While third party candidates usually have no real shot at winning, they sometimes play a key role in helping either a Democrat or Republican win in an electoral system. By siphoning votes from one party at the precinct level, they can often help the other party carry that state in a close race. In recent years, one could argue that Perot and Nader had at least some part to play in electing Clinton and Bush.

So the question is: If this race turns out to be close, what third party candidates could you see having an impact on the outcome and in who's favor?

9/3/2008 7:50:54 PM

Bob Barr is a republican/libertarian who has been nominated for the libertarian party. And of course some write in votes for Ron Paul. I think those two will siphon off some otherwise republican voters. Especially considering the Paul supporters are holding their own convention.

9/3/2008 8:17:39 PM

i dont think its going to be a big deal this election. Unfortunately this country is too stupid to vote for someone actually capable of running the country if they come from a 3rd party.

9/3/2008 8:53:21 PM

you can't have a viable third party in our FPTP voting system. it's been proven to be impossible. Duverger's Law... look it up.

as the OP said (sort of), a third party can help one of the other parties LOSE.

it seems to generally follow that a third party takes away from the incumbent. im not sure why, but historically it's been the case. the three most significant 3rd party attempts in recent memory:

-- John Anderson helped Carter lose in 1980
-- Ross Perot helped Bush lose in 1992
-- Ralph Nader helped Gore lose in 2004

third parties from other years did not have any measurable effect.

some may argue that the incumbent in the above cases was going to lose anyhow, but its certain that for these 3 examples, 3rd party person took away more votes from the incumbent than the challenger.






[Edited on September 3, 2008 at 9:26 PM. Reason : ]

9/3/2008 9:17:32 PM

We need a viable third party, imo

9/3/2008 9:26:09 PM

yeah, well then we need you to get changing how elections have been run in this country since the early 1800s

our First-Past-The-Post system *guarantees* that a 3rd Party will ALWAYS fail.

IRV wont help you either. You need Proportional Representation if you want a third party (will actually give you multiple parties). that will have effects on the fabric of the Constitution, and encourage a parliamentary form of government.

SUMMARY: A 3rd party in the United States is impossible. your only hope is to work for change in one of the existing two.

9/3/2008 9:30:31 PM

if you care about this, check this link out:

http://rangevoting.org/Duverger.html

9/3/2008 9:37:28 PM

Quote :

"We need a viable third party, imo"

+1

(and fourth party and so on)

[Edited on September 3, 2008 at 9:54 PM. Reason : good thing I can spell]

9/3/2008 9:54:21 PM

^^ Interesting read. I'm all for CRV, although I'm skeptical it will gain any traction in the US. But then again that just reinforces Duverger.

Back to the original question, I was reading today that Ron Paul says he takes more votes from Obama than McCain as most of his supporters are young voters. Any thoughts?

9/3/2008 10:11:26 PM

Quote :

"If this race turns out to be close, what third party candidates could you see having an impact on the outcome and in who's favor?"

I think bob barr is gonna make difference! He is not gonna win but in some polls in some states he got as much as 11% and thats a lot. check this link out:
http://www.zogby.com/50state/showstats.cfm?statename=New%20Hampshire

I also think he got something like 6% in NC and 8% in Georgia his home state in some polls.

^I don't understand this. What exactly he mean by that?

^^we have a viable third "parties" but people are stupid

9/3/2008 11:02:21 PM

Everyone should just write in T. Boone Pickens.

9/3/2008 11:21:05 PM

^^I think he's saying that the young people who support him are much like those who support Obama, but not so much McCain. Those people might well vote for Obama before McCain in a world without Ron Paul. Not sure why he believes this or if I'm even right about what he means. I guess only he could really tell you.

9/3/2008 11:35:49 PM

I seriously doubt the Greens will be able to mount much of a presidential bid this year. Given the general frustration and fury with eight years of the Bush administration brought about in part thanks to Ralph Nader back in 2000, I can't imagine a large number of leftists bolting the Democratic line especially with an anti-war candidate leading the Democratic charge.

If any third party were to emerge, it would probably be on the Republican side. Originally, I was speculating a serious populist threat backed by the religious conservatives, but with Palin now established as McCain's VP, maybe I can see a half decent Libertarian run by Republicans iffy about the religious conservatives. However, that run would be nothing on the lines of Ross Perot or even Ralph Nader.

9/4/2008 1:07:53 AM

Quote :

"yeah, well then we need you to get changing how elections have been run in this country since the early 1800s"

i'm doing my part by not voting for one of the 2 major parties

I'm using my "voice" to express displeasure in the current system

if you keep voting R or D its not going to change

9/4/2008 1:11:54 AM

we need 2 parties, the logical party and the dumbfucks party...then we'd know who to vote for everytime

9/4/2008 1:14:38 AM

^^ dont give me some 2 party bullshit. you DON'T VOTE. by your own admission, you've NEVER voted.

so, yeahhh.... not voting, that's really using your "voice". that'll really show 'em.

glad it's working out for you so well



whats fucking really amazing to me, is you dont seem to understand how retarded you sound.

9/4/2008 3:02:22 AM

Quote :

"i'm doing my part by not voting for one of the 2 major parties I'm using my "voice" to express displeasure in the current system if you keep voting R or D its not going to change"

At this point, I've made the decision and it's not going to be R or D.


It's a self-fulfilling prophecy: vote for the two main parties because another one can never win.

Well gee, if people actually find a third party or independent candidate that they align closer with, I guess they should still go with main two candidates.

You're right. If people continue to believe that lie, things will never change.

9/4/2008 7:18:40 AM

I'm not voting for either of these two monkeys either.

I'll probably vote for bob barr or ron paul. Obviously neither will win.

9/4/2008 7:24:23 AM

this guy could be trouble for McCain
http://www.theonion.com/content/video/old_grizzled_third_party

9/4/2008 7:25:12 AM

Quote :

"dont give me some 2 party bullshit. you DON'T VOTE. by your own admission, you've NEVER voted. so, yeahhh.... not voting, that's really using your "voice". that'll really show 'em. glad it's working out for you so well whats fucking really amazing to me, is you dont seem to understand how retarded you sound."

that a way schmoe...vote for Obama then bitch about not having a viable 3rd party...you fucking idiot...way to make a difference...hey lets really show 'em that we're sick of the 2 party system by voting for one of the 2 parties..."that'll really show 'em"...lets use our "voice" to advocate this shit so it can continue forever..."that'll really show 'em"

Quote :

"you can't have a viable third party in our FPTP voting system"

thats because you have a bunch of sheep zombies like schmoe who are going to vote for one of the major parties...so go ahead and make yourself feel better by talking shit to me for not participating in a corrupt system...then talk about how 3rd parties aren't viable.....you just wallow in the blood soaked underwear of the 2 party system and dare to criticize someone who doesnt participate...you fucking stupid hypocrite

9/4/2008 10:38:21 AM