Will we ever see a genuine third party candidate win the US Presidency?

CH (MAJ) William Beaver — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:13:01 -0400

Many third party candidates run for the US presidency. Most barely dent the election returns. A few, such as Ross Perot in 1992, pull away enough voters from the two main parties to tip the scales to favor one of those candidates. But will we ever actually see a genuine independent win the presidency? In your lifetime? In my lifetime? Why? What is the ultimate purpose of a third party candidate running when he or she knows they will lose the election? Is it to raise issues?

Response by SSgt Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 6:14 PM

SSgt Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:14:25 -0400

Probably. not sure if that is good.

Response by SFC Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 6:14 PM

SFC Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:14:49 -0400

I sure hope so! Our founders warned us about the dangers of a two party system. If only people would wake up and realize a vote for a third party doesn't equal a vote for democrats or republicans by some weird math the two parties do, we would be well off.

Response by Capt Seid Waddell made Jul 12 at 2015 6:20 PM

Capt Seid Waddell — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:20:09 -0400

Probably not until the GOP is replaced like they replaced the Whigs - and for the same reasons. The GOP has abandoned its principles and lacks the courage of their supposed convictions.

The Tea Party or something like it will either take over the GOP and breathe new life into it or will replace it altogether.

IMHO.

Response by CW3 Private RallyPoint Member made Jul 12 at 2015 6:24 PM

CW3 Private RallyPoint Member — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:24:12 -0400

I still think that if Ross Perot had not pulled out of the election in 1992 and than reentered three months later he would have been a much more formidable candidate that year. Given the current state of politics and the two political party system I don't see a away a third party candidate will be elected president in our lifetimes. I think it would take a monuments political shift to allow a third party to have the resources and influence to make this possible.

Response by PO1 John Miller made Jul 12 at 2015 6:25 PM

PO1 John Miller — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:25:40 -0400

I would love to see it happen, but two things (in my opinion) need to happen first to even give the Independents a fighting chance:

1) Abolish the Electoral College
2) Force the media to invite ALL candidates to the debates

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 12 at 2015 6:34 PM

LTC Stephen F. — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:34:29 -0400

CH (MAJ) William Beaver. For the sake of argument I am using Tea Party in a possible scenario. I suspect that as the Tea Party concept solidifies and more voters gain hope for a realization of first principles of government returning to this nation that legislators will be elected first to the US House and then one of two to the Senate. It would probably take a few US Senatorial elections say over 18 years of an incremental increase in Congress and Senate members. Then a party platform would need to be hammered out that was distinct from the Democrat and Republican platforms. At that point a national convention of Tea Party delegates could be convened to nominate a candidate for President. [You could substituent another party but for now Tea Party seems to have a wider hold than most]

Response by LTC John Shaw made Jul 12 at 2015 6:59 PM

LTC John Shaw — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 18:59:10 -0400

CH (MAJ) William Beaver Someone will catch fire and offer a way outside of all the professional lobbying interests. I believe it will happen in our lifetime and is more likely to happen because of the internet and social media. Just because it has not happened doesn't mean it won't. Each major party has the push of extremist and moderates. The two major parties have significant overlap in core values, even though partisans of each party is not willing to admit to these commonalities.
The major parties are surprising in their adaptability.
Dems were the party of FDR, LBJ, then Kennedy, now Clinton/Obama. They went from the majority white party to a multi-racial pluralistic party after the Chicago convention in 1968.
For the Dems you have the Greens and hardcore liberal/socialist like Sen Sanders (VT) offset by pro-business moderates. (Hilliary, Webb)
GOP replaced the Wiggs and Lincoln won because the Dems split over slavery. This led to a string of victories in post-civil war up until the Great Depression. Eisenhower breathed new life into the GOP but the pro-business slant has always prevented a meaningful discussion of social issues outside of faith based solutions. Nixon's ethics problems allowed a robust rebuilding of the Democrats in the 70s but then Jimmy Carter's presidency showed that a good Christian man is not always the best President. Reagan set the standard for the GOP and it is difficult to see the Bush's (41 & 43) as philosophical different. Conservatives still set the tone for the party.
For the GOP you have Religious right (social issues but faith based only solutions), Tea (traditional core fiscal conservatives) and the 'Establishment' (moderate, not sure what that means), more than a bakers dozen running for 2016.

Response by CPT Jack Durish made Jul 12 at 2015 7:08 PM

CPT Jack Durish — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 19:08:24 -0400

I would be glad for a Second Party. The GOP seems like a sham, a foil that the Democrats use to illustrate the futility of resistance. The sad truth is that I believe most Americans aren't all that interested in politics and government. I wasn't. I wanted to be left alone to pursue my individual dreams and aspirations. I didn't want anything from the government and I sure as hell didn't welcome their intrusions into my life. However, it was those intrusions that woke me up to the fact that there were those who were interested in politics and government and had grown it well beyond its constitutional limits just so they could impose their will on me and others like me. I hope it isn't too late to put things aright without armed rebellion, however, it they have become so entrenched that...

Response by SrA Edward Vong made Jul 12 at 2015 8:10 PM

SrA Edward Vong — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 20:10:51 -0400

Bernie Sanders is considered third party, but I believe is aligning with Democrats in order to compete with Republicans.

Smart move if you ask me. I would've done the same.

Response by Sgt Jay Jones made Jul 12 at 2015 9:12 PM

Sgt Jay Jones — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 21:12:50 -0400

Only when enough individuals in both parties get fed up with their existing party at the same time.

Response by SSgt Gregory Guina made Jul 12 at 2015 11:52 PM

SSgt Gregory Guina — Sun, 12 Jul 2015 23:52:20 -0400

I sure hope so.

Response by GySgt John O'Donnell made Jul 13 at 2015 10:08 AM

GySgt John O'Donnell — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 10:08:27 -0400

IMHO for there to be a viable 3rd party you need to "Rally the Troops" literally. To do this you'd need a former General like Patreaus, Mattis, Pace, or Powell (or others) to step up and lead the fight to the future of tomorrow...today!!!

Response by LTC Stephen F. made Jul 13 at 2015 11:49 AM

LTC Stephen F. — Mon, 13 Jul 2015 11:49:16 -0400

CH (MAJ) William Beaver. I prefer to take a longer term view. There are efforts to convene a convention of the states to amend the constitution among other significant activities: Libertarians, Tea Partiers of all stripes and many Republicans support a convention of the states. That is the forum that could change the electoral college system to a direct vote system similar to the way the US Senators and Congress people are elected now. 32 states [34 are required] have already voted in favor of the constitutional convention ostensibly for a balanced budget amendment. Once convened other issues can be brought up and voted on. I would not be surprised if the electoral college versus direct vote is an early entry - getting rid of the electoral college system would appeal to anybody who does not like the super-pacs and the fact that a few states get the bulk of the early candidates for President - primarily Iowa and New Hampshire. If direct vote for President and potentially for Vice President like many nations expect a general leveling of the playing field after an election or two.

Response by Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member made Dec 24 at 2015 4:52 PM

Lt Col Private RallyPoint Member — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 16:52:16 -0500

Seems unlikely, especially since the media is basically backing the two-party system. They only air the Republican and Democrat primary debates. It'll be tough for a third-party candidate to get any traction against the entrenched interests.

Response by SPC Rory J. Mattheisen made Dec 24 at 2015 5:27 PM

SPC Rory J. Mattheisen — Thu, 24 Dec 2015 17:27:59 -0500

No. The electoral college decides who holds that seat. They will never allow an Independent candidate to win.

Response by LTC Private RallyPoint Member made Jun 17 at 2016 2:11 PM

LTC Private RallyPoint Member — Fri, 17 Jun 2016 14:11:33 -0400

Very real chance in 2020, but too late for 2016.

Response by Capt Gregory Prickett made Jun 18 at 2016 12:31 PM

Capt Gregory Prickett — Sat, 18 Jun 2016 12:31:00 -0400

Vote for Gary Johnson. Make history and actually elect him.

Response by Amn Dale Preisach made Dec 28 at 2022 9:56 PM

Amn Dale Preisach — Wed, 28 Dec 2022 21:56:20 -0500

If Trump runs independent , he will split the vote and The Democrat will win . Just as Teddy Roosevelt did at the Turn of the 19th- 20th century. Handing Wilson the victory.