Will there ever be a Independent/Third Party President?

[Signet]

I think this election has greatly hurt third parties.  The Democrats have shown that you can successfully use legal means to keep competing third party candidates off the ballot, and even when unsuccessful you can drain their more limited resources.  But Nader could have stopped this - if I were Nader, I'd just tell my supporters "look, if the Democrats sue us off the ballot in your state, go out and vote for Bush to ensure that they never do this again."  You want to see McAuffile just *begging* to see Nader's right to run for office restored? :-p

Also, if Kerry wins and it's close, then I expect Republicans may try the same thing wrt the Libertarian and Constitution parties in 2008.  Indeed, we may have seen the start of new legal tactic for keeping all third parties out of power, permanently.  I know the Libertarian Party is guaranteed ballot access for their candidate, but still if the GOP made them spend all of their money on lawyers and their time in the courtrooms, then it would still be an effective tactic.

What we need to have happen for third party candidates to become viable:
- Access to debates to candidates whose party received more than a certain percent of the popular vote the previosu election (this would mean Nader or Cobb this year) as well as parties recognized in every state or a certain percent of the states (this would mean Badnarik this year).
- Fairer and more unifrom state ballot laws.  Courts that favor ballot access over ballot restriction.
- Possibly something like instant runoff voting so that voters are not scared about "the greater of two evils" winning if they vote third party.
- Electoral college vs popular vote is NOT an issue.  At this point, third parties are getting destroyed in both, and to win the electoral college you have to be at least close in the popular vote total, usually winning it.

I think a Libertarian could do it, though it's not likely.  Their party has over 600 elected officials, more than all the other third parties combined.  They are on the ballot in all the states, and they have a platform that is a true alternative to the Democratic and Republican ones. (where I see Greens as more liberal than Dems and Constitution Party as more conservative than Reps... the Libertarians are a truly different shade of politics and don't have too extreme of a platform)  However, their party would have to make practical changes that go against their pure ideology, including accepting federal funds for their candidates and being willing to engage some local spending with federal money to keep their areas from losing all their wealth by paying equal federal taxes but not receiving federal funds in return.  Right now they wouldn't do this, but if they start growing even more fo a national base and election becomes a possibility... sometimes you have to make sacrifices in politics.  A party that truly isn't hypocritical also truly isn't electible ;-)

[alcaeus]

We have almost always had a two party political system, although the same two parties haven't always been present.  The last time the main two parties didn't finish first and second was 1912, and before that you'd have to go back to 1860, assuming Douglas was the legitimate Democrat, which is a matter of opinion.  Either way you look at 1860, the two party system has certainly been the dominant one, and the likelihood of a third party president seems remote indeed, though not impossible.

Exactly.
If there ever is a third party president, his party won't be a third party anymore.

   So the big question is, will there be a third candidate who wins, and then leaves office without starting a new party?   This is very possible in our era, because independent candidates have been running on their celebrity status and not on party organization.    If a candidate for governor can win as an independent and leave office without a party; Jesse Ventura; then the same should be possible for the White House.  If Ross Perot had won, would his party have replaced the Republican or Democratic?  I doubt.    My bet for most likely to do this in the future is Arnold Schwarzenegger.   Even though he's in the Republican Party now, his stubborness and his desire to get any clause in the Constitution, law, and party rule in his way tossed out so he can run, makes him a good bet for an independent candidate who could win the White House.  He wouldn't have an interest in starting a party.  And he's also healthy enough to hold office until he's about 95 years old.

[badnarikin04]

I've had this crazy feeling lately that Penn Jilette would go for the Libertarian bid since he's very active in the cause and he has nothing better to do.

That would be cool.

[No more McShame]

In order for a third party to have a shot, something such as the following would need happen: The Republicans nominate a liberal (Guiliani and Pitaki rumors are already floating around) or the Democrats nominate a conservative (no names floating around yet unless Zell Miller decides to try to stick it to the Democrats in 2008, but I doubt it). By alienating their base, liberals and conservatives would turn to the Green, Constitution, and Libertarian Parties. They would also need big names. Ron Paul would be the LP's first choice. The CP would love Pat Buchanan or Roy Moore. Not sure who would go for the GP. 

Jesse Ventura is considering a run in 2008, probably as an indepedent. Much of his philosophy seems Libertarian. Though I doubt it would happen, how well would a Jesse Ventura / Ron Paul ticket perform? Again, just speculation, I don't expect that to happen.

Ventura is nowhere close to a Libertarian.  He just talks like one.

[Schiff for Senate]

Not as long as the electoral college exists, at least, and it may never be abolished... Even if/when the electoral college is abolished, the likelihood of an independent/third-party candidate winning is unlikely, though I can see it possibly occuring if the elecotral college is abolished and the candidate runs as an 'outsider' who transcends partisanship. Although even then, highly unlikely. In recent years, the best performing third-party/independent candidate was Ross Perot, who garnered 19% of the vote and 0% of the electoral college. To win any state, a third-party candidate would need something special in that state (George Wallace was segregationist, so he won in states like Mississippi and Alabama; Robert LaFollette won Wisconsin because he was a beloved senator and governor there). But if they did so, they wouldn't perform well in the rest of the country (outside the South and some rural areas Wallace wasn't a serious candidate). Conversely, if they ran a national campaign focussed on national solutions rather than ideas popular in some states, they might do well in terms of the popular vote, but no one state would necessarily be inclined to support the candidate more than another, so even if they won 20% of the vote (like Perot), their support would largely be pretty evenly spread out, leading to no statewide victory, and no electoral votes (like Perot).

[Skill and Chance]

Almost surely no for an independent, but if the USA lasts for several hundred more years, there will almost certainly be different major parties that go by different names.  So I would say yes for Third Party, but with the caveat that there will still be only 2 parties that can win the WH at any given time, they just won't be Republicans and Democrats forever.   

[MarkD]

I wish it were possible, but it is extremely unrealistic for an Independent or a third party candidate to ever win the presidency. I don't even see how we can ever get over our current run of intense polarization.

[Agonized-Statism]

If you had told me Donald Trump would be president when this thread was made (if I was the age I am now), I would have guessed that he won as an independent.

[Person Man]

We will get a third party president when its about to replace one of the two that already exist. Of course that only happens if one of the parties can't ever pivot to get enough votes by winning back old voters or getting new voters.

[Ferguson97]

"Ever" is a long time, but I don't see it happening within our lifetimes, especially with the electoral college.