Third Party Candidates- Upcoming US Election

[somerandomguy]

1968 was a time of great turmoil. The Democrats were still a big-tent party. Most Southerners still refused to vote Republican (the party of Lincoln) which they still hated even 100 years after the civil war, so that meant the Democrats had a very large conservative bloc which increasingly did not fit the mold of the rest of the mostly liberal Democrats.

The reason George Wallace, a lifelong Democrat, broke off to form the American Independent Party was mainly because of racial tension. (I'm simplifying, because there were other reasons, but I don't want to write a whole essay). Lyndon Johnson, the Democratic president, and Democrats in Congress had pushed through a lot of programs that Southern Democrats saw as favoring Black people, such as the Voting Rights Act and various War on Poverty programming that Southern states saw as taking away from states' rights. It's not an accident that all the states that cast electoral votes for Wallace (and his running mate General Curtis LeMay, the general famous for saying Vietnam should be "bombed back into the Stone Age") were Southern.

Added to THAT was the country's increasing uneasiness with the Vietnam War, which was increasingly seen as a quagmire. The Democrats' candidate was Hubert Humphrey, who was the sitting VP at the time. He felt that he couldn't criticize Johnson's conduct of the war, which lead to him basically losing the youth vote. Richard Nixon, the Republican candidate, ran as the peace candidate but refused to give any specifics whatsoever about what he would do in Vietnam (after he won, he would end up greatly expanding the war into Cambodia and Laos). So people who were heavily in favor of the war tended to vote for Wallace.

 

[OceanSpray]

Thank you all for the awesome insight! It’s been super interesting to learn. I wish there was a more equal playing ground for more candidates to have opportunity in future and past elections.

 

[somerandomguy]

In my opinion, third parties are doing it all wrong. Third parties need to start from the ground up and start running candidates in local elections, then in state-level elections, to build a firm base before trying to run someone for president. But the only time the Green Party or the Libertarian Party runs anyone is just every four years for president basically as a protest vote. It's pointless unless you want to throw your vote away on a ticket that cannot and will not win (again, in my opinion).

Currently the country is so polarized that any vote for a third party candidate is basically tantamount to voting for the Republican. Republicans have a strong built-in advantage for election as president (as we saw in 2000 and 2016), due to the way the electoral college is set up.

 

[OceanSpray]

In my opinion, third parties are doing it all wrong. Third parties need to start from the ground up and start running candidates in local elections, then in state-level elections, to build a firm base before trying to run someone for president. But the only time the Green Party or the Libertarian Party runs anyone is just every four years for president basically as a protest vote. It's pointless unless you want to throw your vote away on a ticket that cannot and will not win (again, in my opinion).

Currently the country is so polarized that any vote for a third party candidate is basically tantamount to voting for the Republican. Republicans have a strong built-in advantage for election as president (as we saw in 2000 and 2016), due to the way the electoral college is set up.

That makes a lot of sense!

 

[Rose White]

I wonder if part of the reason that third party candidates don’t have a chance in USA is because America has a winner-takes-all voting system? I know very little about this but I heard that in the European countries where they have like a dozen parties in parliament that changes in policy tend to be slower than in two party system (for better or worse)?

 

[OceanSpray]

I wonder if part of the reason that third party candidates don’t have a chance in USA is because America has a winner-takes-all voting system? I know very little about this but I heard that in the European countries where they have like a dozen parties in parliament that changes in policy tend to be slower than in two party system (for better or worse)?

I do know that is a big factor in why we have a two party system. But how slow is slow? Wouldn’t it be worth it to actually have all perspectives (or at least more) represented?

But then maybe it’s too slow and so two party is better. But then we get stuck in situations like this. I don’t know what’s right or better.

 

[somerandomguy]

I wonder if part of the reason that third party candidates don’t have a chance in USA is because America has a winner-takes-all voting system?

When you have two parties, winner takes all is all you can do - one party wins, one loses. To dismantle the current two-party system would be almost an impossible task at this point. Ross Perot sunk millions into it and couldn't come close.

 

[OceanSpray]

When you have two parties, winner takes all is all you can do - one party wins, one loses. To dismantle the current two-party system would be almost an impossible task at this point. Ross Perot sunk millions into it and couldn't come close.

Did he fail because people are just uninformed or did most of the people actually like the two party winner takes all system?

 

[anthony]

Any political system is built with one significant flaw... the population of voters. Whilst we have two primary parties in Australia, we really have four major parties. Then we have independents. In an election here in Victoria a couple of years ago, the population was so dissatisfied with the majors that the independents seen a huge influx of new voters. Placing independents into the mix means the majors then have to run things via the independents to get stuff across the line, more often, which means more oversight.

Any country can enact change within their political system IF the country joins towards a common goal. This is often why political parties are constantly trying to divide their nations, and America is at the top of the list nearly on that one... left or right nonsense. What about the middle ground, common-sense, what's in the best interest of the people and country option?

Politicians need a lot of oversight, from each other and the public. They can't be trusted to do what is right if left unchecked.

 

[OceanSpray]

Any political system is built with one significant flaw... the population of voters. Whilst we have two primary parties in Australia, we really have four major parties. Then we have independents. In an election here in Victoria a couple of years ago, the population was so dissatisfied with the majors that the independents seen a huge influx of new voters. Placing independents into the mix means the majors then have to run things via the independents to get stuff across the line, more often, which means more oversight.

Any country can enact change within their political system IF the country joins towards a common goal. This is often why political parties are constantly trying to divide their nations, and America is at the top of the list nearly on that one... left or right nonsense. What about the middle ground, common-sense, what's in the best interest of the people and country option?

Politicians need a lot of oversight, from each other and the public. They can't be trusted to do what is right if left unchecked.

You’re exactly right about the division here, it’s so frustrating and disheartening because that division has worked really, really well.

 

[scout86]

To dismantle the current two-party system would be almost an impossible task

Just my opinion, but I think this is mostly because the 2 major parties CONTROL the present system and, of course, they don't want it to change and they sure don't want any more parties in the mix. Because we have the electoral college, a third party candidate doesn't just have to get the most votes, they have to get the most votes in enough states to win the electoral college. Big ask. It's hard to get on the ballot in a lot of places, as was mentioned earlier. This year, IF there was a reasonable third party candidate, they'd have a better than average chance it seems, because the polls show that most people don't like EITHER of the major party candidates. But, so far at least, the third party candidates who are getting the most press are,,,,,, again, JMO, nut jobs of one sort or another. Personally, I wish we could ban major parties. It seems to me that they've turned governing the country into a version of a soccer match where all that really matters to the parties is which "side" wins.

1968 was also the year Martin Luther King and Bobby Kennedy were assassinated. The Democratic national convention was.....chaotic? Here's a link to a clip of some of the coverage from inside the convention. Dan Rather I don't know what they teach about this period in US history in school, but I hope the teaching does something to suggest what things were really like.

 

[OceanSpray]

It seems to me that they've turned governing the country into a version of a soccer match where all that really matters to the parties is which "side" wins.

Yesssss! I have ideas on how that could be changed but it wouldn’t be popular with anyone who could actually enact that change. Mostly, I don’t think sitting in congress or any of those posts should be a retirement plan and while someone should have some level of political experience when running for higher offices, I don’t think it needs to be a lifelong career. Again I know that’s unpopular and I’m definitely not trying to fight anyone with that. It’s just my opinion that is definitely never going to happen.

Also unpopular but the kid in me wishes that the lead up to elections didn’t go the way of touring to strategic states to just chat. Stick all the candidates together in an Amazing Race style competition where they have to tour the country but in an uncomfortable way and they have to participate in different jobs, talk to regular people, be forced to problem solve, while we learn about their policies and ideology. They’re too comfy with the way things are, make them uncomfortable.