Will we ever see a non Republican/Democrat win Presidency?

[Thebottomline]

Myself I would love to see it. America came close in 1992 with Ross Perot and if he hadn't of dropped out and re-enter the Presidential race he just may have won that election as he had a lot of initial support.

[SmokingGun]

No, and I'll tell you why.

You see, the BBC uses mind control to...

ah fuck it!

Serious answer: No.

[Crazy Levi]

Yes, I believe we will. Sooner or later, we'll have a president chosen via reality show or something equally wacky, and it won't be a dem or republican.

[Thebottomline]

America came close in 1992 with Ross Perot

Ross Perot didn't win a single state. George Wallace won 5 states in 1968. 3rd party candidate would be a disaster since both parties in Congress would try to undermine the Presidency.

You took my statement out of context by only quoting me on a partial statement. Doesn't matter that he didn't win a single state he did get the votes and enough to cause George H.W. Bush the presidency.

Perot appealed greatly to the conservatives voters as well as the independents kind of like Ralph Nader appealing to the liberals taking votes away from Al Gore. I can safely say that because in those two elections (1992 and 2000) I would have voted for George H.W. Bush in 1992 but instead gave my vote to Perot ( I know many people who would have voted for Perot but was turned off by him dropping out of the election than re entering) and in 2000 I voted for Ralph Nader but would have voted for Gore if Nader wasn't on the ballot. I know alot of people who would have voted for Gore if Nader hadn't been on the ballot as well.

As far as the other two political parties trying to undermine the presidency if an independent won would only cause a bigger stir and the need to get both the Republicans and Democrats out and start all over.

2010 will be the last good election year that the Democrats will have in a long time if ever again. I bet in 2012 there will be more stronger independent candidates winning seats in the HOR and the Senate.

[woblinweebles]

You took my statement out of context by only quoting me on a partial statement. Doesn't matter that he didn't win a single state he did get the votes and enough to cause George H.W. Bush the presidency.

If he was the reason Bush lost the presidency, wouldn't Bush have been ahead in the polls or at least running neck and neck with Clinton after Perot dropped out?

[sixx211]

no

[Drunk Kennedy]

yes...sarah palin (T)

[lerxstcat]

Since the President is chosen by the Electoral College, and the electors are virtually all either Democrats or Republicans, I doubt seriously that a 3rd party President will ever be elected. If such a candidate won the popular vote it would simply be ignored as it has in the past when the winner of the popular vote did not win in the Electoral College.

Americans would never rise up in the way it would be needed to overturn this system. We're way past taking that kind of action.

[SmokeyRamone]

Since the President is chosen by the Electoral College, and the electors are virtually all either Democrats or Republicans, I doubt seriously that a 3rd party President will ever be elected. If such a candidate won the popular vote it would simply be ignored as it has in the past when the winner of the popular vote did not win in the Electoral College.

Americans would never rise up in the way it would be needed to overturn this system. We're way past taking that kind of action.

you nailed it perfectly. At this point the two party system too big to ever be challenged

[SeminiferousButtNoid]

Hypothetically, if a third party candidate won the popular vote, that would probably mean that neither he/she or the Republican or Democratic candidate won the necessary 270 electoral votes. That means that the House would have to decide who becomes President.

Assuming that the 3rd party candidate had broad national appeal but his party or platform had little or no power in the House of Representatives, you are talking about a major political fiasco that has no precedent.

Example:

2016 Presidential Election Results

Gary Johnson (Independent) 38% Popular 40 electoral votes

Hilary Clinton (Democrat) 32% Popular 140 electoral votes

Marco Rubio (Republican) 30% Popular 90 electoral votes

Let's say there is a Democratic controlled House and the House decides on Clinton to be President. Even though they are within their right to do that, the political damage would be enormous, and depending on the main issues at hand, possibly insurrection could occur.

[lerxstcat]

That's an interesting and plausible scenario, ButtNoid, but I think the American people are too apathetic to mount a meaningful insurrection.

A few might rise up, get shot down quickly, and the most of the rest would shrug theiur shoulders and accept the status quo.

Now it MIGHT lead to a long-term domestic terrorist insurgency, but I don't see the people en masse turning off their computers and going outside into the weather to fight about it. In fact if the insurgents managed to make life uncomfortable for the masses they would probably be right on board with the government taking more of our rights in order to stamp them out.

[ijwthstd]

I don't think Ross Perot cost Bush the election. If there were no major third party candidate on the ballot we may very well have had an election fiasco similiar to 2000 but otherwise Clinton still would have been president.