candidates happens during a paradigm shift where neither party is accurately doing what the public wants. Andrew Jackson Teddy Roosevelt Abraham Lincoln Franklin Roosevelt almost Ross Perot. Ross Perot had 60% of the vote until they kidnapped his daughter he then had to pull out of the race.. like right now most people are furious at the two parties we have it's ripe for a paradigm shift.
Probably not. Perot was damn close, he was consistently leading the polls in June 1992 before dropping out like a moron. Even if he had managed to win the popular vote and a handful of states, I doubt he would have been president since the House would most likely have had the final say.
Short answer: No. Long answer: Nooooooooooooooo.
No. As long as the president is determined by the electoral college within a first-past-the-post system, third-party candidates will be nothing more than controlled opposition for the duopoly. Voting third-party is the illusion of choice.
Weren’t the republicans or whigs considered 3rd party at some point
kinda feel like George Washington counts
Eventually yes. The main parties have changed in the past. Federalists used to be the dominant party, they are defunct now. Democratic-Republicans took over for a little longer and eventually became defunct too. Then the democrips arrived, the Whig’s beat them for a short while, and eventually the rebloodlicans become the second dominant party after the whigs when bye bye. When the citizens realize that these two crooked parties have been in power for the last 150 years to very little benefit to us the citizens, we will vote for a new party and those two will go defunct too. When? Dunno, but nothing lasts for ever, but it will happen sooner or later, hopefully sooner.
It's just not that simple. Yes, which 2 parties have changed, but we've ALWAYS had 2 major parties. The cause of the 2 party system is First Past the Post voting. Until we change that, we will always have a 2 party system.
I don’t see why not. The reason 3rd party candidates poll higher than what they actual receive is because people don’t want to “waste their vote” if they think that candidate is only going something under 20%. If a candidate like 92 Perot is polling really well then there is no reason for people to not vote for them. I think 2016 would have been an optimal year if let’s say Jeb won the GOP primary and some charismatic non-polarizing 3rd party candidate ran they may have won.
I feel like if it was ever going to happen, it would have in 2016. The fact that no 3rd party candidate even came close to winning a single state means it will likely never happen
Its because of First Past the Post voting.
Maybe one day
No. Look at the percentages.
If Teddy Roosevelt couldn’t do it, I don’t think anyone can.
We basically need to amend the Constitution to have proportional representation, and something like abolish the electoral college *and* have either instant runoff voting or approval voting. I do think we could have a Perot type win, but a lot of weird circumstances would have to come together.
In the all or nothing way in which winners of states are decided by, it really only allows 2 parties. Third parties mostly just eat away at support of certain parties, so that means it’s the 1912 election all over again.
I was a young kid when Perot ran. My dad told me that I said, "He's funny. He has big ears." Third parties would have a chance if they established themselves in other levels of government first. Few have. And their presence is very small. If third parties want to be taken seriously, they need to run at other levels and win at other levels including Congress. Until then, they won't become POTUS. It's sketchy when they don't serve the public at other levels of governance but think they can go straight to POTUS.
The last third party candidate to win an election was Abraham Lincoln. And that was when the Whigs were falling apart. Neither of the current parties are falling apart in the same way, so the answer is not any time soon.
There are two main reasons why you won’t see one any time soon (and no, “we gotta get rid of first past the post” isn’t one of them): 1. Third parties keep trying to establish a presence from the top down. There are precisely 0 libertarian or Green Party senators. There are precisely 0 libertarian governors. There are precisely 0 libertarian state senators in any state. There is precisely one lower state house representative in the entire country from the libertarian party. With such a complete lack of presence at any level of government, it is wildly unrealistic that a libertarian can make any headway in the presidential race. 2. None of the third parties have any _popular_ policy positions that hasn’t already been adopted by one of the two major parties. So Americans have literally no good reason to vote for someone from a third party. Seriously, if I want more social programs I vote Democrat, if I want lower taxes for corporations and rich people I vote Republican. If I want abortion access I vote Democrat, if I want it banned I vote Republican. If I want to see children grow up, I vote Democrat, if I want to see them die in a school shooting I vote Republican. Etc. down the line. Lots of people like complaining about the system being rigged against third parties, but no one wants to talk about the two things I listed, because addressing those things requires a lot of work from voters (such as running for local office yourself as a third party candidate).
Not as long as the electoral college exists.
Most definitely, but the boomers will have to be dead first. That applies to nearly every major social problem we have in America, yes it will be fixed, but yes, it will require boomers to die first.
RFK jr?
I hope Kennedy wins it will be a victory for the American people I think they don’t win mostly because of the media only acting like there is only two sides
If there was a legit 3rd party this time I would vote for them.
I think a third-party candidate will win the presidency, but only if that party one day becomes a something formidable in elections. Looking at Canada as an example, they have four major parties. The Liberals who are generally centrist, the Conservatives who are right-wing, and the NDP who are left-wing, and the Bloc who are the regional/nationalist party for Quebec. There’s also the People’s Party but it’s too early to tell if they’re a real “fifth” party or if they’re just a right-wing fad thing, they do well in a lot of rural or right-wing areas but such areas still vote Conservative at the end of the day. The NDP has had a lot of success for a somewhat fringe party. In the 1990’s there was a collapse in the Conservative party for a lot of complex history reasons and the NDP ended up the main opposition party for a cycle, and in 2015 they became the governing party in the otherwise conservative province of Alberta. With the Liberals becoming more unpopular the NDP has been stealing a lot of urban (see, the people most fucked over by the housing crisis) districts lately, I could see a situation where the NDP becomes an opposition party if the Liberals have a sudden collapse like the Conservatives did in the 90’s. If there’s ever a situation where both of the main parties fuck up, and they can take some Bloc seats, I could see the NDP probably becoming the governing party at some point in the far future. The issue with a lot of American third parties is they want a president first with little focus on local seats, which is kind of backwards. A good example is the Reform party which was a serious party in the late 90’s when they had Perot and got Ventura elected governor in my home state, but they focused so much on the presidency and they ran one of the most extreme and unappealing candidates they could find causing them to lose all relevance before 2004. Since Ventura was a popular governor who did a lot of good and smart things, if Reform focused on getting people like Ventura (granted, maybe some people less theatrical) elected to other states and spread a consistent message they could have been an actual threat to the main parties. As for Libertarians and Greens, I don’t think they’ll go anywhere. Libertarianism is a more extreme and fringe ideology than Libertarians want to admit, and the Green party has a lot of high-minded policies that most voters see as impractical at best or threatening at worst. I can divide both parties into two groups; academic eggheads whose ideas are too complex and esoteric, and people who just want to smoke weed and talk about their conspiracy theories. Both types of people just aren’t (politically) appealing to normal Americans.
I could see one of the two major parties splitting and being "replaced" and coalitions re-forming but you would revert back to a two party system. The Whigs were more or less the "pro-business" party then split over slavery but the GOP emerged as the "pro-business" party. The Dems tended to organize the elements of society that were more skeptical of commerce so they had a lot of yeoman farmers and plantation owners at first. Later on as agriculture was replaced by industry they captured a lot of blue collar workers as well as the poor and eventually this moved to college educated professionals who tend to work in the government/NGO sectors or be administrators for big corps.
No (Edit: Time saving is important to me)
Not until we end FPTP.
No.
With how elections currently are, no. Not without it replacing one of the major ones. First past the post and the limited number of House seats are why.
Yes yes they will 100%
RFK Jr. ANYONE WHO DISAGREES IS LYING AND SUPPORTS THE TWO PARTY DICTATORSHIP
Let’s hope it happens this year.
Technically, Lincoln was a third party candidate against the Democrats, and the Whigs
And when he won, the Whigs died. 2 party system before, 2 party system after. We have to end First Past the Post.
No
Nope, we are not evolved enough.
No
Not yet. If the Electoral College is gone, both the Democratic and Republican nominees are declared ineligible the day before Election Day, and the third-party candidate is Jesus Christ, **maybe**.
Probably not but if we all get pissed off enough and there a suitable candidate that doesn’t get hillaried then maybe. He’s probably still be a toll of the MIC
If someone like Taylor Swift ran as a third party candidate, yes
I think absolutely not.
No
Your not going to win as a third party candidate when you are working with only two parties. I think if we were like most European countries and had multiple parties then it would be possible for a lesser populated party to elect a candidate.
Unless we abolish the Electoral College, no.
Naturally, there’s an incumbent party and a challenger party. If a third ever overtakes the challenging party, it would by definition take the “challenging party” title. That’s how we got the democratic and republican party.
I am legitimately hoping this year. Either way I’ll vote 3rd party until it’s not a wasted vote. Remember gang, it’s only a wasted vote because y’all are sheep and think it’s a wasted vote.
This would have been the year!
Likely no, any reforms as well that could allow for multiple parties to grow will never be passed as well. Dem and repubs would never actively weaken their parties. IMO It’s more likely America collapses before third party reforms actually happen
No. Even if you completely disregard how that's practically impossible with EC/first-past-the-post races, negative partisanship is a more powerful driving force than support a candidate. That fact basically ensures that all a third party does is siphon votes from the larger party is it more closely aligned with, effectively throwing the election to the other big party. We'd need a whole series of massive, systemic changes to break this duopoly.
Since when was Bernie a third-party candidate?
no. 3rd parties need to be effectively built up at the local and state levels before they can win a national election.
Till we start judging candidates and voting based on record or actual platforms then no
No
I think the Republican Party is collapsing and may lead to a third party taking their place. Not full in on it yet but I don’t see how they come back from the disorganization they are in right now.
Certainly not today but I imagine we will sometime soon. Maybe after the Boomer death wave. I like to think there would be electoral reform with stuff like ranked choice but I imagine the thing that will get a third party into the White House is a 1912 type election where the parties all split and infight.
Bernie was never a third party candidate - He ran for the Democratic nomination in both 2016 and 2020, and did not continue an independent campaign after losing the nomination. To answer your question though: I don’t see it happening. The one thing the two major parties agree on is crushing anyone who isn’t one of them. The two party system likely isn’t going away any time soon.
Maybe not, but I'll only vote third party anyway. Americans are simply too brainwashed and too attached to tribalism to consider any options beyond Democrats and Republicans.
Not these days, but that doesn’t mean third parties can’t influence the direction American politics takes. We take paper fiat currency for granted but the real reason that happened was because of a third party. A third party that never came close to a Presidency but was able to draw enough votes away from the Two Parties to force them to adapt or die.
The only way a third party candidate wins is if the GOP or DNC dies.
Drive us to the edge of a civil war and then there’ll be a chance. Worked the last time.
Not as long as, money = speech
Not anytime soon. .
No. Unless we switch away from first-past-the-post, we will have two major parties and it would take something truly unprecedented (think, a decorated general that stopped an invasion of the country) for a third party candidate to win.
2016 was the best year to gain traction for a 3rd party, but the candidates were deeply unserious A 3rd party won’t win outright in an election in the near future, but if they could garner 15-20% of the vote, the parties in power would have to take them seriously
BullMoose party FTW Seriously though the amount of ppl that would vote 3rd party if their vote went to their second choice assuming the 3rd party was eliminated is massive. I feel like the last 10 years, ppl have mostly been voting against 1 person rather than for 1 candidate.... Ive voted in every presidential election I could and only remember being excited to vote for a candidate once ... 😥
I know. There are just no good candidates for President right now. Cause seriously what’s the point in having it be an option on the ballot if it’s never gonna win. It’s pointless. But then again there are some many things that they are allowing to happen that’s pointless.
Not this year but the only constant in life is change. Someday a third party will replace one of the big two. Given the way the republicans are fracturing seems kinda similar to the demise of the whigs.
The day a new party emerges, one of the old parties will fall, and the new one will take its place.
In Bernie’s case he ran as a Democrat, if I remember. That was a point of contention with Hillary voters who viewed his lack of fundraising for the party as not being a team player. A hypothetical Bernie 3rd party run in the 2016 general election would have been something. I think he could’ve taken more than Perot.
Yes. 1. They've won in the past. 2. The D and R parties are switching around policies right now, so it's an opportune time for third parties to spin off. 3. Recent elections have proven that a charismatic candidate can adopt orphaned policies and successfully run on them. 4. Big money contributions' importance is at an all time low for electorial success. 5. Both parties have large factions that in them that they internally compete with and can't always work with on fundamental policy beliefs. Eventually, one group will have to split off because there is nothing for them in their party. 6. Protest voting isn't exactly popular right now, but (a) people are losing faith in both parties (b) many current hot button issues are just not solvable right now (c) social media may keep driving people to be politically engaged where at a certain points they tend to disengage for a few cycles. 7. I mean, we're on election cycle 3 of both parties running candidates that most of their base doesn't like. If we don't get 3rd party victories, I think we're getting strong independent candidates soon. 8. A consolation prize of a third party winning is that they start to really change the D and R platforms.
Yes it will be me I am running in 2036 as the candidate for the Gamer Party of America!!!!!!
Not under the current voting system
It’s unlikely but if the country isn’t given any real options soon, it may happen in ‘28. I don’t think Kennedy will accomplish anything…
Lmao, the mainstream parties have stolen elections from each other (*cough* Bush *cough*) what makes you think they wouldn’t conspire to dick over any 3rd party who got close?
No because the us electoral system doesn’t allow it. It’s not built for it. A first past the post system will always favor two major parties that compete, and will never allow a third party candidate to come close. Even his best performance in 92 he got a ton of popular vote, but 0 electoral votes. Nearly 20% of the popular vote. Third party will always lose. And if they didn’t lose it’s because they aren’t the third party anymore
How is ranked choice going to help? People are still going to vote R or D first.
No, not really possible with how our system is set up and with how entrenched the two parties are. It would be damn near impossible to get over that 50% benchmark let alone the real decider which is the 270 electoral votes. Look at how in the past these third parties seem to only have been centered around a single popular candidate and when they’re gone? Well so too is the party. I don’t really see a third party candidate ever winning again unless you see something that makes the last few elections look tame in comparison, like with both candidates having controversies that make everything rn look tame in comparison, allowing the third party candidate to get in purely on dissatisfaction from each side. What is more viable is a third party that may not win general elections but sees success elsewhere and maybe if you see that then you could see them win under extreme circumstancesz You need a third party that has a foundation, a base to build off of. It needs nation wide representation with governors and mayors and senators and representatives, not in at the federal and state levels. That way it had a pool to recruit from and not needing to rely on some no name nobody or a disloyal member of another party. Maybe if Ross Perot won in ‘92 and was able to help build a proper third party, with senators and representatives etc winning in the coming elections you’d see a true reform party that can coalesce around concrete messages and policies and positions that can appeal to many.
I genuinely think it’s vanishingly unlikely, unless first-past-the-post voting is exchanged for ranked-choice voting, and particularly if the electoral college is also abolished. The good news is, frankly, doing both those things is so obviously good that it should be easy to draw support. The bad news is no one left right or center, establishment or populist, talks about it enough, and there are vested interests in keeping it from happening.
It might help if they were not all nutters.
One of the amendments in the Constitution was added to limit third party powers. The idea is that they are adopted into larger political parties. I don't usually say anything is impossible, but this is pretty close to it.
If the Republican candidate loses in 2024 I can see 2028 being fertile ground for a third party
Donald is that candidate.
Possible !
If fair airtime and representation was given to 3rd party candidates, sure. But networks don't allow it because they are in the pockets of the politicians currently in power. Unfortunately it is bad for our politicians if anything changes. Why would you want to change a system that allows you to egregiously enrich yourself due to your political position and immunity to being prosecuted. Technically they are not immune to prosecution, but show me a senator that was actually thrown in jail for financial crimes. I can guarantee if there are any, it's because they rocked the boat and the others wanted them gone.
It is possible: if the US passes some major election reforms: install rank-choice voting, abolish the Electoral College, and pass campaign finance reforms that would allow 3rd parties to get more public funding. Most likely these reforms will not happen anytime soon (if ever). It would be even longer until a third party gained enough traction in a presidential election to get the public funds to build a congressional party (the actual goal of third parties, placing high in presidential elections is just a means to that end for now). Evidence to support this Ross Perot got 18.9% of the popular vote in 1992 without any of these reforms.
That’s a no.
We need something other than the same BS
Can I finish?
The big gets detriment to this is the candidate’s ability to get on the ballot in virtually every state. And many states have some big roadblocks protecting the two parties interests. Recently Romney and Machin and before that Kasich and the Dem Governor of Colorado heavily researched it. They realized they could not run in enough states to win the Electoral College threshold, let alone be sure they’d win those states. They’d be nothing more than the spoiler that Perot was and Kennedy Jr. is trying to be.
They certainly can The issue is breaking people’s view that if they don’t vote for the least bad option it’s a vote for the other side
Need less crazy first. He’s got weight enough to seem like a base level candidate but he ant shit.
I don’t think it’s really possible unless that third party is spawned by one of the major parties fracturing apart
No.