Have you ever voted or considering to vote for Third Party candidate? Do you think any Third Party candidate has a chance to get anywhere?
In most countries, even Britain, Parliaments consist of more then just 2 parties, in a country where I was born, Latvia, there are about 15 - 20 parties running for Parliament elections, and about 5 - 7 pass. I know, many Americans are not satisfied with only 2 parties having power, but do you think United States are doomed to choose between donkey and elephant?
Third party candidate?
As long we have the "winner-take-all" system (where the candidate with the most votes in that state gets all of that state's electoral votes) and the electoral college, it seems very unlikely that a third party candidate could win. I almost voted for Ross Perot back in 1992, and then realized that the guy was nuts, so I didn't. But the structure of our electoral system has a lot to do with the two party system, and since you need a constitutional amendment to get rid of the electoral college, its seems unlikely that will happen any time soon.
Reply:I have voted for third party candidates.
The viability is a question mark, as the media does not take them seriously and the cannot get the exposure to get the message out.
Some Third party candidates are so out there, it wrecks it for the rest of them
Reply:3rd Party = throwing your vote away.
Reply:Dem's and Repub's make it extremely difficult for a 3rd party candidate.
Reply:There is no chance for a third party in the US until a centrist comes along. Every third party that we've had was either way left of Michael Moore or far to the right of Ann Coulter. Those are the fringes and there just aren't many voters out there. Arnold Schwarzenegger is the closest I've seen to a centrist leader but of course we all know of his citizenship problems. How about somebody push for that twenty eighth amendment so the governator can become the presinator? We'd have a pretty first lady anyway.
Reply:3rd Party is a wasted vote
shoe decorations
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
The National Popular Vote bill would guarantee the Presidency to the candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
ReplyDeleteEvery vote, everywhere, would be politically relevant and equal in presidential elections. Candidates would need to care about voters across the nation, not just undecided voters in a handful of swing states.
The bill would take effect only when enacted, in identical form, by states possessing a majority of the electoral votes--that is, enough electoral votes to elect a President (270 of 538). When the bill comes into effect, all the electoral votes from those states would be awarded to the presidential candidate who receives the most popular votes in all 50 states (and DC).
The bill uses the power given to each state by the Founding Fathers in the Constitution to change how they award their electoral votes for president. The National Popular Vote bill does not try to abolish the Electoral College, which would need a constitutional amendment, and could be stopped by states with as little as 3% of the U.S. population. Historically, virtually all of the major changes in the method of electing the President (for example, ending the requirement that only men who owned substantial property could vote) have come about without federal constitutional amendments, by state legislative action.
The bill is currently endorsed by over 1,707 state legislators (in 48 states) who have sponsored and/or cast recorded votes in favor of the bill.
In Gallup polls since 1944, only about 20% of the public has supported the current system of awarding all of a state's electoral votes to the presidential candidate who receives the most votes in each separate state (with about 70% opposed and about 10% undecided). The recent Washington Post, Kaiser Family Foundation, and Harvard University poll shows 72% support for direct nationwide election of the President. Support for a national popular vote is strong in virtually every state, partisan, and demographic group surveyed in recent polls in closely divided battleground states: Colorado-- 68%, Iowa --75%, Michigan-- 73%, Missouri-- 70%, New Hampshire-- 69%, Nevada-- 72%, New Mexico-- 76%, North Carolina-- 74%, Ohio-- 70%, Pennsylvania -- 78%, Virginia -- 74%, and Wisconsin -- 71%; in smaller states (3 to 5 electoral votes): Alaska – 70%, DC – 76%, Delaware --75%, Maine -- 77%, Nebraska -- 74%, New Hampshire --69%, Nevada -- 72%, New Mexico -- 76%, Rhode Island -- 74%, and Vermont -- 75%; in Southern and border states: Arkansas --80%, Kentucky -- 80%, Mississippi --77%, Missouri -- 70%, North Carolina -- 74%, and Virginia -- 74%; and in other states polled: California -- 70%, Connecticut -- 74% , Massachusetts -- 73%, Minnesota – 75%, New York -- 79%, Washington -- 77%, and West Virginia- 81%.
The National Popular Vote bill has passed 29 state legislative chambers, in 19 small, medium-small, medium, and large states, including one house in Arkansas, Connecticut, Delaware, Maine, Michigan, Nevada, New Mexico, North Carolina, and Oregon, and both houses in California, Colorado, Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, Massachusetts, Rhode Island, Vermont, and Washington. The bill has been enacted by Hawaii, Illinois, New Jersey, Maryland, and Washington. These five states possess 61 electoral votes -- 23% of the 270 necessary to bring the law into effect.
See http://www.NationalPopularVote.com