Will there ever be a Third-Party President Again?

[SPC]

i beginning to lose my optimism of a multi-partisan fuure for America.

[Gabu]

There really has never been a third-party president, ever, if you look at the history.  There were Whig presidents before, sure, but look at those elections - there were only two major parties, the Whigs and the Democrats.  Then the Whig Party fell apart and the Republican Party took its place.  I can't think of a single election where more than two parties had a serious shot at the presidency.

[Tetro Kornbluth]

There really has never been a third-party president, ever, if you look at the history.  There were Whig presidents before, sure, but look at those elections - there were only two major parties, the Whigs and the Democrats.  Then the Whig Party fell apart and the Republican Party took its place.  I can't think of a single election where more than two parties had a serious shot at the presidency.

1992 before Perot dropped out and went insane? 1856, maybe? 1824 would apply if we were talking about candidates, not parties.

Though you're correct when you said that the US has only ever been a two-party system, after all the Republican Party was formed in 1854 iirc - two years after the collapse of the whigs as a major force. And only for that brief time after the Federalists collapsed has it been a "One-party system".

[SPC]

There really has never been a third-party president, ever, if you look at the history.  There were Whig presidents before, sure, but look at those elections - there were only two major parties, the Whigs and the Democrats.  Then the Whig Party fell apart and the Republican Party took its place.  I can't think of a single election where more than two parties had a serious shot at the presidency.

1860, when the GOP was still a third-party. Even though the GOP got a larger share of the vote in the election of 1856, The Know-Nothing Party had momentarily gained Speakership of the House, making the GOP a third-party

[Democratic Hawk]

Count yourselves blessed . I wish we in the UK didn't have to contend with third parties

Being Labour, I know where I stand with the Conservative Party. At least, I think I do, can't really tell with David Cameron yet, however

Dave

[Gabu]

1992 before Perot dropped out and went insane? 1856, maybe? 1824 would apply if we were talking about candidates, not parties.

Though you're correct when you said that the US has only ever been a two-party system, after all the Republican Party was formed in 1854 iirc - two years after the collapse of the whigs as a major force. And only for that brief time after the Federalists collapsed has it been a "One-party system".

Perot was an independent in 1992.

Given that Fillmore got all of 8 electoral votes in 1856, I don't think it can really be stated that the Whigs had a chance to actually win in that election.

1824 doesn't really count because it was, for all intents and purposes, a nonpartisan election, what with every candidate being from the same party.

1860, when the GOP was still a third-party. Even though the GOP got a larger share of the vote in the election of 1856, The Know-Nothing Party had momentarily gained Speakership of the House, making the GOP a third-party

There were only two real parties that had a chance in 1860: the Republicans and the Democrats.  The fact that there were two Democratic candidates does not change the fact that there were only two parties with a chance.

[Boris]

If the Republican Party had completely abandoned Taft and supported the Progressives, TR would've been elected under a third party in 1912. Is 1912 the only time when a third party has exceeded a major party in both the electoral and popular vote?

[ottermax]

People in America are too polarized and partisan to vote for a third party. When elections have been tight, people would prefer to be part of the process, and maybe have their one vote help tilt the election toward their favor. Maybe if we had been seeing landslide elections, the losing party would start losing support, but I doubt a third party can win a national election soon.

[Gabu]

If the Republican Part had completely abandoned Taft and supported the Progressives, TR would've been elected under a third party in 1912. Is 1912 the only time when a third party has exceeded a major party in both the electoral and popular vote?

Depends on whether you want to consider Stephen Douglas' candidacy in 1860 to be the Democratic candidate.  If so, he was beaten by John Bell, the Constitutional Union candidate, which was basically a one-off third party, though only in the electoral vote, not the popular vote.

I think a greater argument could be made that Breckenridge was more the Democratic candidate, though.

Come to think of it, 1912 is probably the best example in American history of a third-party having a real chance at the presidency.

[Boris]

If the Republican Part had completely abandoned Taft and supported the Progressives, TR would've been elected under a third party in 1912. Is 1912 the only time when a third party has exceeded a major party in both the electoral and popular vote?

I think a greater argument could be made that Breckenridge was more the Democratic candidate, though.

If I remember my AP US History class, Douglas was the "official" Democratic Party Nominee for President. The Southern Democrats walked out of the convention and nominated Breckenridge for President at a later date. Therefore, I think the southern Democrats would have been considred to be a third party, even though their nominee was the incumbent Vice President.

Breckenridge came in second in the electoral vote, although the Douglas came in second in the popular vote.

[Padfoot]

IMO, if third parties want to be relevant nationally they first need to be relevant locally.  I'm not talking about being on the water management board or the mayor of some 400 person town either.  When I say local positions what I mean is winning state legislative positions, city council or county comissioner positions in mid-size and large metro areas, and perhaps even US House seats.  The positions need to be ones that will garner them mention in the local paper at least once every two-weeks as well if not more often.  Third parties should quit wasting their time and limitted resources on "serious" presidential bids and start focusing those resources on local candidates for office.  I know that I would be far more likely to vote Libertarian for City Council or Ohio Representative than I would for Governor or Senator.

[Gabu]

If I remember my AP US History class, Douglas was the "official" Democratic Party Nominee for President. The Southern Democrats walked out of the convention and nominated Breckenridge for President at a later date. Therefore, I think the southern Democrats would have been considred to be a third party, even though their nominee was the incumbent Vice President.

Yes, that's certainly true.

[Verily]

There really has never been a third-party president, ever, if you look at the history.  There were Whig presidents before, sure, but look at those elections - there were only two major parties, the Whigs and the Democrats.  Then the Whig Party fell apart and the Republican Party took its place.  I can't think of a single election where more than two parties had a serious shot at the presidency.

1860, when the GOP was still a third-party. Even though the GOP got a larger share of the vote in the election of 1856, The Know-Nothing Party had momentarily gained Speakership of the House, making the GOP a third-party

The Know-Nothings were in coalition with the Republicans (then called the Opposition Party), the only coalition in the House in US history, and held fewer seats (100-81-53, O-D-K). They were given the Speakership to convince them to support the Republicans over the Democrats. In any case, by the time the Republicans ran their first candidate for President in 1856, the Know-Nothings were already fading from the scene. (1856 gave a House of 132-90-14, D-R-K.)

[Stranger in a strange land]

Ever is a long time; I think someday there probably will be.

[Gustaf]

Obviously a "third party" defined as the 3rd biggest party in a country can never win anything, especially not in a two-party system like the American one.

What they can do is win as a major party is fading away (like the GOP in the late 1850s), but then it is debatable whether to count them as a 3rd party. Roosevelt in 1912 was the one case I guess, but he didn't really come all that close (losing by 13%)

[© tweed]

Not unless the electoral college is repealed, which is certainly a possiblity by not for decades at the least.