Is the Stage Set For a Third-Party Presidential Candidate?
Email
Win McNamee/Getty Images
With President Obama’s approval rating hovering around 40 percent and Republican presidential primary voters seemingly undecided about who should be their front-runner, the stage may seem set for an alternative to the mainstream partisans.
But despite this dissatisfaction with the current options, when given the choice of a third-party candidate or one who is nominated independently of the two-party system, voters are still more likely flock to the traditional Democratic or Republican candidates.
“There is a lot more historical precedent for challengers from the main party winning than third parties doing a lot better,” said Jonathan Ladd, an assistant government professor at Georgetown University’s Public Policy Institute. “We have had incumbents in the past who were a good deal less popular than Obama and, even then, third-party challengers haven’t been ultimately successful.”
This tendency of Americans to stick with their mainstream parties may not be their fault, though, Ladd said.
“The way the system is set up, it naturally leans towards two dominant parties,” said Wes Benedict, executive director of the Libertarian Party. “It’s just hard for someone who is not already in power to create an organization that gets into power.”
Unlike many other democracies, America is a winner-takes-all system. In almost every state, whichever candidate gets the most votes wins every one of the state’s electoral votes, rather than the delegates being split up proportionately to the top group of vote-getters.
This creates “an incentive to not want to waste your vote,” Ladd said, adding that there is often “inherent skepticism” of third-party candidates.
Unlike past election cycles, that skepticism has seeped into mainstream politics, as well.
An ABC/Washington Post poll in October found that 68 percent of voters are unhappy with the current government and 60 percent said they support the idea of an independent candidate running against the Democrat and Republican nominee.
“Frustration is the name of the game for candidates, and for students, and for workers, and for seniors and for homeowners. We are all facing a really difficult and rocky road ahead,” said Jill Stein, the Green Party presidential candidate. That “makes it all the more important for us to have alternatives.”
Green Party spokesman Mark Dunlea said the frustration has manifested itself in the Occupy Wall Street movement and the polls that show Congress has a lowest-ever approval rating of less than 10 percent.
“People are definitely fed up,” he said. “Am I predicting a victory for the Green Party this year? It’s certainly still a long shot, but less this year than in past years.”
Much of Americans’ frustration stems from the gridlock currently plaguing the political process, Ladd said. That is precisely why a group called Americans Elect has launched a campaign to put a party-free candidate on the ballot in every state in 2012.
“We are not a third party,” said Elliot Ackerman, the group’s chief operating officer. “The country has enough special interests and goofy ideologies out there. We are a second way to nominate our leaders.”
By gathering enough petition signatures, the group has already secured a spot on the ballot in nine states. Ackerman said that number will jump to 28 by the end of the year and before November 2012, he said the group will have secured the remaining 22 states.
But Americans Elect does not even have a candidate yet. That prospective candidate will be chosen through an online nominating process that is open to any registered voter who signs up through the group’s website to be an Americans Elect delegate.
So far, Ackerman said about 20 people have privately expressed interest in running for the Americans Elect nomination, although he would not disclose who the prospective nominees are.
“2012 is going to be a three-horse race,” Ackerman said. “2012 is once again the change election, but the change is not a new person, the change is a new way to pick our leaders.”
However, if an outside-the-mainstream candidate were to win the White House, Ladd argued, rather than fixing the gridlock in Washington, they could actually make it worse.
“Parties in Congress will still really disagree and the institution will still be set up with lots of veto points to block action,” Ladd said. “It’s hard for Obama to get Democrats to agree on one program and vote for his proposals. I think it would be harder for a third-party candidate to take convince members of Congress to take unpopular votes for them.”
Best Commencement Speeches of 2012 
Joe Biden Recalls Death of Wife, Daughter
Yeah, go ahead and create a third party ! That will be the fastest way to get Odumbo re-elected , remember Ross Perot ?
Posted by: SAY WHAT ? | November 24, 2011, 6:24 am 6:24 am
A 3-way race would be Barry’s dream, and would pave his way to another four years of misery. Just ask Clinton and Deval Patrick; the 33% President and Governor of Massachusetts..
Posted by: doggman | November 24, 2011, 6:51 am 6:51 am
…..Its doubtful that a 3rd party can gain traction, money owns politics today, and it is not going anywhere.
Posted by: RP---STAR | November 24, 2011, 7:15 am 7:15 am
In the US, there’s this thing called the electoral college. It consists of 538 people, chosen by voters to “show appreciation for their support of the two main parties”. These 538 are free to vote for whomsoever they please, regardless of what you or I do in the ballot booth. A simple majority wins a state for a particular candidate; the minority electoral votes are wasted. Third party candidates are prevented, since there is no option to choose ‘third party’ electors. This is why we haven’t had anything but democrats and republicans in the White House for 165 years. Two criminal cartels, taking turns to stuff their pockets with your money. Should any electors have a “crisis of conscience” and decide to vote third party, Diebold electronic voting machines will ensure everything turns out exactly as planned. Why in the world would they want to change such a beautiful system?
Posted by: h5mind | November 24, 2011, 8:15 am 8:15 am
In the US, there’s this thing called the electoral college. It consists of 538 people, chosen by voters to “show appreciation for their support of the two main parties”. These 538 are free to vote for whomsoever they please, regardless of what you or I do in the ballot booth. A simple majority wins a state for a particular candidate; the minority electoral votes are wasted. Third party candidates are prevented, since there is no option to choose ‘third party’ electors. This is why we haven’t had anything but democrats and republicans in the White House for 165 years. Two criminal cartels, taking turns to stuff their pockets with your money. Should any electors have a “crisis of conscience” and decide to vote third party, Diebold electronic voting machines will ensure everything turns out exactly as planned. Why in the world would they want to change such a beautiful system?
Posted by: Censored News | November 24, 2011, 8:17 am 8:17 am
My God we can only hope and pray! The last one to legitimately challenge the two party system we have in this country is Ross Perot and we see how far that got. They serve only themselves, not the people.
Posted by: newcountryman | November 24, 2011, 8:34 am 8:34 am
Probably not in my lifetime.
Posted by: newcountryman | November 24, 2011, 8:36 am 8:36 am
That is what Obama, the Democratic Party and the news media are hoping for, just like Clinton got in…
Posted by: Freedom | November 24, 2011, 8:46 am 8:46 am
No one, not even Ron Paul, would be stupid enough to do that! Would mean certain victory for our horrible, inept president.
Posted by: Mary Smith | November 24, 2011, 9:01 am 9:01 am
I would vote for any indipendent that is credibly not a party member.
Posted by: oletafive | November 24, 2011, 9:05 am 9:05 am
Fine with me – as long as it’s Gore, Kerry or Edwards…
Posted by: Logicsgood5 | November 24, 2011, 9:05 am 9:05 am
inept president?? Even obama’s failures are better than the republicans achievments( which are zero)
Posted by: RTK | November 24, 2011, 9:08 am 9:08 am
Coke or Pepsi what difference does it make when the banking cartels and the corporate elite run the show. Whomever is elected simply ends up being a puppet for the real powers pulling the strings. Remember Oh Blah Blah’s endless campaign promises back in 08 to bring the troops home, create jobs and make the government live by the constitution? Yeah right, the president makes such an incredibly big difference to how the country/world is run. Wake up sheeple. It matters not who holds the main office. It’s the people behind the scenes running the show. The David Rockefeller’s, The Rothchilds, The Bilderberg Group and of coarse the Military Industrial Complex. Eisenhower and Kennedy warned us and do we listen? Does anybody even read this information or are you all just a bunch of fluoridated idiots?
Posted by: Bert Fonte | November 24, 2011, 9:11 am 9:11 am
Nothing is getting done now, with our “2 party” system.
Less would get done with 2 parties united against a 3rd party.
BTW, the Electoral College has to go.
Posted by: JimInPhila | November 24, 2011, 9:13 am 9:13 am
“Even obama’s failures are better than the republicans achievments” —————– Let’s see – Record unemployment, Record deficit, Record number of foreclosures, Record number of people on food stamps, 401k’s in the toilet, $800 Billion “Stimulus”, Obamacare, Transparency, Downgrade, Solyndra….. Really great failures there RTK…..
Posted by: Logicsgood5 | November 24, 2011, 9:31 am 9:31 am
You talk as if all these have started with obama. All these are part of a process which began before him and the process is still continuing and he is doing all he can to stop the process and what is making it worse is the congress.
Posted by: RTK | November 24, 2011, 10:31 am 10:31 am
All these are part of the recession and he is doing his best to stop them. Unlike the one before him.
Posted by: RTK | November 24, 2011, 10:35 am 10:35 am
There is no question, we have to move away from the 2 party system. However both of the existing parties go to great lengths to prevent any other party from forming or being able to compete with them.
It is a stacked deck, on the part of the existing parties.
Posted by: Rick McDaniel | November 24, 2011, 11:24 am 11:24 am
Logicsgood5 | November 24, 2011, 9:31 AM, Said:
“Let’s see – Record unemployment, Record deficit, Record number of foreclosures,… (whine, whine, and more whining)…”
=============================================
LMAO! …. Do you ever do more than just look at the pictures when you read the newspaper? You apparently have no clue about economics, no clue what it takes to turn the $15 trillion dollar U.S. economy around, and therefore, no clue about how we got in this mess and what it’s going to take to get us out of it. …… Try doing a little studying about the causes of the recession and long-term impacts of economic policy.
For example, during the 8 years of Clinton, the USA had a net growth of 18.5 million jobs, with an average annual job growth equal to 2.3 million per year.
… and during the 8 years of G.W. Bush, the USA had a net growth of 5.7 million jobs, with an average annual growth equal to 714,000 jobs per year.
LOL! …. and if you really think those 8 years of Bush growing our economy at an average of 714,000 jobs per year (in comparison with Clinton’s 2.3 million per year) did not impact Obama’s first year in office… you are DEFINITELY clueless about economics. The $15 trillion USA economy doesn’t turn around on a dime shallow-head. It’s going to be several more years before the country recovers from the economic policies of G.W. Bush.
Posted by: Republicans = a BUNCH of Forrest Gumps | November 24, 2011, 12:38 pm 12:38 pm
I would go one better and have a no party or a four party system. I would never vote for any of these current candidates to represent the U.S.A as they are all deeply flawed. I really do not understand the Republican Party Values anymore and am deeply disturbed by the Democrats as well. In all of the U.S.A. there must be leaders with strong moral values who will protect America, protect Social Security and Medicare, fix our broken “for profit” health care system and stop the endless foreign wars.
Posted by: T Trump | November 24, 2011, 12:53 pm 12:53 pm
I am thankful for people like Jon Stewart and Steven Colbert who help me see just how ridiculous republican politicians operate. A republican politician was picking through the frozen turkeys at the grocery store but couldn’t find one big enough for his family. He asked a stock boy, ‘Do these turkeys get any bigger?’ The stock boy replied, ‘No sir, they’re dead.’ Have a happy day.
Posted by: T Trump | November 24, 2011, 12:57 pm 12:57 pm
EVERYTIME I post in one of these threads, I get a “Slow down, you are posting too quickly!” or other such warning….what I just posted (or tried to post…we’ll see) got the above, even though it was my first/only post of the day and I’ve only posted rarely here recently! WTH?
I HATE this format.
Posted by: Raven | November 24, 2011, 1:04 pm 1:04 pm
T TRUMP: “…am deeply disturbed by the Democrats as well. In all of the U.S.A. there must be leaders with strong moral values who will protect America, protect Social Security and Medicare, fix our broken “for profit” health care system and stop the endless foreign wars.”
That would be Obama.
He has not gone as far or fast as many had hoped or would like, but he has moved us in the correct direction to a significant degree, esp. considering who and what he has been up against.
Posted by: Raven | November 24, 2011, 1:09 pm 1:09 pm
We should dump 2 party rule or electoral college system , and set up a more democratic system where any party and any candidate can run and be elected, rather than the big 2. Also, get rid of current Congress, and make it one term Congress where all members are serving no consecutive terms, and go home once a term is over. This way, we could have fresh members on every term in House and Senate who would server the people who elect them every few years. That’s the democracy that can benefit the people in this country, rather than parties and politicians and their special interest groups.
Let’s change this corrupted system, where politicians only represent the big 2 party interests, not American peoples!
Posted by: sabaniz | November 24, 2011, 3:29 pm 3:29 pm
“You apparently have no clue about economics, no clue what it takes to turn the $15 trillion dollar U.S. economy around, and therefore, no clue about how we got in this mess and what it’s going to take to get us out of it. ……” — posted by Republicans = A Bunch of Forrest Gumps ————— Sorry Forrest, but it’s all too painfully clear that that quote describes your man to a T. And let’s not forget his sidekick “We have to spend money to keep from going bankrupt.” and “…250,000 to 500,000 new jobs per month.” Sheriff Joe. Yeah a couple of true economic geniuses. But keep trying the “It’s Bush’s fault” routine Forrest. It worked like a charm last November…
Posted by: Logicsgood5 | November 24, 2011, 4:25 pm 4:25 pm
How about Ralph Nader.
Posted by: gene | November 24, 2011, 8:28 pm 8:28 pm
We have to get rid of both of the worthless parties currently in power or we will never get rid of the fascism, more over we desperately need to get the wealthy/corporation kiss asses out of there. They are not going to do anyone in the working class any good their past performances have proved this.
Posted by: David | November 25, 2011, 12:49 am 12:49 am
Neither party is representing my values. I’m going third party in 2012
Posted by: whatever | November 25, 2011, 5:16 am 5:16 am
Hey Forrext Gump, you forgot one small detail. Clinton did not have NAFTA and he also jumped into bed with China. Sure when Bush arrived the stage was already set for jobs to head out of here. While your talking about raising debt, you forgot to bring up Obama, why? He is in a class all by himself when it comes to spending. Sad part of it is there have been no results to show for it.
Posted by: specialty57 | November 25, 2011, 5:46 am 5:46 am
X-Repub dazzles me every time with those numbers.
Posted by: newcountryman | November 25, 2011, 8:37 am 8:37 am
NEWCOUNTRYMAN | NOVEMBER 25, 2011, 8:37 AM, SAID:
“X-Repub dazzles me every time with those numbers.”
==================================================
LOL!….after reading some of your post here, why is it that the rest of us are not surprised?
Posted by: Republicans = a BUNCH of Forrest Gumps | November 25, 2011, 9:48 am 9:48 am
Hey Forrext Gump, you forgot one small detail. Clinton did not have NAFTA and he also jumped into bed with China. Posted by: specialty57 | November 25, 2011, 5:46 am.
Bush Senior drafted and pushed for and ceremonially signed NAFTA, but Clinton actually signed it into law in December 1993, during his first year. NAFTA was in place during seven of Clinton’s eight years. From an October 10, 2000, article: “President Clinton will close years of political and economic debate Tuesday and seal a major achievement of his administration by signing off on normalized trade with China.Clinton will sign the measure, approved by Congress this year, in a White House ceremony Tuesday afternoon. The president has invited key lawmakers to the South Lawn to witness his signing of the U.S.-China Relations Act of 2000.The bill’s passage by the Senate on September 19 capped years of negotiations with Beijing and intense lobbying by the Clinton administration, business and labor interests. The move is designed to open China’s mammoth market to U.S. businesses and pave the way for China’s entry into the World Trade Organization”….. From another article: “Clinton also signed the Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1993 in August of that year, which passed Congress without a Republican vote. It cut taxes for fifteen million low-income families, made tax cuts available to 90% of small businesses, and raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% of taxpayers. Additionally, through the implementation of spending restraints, it mandated the budget be balanced over a number of years…” —- Say what you want about Clinton, this country was flourishing while he was president, despite the best efforts of the Republican Party to undermine him…….
Posted by: Searambler | November 25, 2011, 10:04 am 10:04 am
Everytime I read a post by X-Repub, I’m reminded of something Mark Twain observed.
Posted by: newcountryman | November 25, 2011, 11:54 am 11:54 am
Oh, I almost forgot….LOL. Sorry.
Posted by: newcountryman | November 25, 2011, 12:00 pm 12:00 pm
There already is a third party running, it’s called the Tea Party. The Republican party just doesn’t have a candidate yet. They have plenty to draw from, smart, articulate men/women such as Alan Simpson, Rudy Giuliani, Fred Thompson, Jeb Bush, Olympia Snow, Mike Bloomberg, Colin Powell, Lindsey Graham, Haley Barber and yes even John McCain.
Posted by: tmferretti | November 25, 2011, 12:59 pm 12:59 pm
There should be two additional party candidates. One to represent the ideals of the Democratic party of 40 years ago, and the other to represent the Repubublican party of 40 years ago…..That would be the only way to get today’s left and right wing radicals out of the mix.
Posted by: munster42 | November 25, 2011, 2:36 pm 2:36 pm
Two party control is going to end. The only thing that keeps it together at the present time is the fact that federal courts have not ruled in favor of a minor party or independent voter in recent years, and the Supreme Court has not agreed to hear the case of a minor party or independent voter for 20 years.
This puts the federal court system in the position of proclaiming Republicans and Democrats to be national parties the way the Fascist Party was a national party in Italy. It cannot be sustained here. There is no King Victor Immanuel here, and the people do not want any national parties. They want free and open elections.
We can also look at the Nazi Party of Germany, which was patterned after the Fascist Party. The courts of Germany upheld the Nazi Party as a national party, making party membership a prerequisite to participating in German government. Regardless of what political parties are trying to do at the present time, independent voters and minor party members have a Constitutional right to be voters and candidates for office.
The real reason for political parties can also be seen in looking at elections in the Soviet Union under Josef Stalin. Only Communist Party members were allowed to appear on the ballot.
Americans are going to reject the idea of a national party or parties. I believe that the strange assortment of party candidates so far this election has been caused by the fact that this election will be the one when the voters start to reject party control of the government.
Posted by: Robert B Winn | November 26, 2011, 1:33 pm 1:33 pm
It could not get much worse we wont get rid of O anyway
Posted by: michael | December 14, 2011, 5:49 pm 5:49 pm