promotion image of download ymail app
Frederick asked in Arts & HumanitiesPhilosophy · 3 months ago

Why a third candidate never can win president election?

15 Answers

  • Dave
    Lv 4
    3 months ago
    Favorite Answer

    A Third Party candidate could win, if he has enough money (and I don't mean "bribery," because campaigning is extremely expensive: travel, advertising, hotels, renting meeting halls, etc.).  If he comes out against Socialism, and promises, in writing, a plan to pay down the National Debt, he would definitely win the election...if he weren't assassinated first.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    My Ley answer is that they're a 3rd candidate for a reason. It's a hardcore competition that costs millions... The best person doesn't always win. 

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    THe voting "PIE CHART" would be too small percentage-wise.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Phil
    Lv 5
    3 months ago

    One day the Democratic Party or the Republican Party could even be the "third party" but that day is a long way off in the future.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • How do you think about the answers? You can sign in to vote the answer.
  • 3 months ago

    How good are you at math?   Because it's really quite simple.

    You have a country divided into Hatfields and McCoys......50-50. 

    a third party Jones comes along.......where does his votes come from? 

    You have to suck some voters  AWAY from Team Hatfield or Team McCoy. 

    the second you LESSEN  either side of a 50-50 even balance........who wins? 

    The OTHER side. 

    Okay, so you need to suck some voters away from BOTH sides, in equal make it a 33-33-33  split..........just to even have a chance. 

    Except no such critter exists..........who can appeal to BOTH a republican AND a democrat.......since they are bitterly opposed? 

    and even if you found this magic uinicorn....what happens is.......they go to the polls on voting day..........and they get scared.........they get scared , that their REAL team........the Hatfields,   (or the McCoys)  will lose if you take votes away from vote for this upstart, even though they like the Jones guy.................they better vote for their side anyway, ......just to prevent those nasy McCoys  from stealing it. 

    so the Jones who had strong  33-35% polling in the polls........exits election day, with like only 10 % of the actual vote..........while the Hatfields and McCoys  split pretty evenly.........45%-45%........with one or the other having the slight edge. 

    and then you kick yourself for hurting your own side, by voting for the Jones that never had any chance to start with. 

    That's why 3rd party candidates can't win. 

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    If you mean third party candidate, they can win but it is unlikely. 

    Approximately 60% of Americans identify as Republicans or Democrats and vote their party. That makes it extremely unlikely that a 3rd party candidate could ever get more than 40% of the votes (not enough even with the electoral college). Plus, independents know that voting for a 3rd party is probably a wasted vote so most will also vote for one of the two major parties.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • With the way the system is currently set up, it'd be pretty much impossible.

    First off, we'd have to pretend that the current powers-that-be would permit a 3rd-party candidate to get a campaign really rolling.  I have said it before and I will say it again:  If you want to see bipartisanship, then let an outsider start gaining in the polls.  Suddenly, there'll be all sorts of new rules established that make it much more difficult for the average person to run a campaign.

    For instance, let's say that you wanted to run for office.  Would you even know where to begin with the paperwork or the finance rules?  You'd need attorneys to sort through all of that stuff for you, and attorneys aren't cheap.  You'd be looking at thousands upon thousands of dollars in just finding out whether or not you're legally qualified to run for that office, and you'd have to make sure that every penny gathered and spent is done so legally (and I don't mean justifiably, I mean legally, which is something completely different), because if you're only permitted to spend an X amount of dollars on Y types of services and you spend more than that, then you've broken the law and now you can't run, blah blah blah...

    And then there are the rules governing debates.  Why does a presidential candidate need to receive at least 15% support in 3 different nationwide polls for at least one month in order to earn a spot at a debate?  The DNC and the GOP can pretend that they haven't pressured anybody into adopting those standards, but everybody knows that they're involved.  We can have 17 Republicans debating and 9 Democrats debating during the primaries, but when it comes to the general election, suddenly we only have time for 2 people?  The groups that hold those debates are pressured into only offering the limited choice, because the last time a 3rd-party person got up there, he got 19% of the popular vote (and none of the votes in the EC, which should demonstrate clearly why the EC needs to be revamped to reflect the popular vote), so we clearly can't have any of that crap again.

    So the 2 parties have pretty much sewn up the political landscape for all but the richest of outsiders.  If you can muster up the money and wade through the bureaucracy, then you might have an opportunity to run.  And even then, you'll have both sides working together to lock you out.  And let's not kid ourselves and think that the GOP wants the DNC gone or vice versa.  If either party was completely in control with no opposition, then they'd run out of scapegoats to blame all of the problems on.  The people in charge of each recognizes the necessity of the other.

    Now let's pretend that the system is fair and isn't rigged against outsiders who hold their own opinions and convictions.  What happens then when someone runs?  They make it all the way to the election and then they lose?  Why?  Because people vote party over person nearly every single time.  This is a consequence of getting only 1 choice every 2 to 4 years.  With only 1 choice and only 2 real teams to choose from, you don't want to let your team down by voting for someone else, so you (oftentimes begrudgingly) choose your team and hope for the best.

    So how can we fix this?  How can we make the election process better for everybody?  2 ways:

    1) Ranked voting.  You get to pick more than 1 candidate for a position.  You get your preferred choice, your second place choice, third place choice, and so on (as necessary).  There are plenty of resources online that demonstrate how ranked voting works and why it's a better system (mainly it has to do with accepting compromise and not feeling pressured to pick a team over a player).

    2) Open primaries.  Let Republicans pick their favorite Democrat candidates for the general election and let Democrats pick their favorite Republican candidates.  Republican voters would pick the Democrat candidates that they feel are more centrists and Democrat voters would pick Republican candidates that they felt were more centrist.  You'd have less polarizing elections and people wouldn't feel completely dejected if their pick didn't win, because at least the opposition wasn't a complete douche.

    3) Publicly-provided campaign funding.  All campaigns must be run with funds allocated by the public for the purposes of campaigns, with a maximum private contribution of $10,000 from the person running for office.  Every candidate would be on nearly equal footing and the candidate who could run a better campaign on a budget would win.  This would eliminate a major source of power for lobbyists and it would make it less prohibitive for people to join in on the political process.

    Anyway, that's just what I think.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Stan
    Lv 6
    3 months ago

    Because we have a winner take all system. With 3 candidates in a grneral election the vote could be divided in such a way there is no clear winner. In other Democracies power is often divied up according to the number of votes received, so even the loser has some consolation and with multiple candidates everyone gets some aportionment of representation. In the US the winner gets everything and 2nd and 3rd place go home.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    Because he can't get enough votes.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • Anonymous
    3 months ago

    Read up on the electoral process.

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
  • 3 months ago

    We have never had more than two major parties.  We only get a new party when an old one dies.  The two parties have had 200 years now to jigger the system to make it almost impossible for new parties to get started.

    In fact, the Republicans are trying to turn the US into a ONE party system.  This is Karl Rove's famous 'Permanent Republican Majority'. 

    • Commenter avatarLogin to reply the answers
Still have questions? Get your answers by asking now.