Home > Politics, News & Issues > US Politics > US Elections
Will a third-party candidate ever become president in the US?
Results so far:
| Yes | 49% | 196 votes | Total: 396 votes | |
| No | 51% | 200 votes |
Yes
by Leigh Goessl
Created on: August 02, 2007 Last Updated: June 19, 2008
In each US Presidential Election there is usually some speculation as to whether or not an Independent candidate can garner enough strength to become a real contender. Although it seems unlikely at the moment, over the course of time it is entirely likely an Independent will get on a ticket and win. Many citizens are starting to look for change in the way government is run, and an Independent is an attractive alternative to the current "two party" system.
The current stagnant political atmosphere hinders any progress from happening because the two major parties spend much time bickering and finding ways to oppose and "one up" each other, even within their own party as evidenced by the primary campaigns. Unfortunately these party differences also have heavy consequence on Presidential elections. Since Republicans and Democrats maintain control, it has created an environment where many voters feel they have little choice but to select the "lesser of two evils".
Republicans and Democrats have created an environment where they dominate the political playground and have left little room for change. Current norms consist of each party choosing an issue that is contrary to the opposition. What disillusions many Independent leaning Americans who are fed up with the "two party" system, is how Republican and Democrat candidates don't seem to take their own stand on issues, but instead make declarations in alignment with their party stance. Even if a candidate personally disagrees with the party standpoint, their "official" position often coincides with their party. Of course there are exceptions, but those exceptions are not the norm.
The governing parties have progressed into a sluggish mechanism which rarely includes creativity to generate solutions. Candidates presenting themselves are no different, they are sent forward by their respective parties illuminating the same stagnant positions and not showing much initiative in developing new solutions. If they do show a strong standing, they usually don't get enough support to push the new ideas through into action. The small amount of illuminated light left has been dimming and people are taking notice. An Independent presidential candidate with no obligations to either the Republican or Democratic parties could very possibly stimulate some change.
As political squabbles continue many Americans have become disenchanted with politics and are starting to look at other presidential options or electing not to vote altogether. This is a ripe opportunity for an Independent to garner a voting base. Additionally, an Independent candidate may more accurately reflect the beliefs of the average American since many people often do not hold solely liberal or conservative viewpoints, but a combination of both depending on the issue. An Independent would not be slave to party platform and could stand up for their individual beliefs.
This growing disillusion establishes good potential to open up the voting arena to be inclusive of a third viable candidate. Often the third party presidential candidate is widely publicized as being a "spoiler" and as a result voters traditionally won't consider casting an Independent ballot. In time citizens will eventually see through this charade and be more willing to vote for a third candidate. People are fed up with the "same old, same old" and want real change.
With the growth of the Internet, grassroots campaigning has offered an incredible window of opportunity. It's much cheaper and efficient to "get the word out" than in elections past. While Republicans and Democrats dominate and produce mass campaign funding, the Independents can be innovative and raise monies using non-traditional means of campaigning and reach out to a larger base of constituents. This approach seems to be on the rise, albeit small, but increasing in popularity. In time there is a good chance this approach will explode in popularity and Independents will indeed "get the word out".
Electing a third party candidate will not happen overnight, in all probability it will be awhile before it occurs, but eventually the day will come. It's happened in the past, and it will occur at some point down the road. Once enough citizens decide they've finally had enough, they'll cast their vote to an Independent candidate, leading to a third party president.
A slogan often heard in recent years has been "vote for change", however perhaps it's been used in the wrong context. Voting for change shouldn't be about ousting Republicans to make room for Democrats who won't make any more progress than Republicans have and vice-versa. If only the two parties would put aside their partisan issues and sit down as one body of elected officials to iron out some compromises there may be some light at the end of the tunnel, but that doesn't seem to be on the agenda.
Over time many Americans may choose vote for the real change in the political playing field as they become more disenchanted with the options they are presented with and turn to third party candidates. It is this frustration which will ultimately pave the road for a third party president-elect.
Learn more about this author, Leigh Goessl.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
No
by Disinvestment Supporter
Created on: August 28, 2007 Last Updated: June 10, 2010
When Ross Perot ran for President in 1992 against Bill Clinton and George Bush Sr., I was eleven years old in the 5th grade. Channel One, a television program marketed for schools, took a vote from school-children across America. Perot was a loud-mouth with big ears, and I had seen him get picked on for these things by several news anchors. That's probably why I and one other classmate threw our vote to Perot.
Our understanding then, naive though it appears now, was that Perot had at least a chance of winning. I would learn later in high school, through my own reading, that our system of electing the President and Congress has some fundamental flaws. A majority of voting age adults view elections as irrelevant to their lives, evidenced by low voter turn-outs. The only thing more darkly amusing than the counting of election totals, what with the news networks speaking predictions as fact and the Supreme Court stopping the Florida recount in 2000, is the preceding nomination and campaign seasons.
Money from special interest groups buys a candidate's way in, and candidates do what they can to protect contributors' interests. Businessmen are becoming politicians and politicians becoming businessmen using a good ole boy system of 'who you know,' commonly called the revolving door. Influence with the right people gets money and media support.
Third party candidates have tried to fight against the built-in disadvantages since before the Democratic and Republican parties became what they are today. Some have done it on the principle of the matter. Third parties should be able to run and win if the people so desire. I couldn't agree more. Others justify the bid not by allusions to winning or blindly following principles, but by claiming that their other bids for state level legislative offices or Congressional bids will be enhanced by fielding a candidate for President. That strategy appears rather dubious in the face of the facts. They are as follows:
1. The Electoral College is firmly in place and not going anywhere absent a miracle, an amendment abolishing the Electoral College, or disaster. The Electoral College functions to disenfranchise American voters and removes many regional populations from all but television contact with the candidates.
Each vote for President is only counted at the state level. After that, your vote is aggregated with all the others of your state. So you live in a blue state yet you are voting for John McCain in the next election? Sorry, no vote. Work all you want, spend bookoodles of money, no dice. Actually, if you had mega-bookoodles of money, like the elite 'I voted for the war but am now against it' Democrats, you'd have a better chance. Good luck with keeping your ideals AND appealing to Goldman Sachs financial firm for a campaign contribution.
So, you're going to carry New Hampshire? Great, you got a few electoral votes! Now what? Electoral College votes are worth nothing unless you get the most, and third parties don't stand a chance. Ralph Nader got, according a Zogby poll, 5% of the votes in 2000, yet he still received no electoral college votes.
2. A third-party candidate can not hope to win without access to as much free air-time as Republican and Democratic candidates get. The media pays close attention to candidates starting the year before elections. Throughout the Democratic and Republican nominations process there are debates and a much drawn-out primary season. There is no place for a third-party candidate to enter this crucial campaigning season. There will be no lengthy Green Party debates. A list of Libertarian nominees will never be questioned by Tim Russert in Las Vegas.
The media is corporate owned and no free-media is going to sweep the country to replace TV. The corporations owning our media, be it Fox or Time or General Electric, give money to one party or another and usually they give money to both parties. They do not give money to third-parties, because third parties do not win, hence no need to spread influence. This attitude toward third-parties by the major benefactors of our political process (those who have the most dollars have the most votes) certainly trickles down to the news anchors.
Mainstream media journalists are, if not hostile, outright dismissive to third-party candidates. One exception, and there may be one or two more, is the Jim Lehrer News Hour on PBS. This program will usually offer more coverage of third-party candidates, yet the program has lower ratings than Fox or CBS.
I love the Arkansas FreePress,a hometown production in Little Rock, but it won't get close to the Arkansas Democrat-Gazette's readership which uses mostly Associated Press stories for presidential elections. AP is owned by a collection of the biggest newspapers in the country which are owned by some of the largest corporations in the country. I consider small a virtue and not a curse here, but in any case it means that third party candidates are less likely to get anywhere near the free coverage that Democratic and Republican candidates receive.
3. Who's up for another go round at Campaign Contribution Reform? This has never worked and will never work absent a miracle, the passage of an amendment declaring presidential elections to be publicly funded, or a disaster. There are plenty of failed efforts in the past 50 years to consider for those who care to, that's for sure.
You'll quickly find the aforementioned for-profit media much favors the Democrat and Republican advertising over third-party candidates, and it favors elite-funded candidates over more populist ones. How does it do this? It charges exorbitant amounts for candidates to use airwaves owned by the public. The only ones with exorbitant amounts of money to spend on advertising are the elite-fielded candidates from the two major parties.
When candidates are bought, your political voice is determined by your pocketbook and your influence. If you fund-raise like a seasoned politician, you'll have to compromise your ideals away. Goldman Sachs will be reluctant to fund a candidate preaching economic populism as John Edwards was, but they may still bankroll a populist candidates role as long as the candidate assures them that overseas tax shelters are still safe and the latest free trade agreement will be pursued. Next thing you know, you're trading votes and going with the lesser of two evils, just like you have to do as a voter. You give money to a campaign that's sure to fail, you give time, you get nothing back but a small ripple.
Don't get me wrong. I am deeply endeared to Ralph Nader and David Cobb of the Green Party and love what they do, but is it reasonable to try over and over for a Presidency that's never going to happen? Are the resources expended on such a run worth it just to buy a little name recognition from voters when they consider the ballot. Are citizens more likely to vote for a Green Party state legislator if the Green Party appears on the Presidential ballot?
Fielding Presidential candidates is a bad idea for those with no hope of winning this contest. They are wasting money better spent in city and state contests, letting these resources trickle up to the media and their corporate owners who plan on maintaining a two-party democracy. Genuine community outreach, by providing leadership and funding projects and creating infrastructure to make life better for citizens, is the way to build an effective political party and movement.
The game is rigged. When you find out the game is rigged, what do you do? Keep playing? Try to devise some strategy to beat the owner of the rigged game? How about just stop playing?
Let the third-parties play a game they know they can compete in, community organizing. They need to address the issues that Americans face in ways that the federal government under the two-party system has been unable to. They need to build community gardens in unlikely places, most city parks departments will now help neighborhoods gain access to vacant lots for urban gardening. They need to start programs to offer green-collar jobs to the homeless and fresh food instead of processed "edible food-like substances" for our school districts, and other exciting programs that may not always be able to start with a government grant. Let's fully support our local farmers through Community Supported Agriculture networks (CSAs).
In short, third parties should focus on helping strengthen local economies and communities.
Throughout history, the most successful political parties have not been just those that can marshal the resources of the extremely wealthy. Successful political parties have also been those that facilitated a better life for those whose votes they desired. The extreme amounts of money and entertainment in politics today tends to obscure this vital function of democracy, deferring instead to a popularity contest over irrelevant issues.
Learn more about this author, Disinvestment Supporter.
Click here to send this author comments or questions.
Write and get published
Share with other writers
Polish your freelancing skills
Quality articles from proven freelancers
Exclusive rights, fast turnaround
Brand engagement, business blogging -- our writers do it all
INFORMATION
Copyright © 2002-2012 Helium, Inc. All rights reserved.
Helium.com: A Service of RR Donnelley