Why A 3rd Party System Might Be Worse

http://www.jimloy.com/logic/voting.htm

Who wants to be stuck w/the guy that definitly was NOT a popular candidate?

Didn't the electorate used to be divided 4-5 different ways when Lincoln was elected?

 

"Popular vote: Let's say that we go by straight popular vote. This always works with two candidates (ignoring apathy, and breaking of promises, and subsequent scandals). With three or more candidates, it is possible that the candidate with the most votes has less than 50% of the vote. This may seem fair, until you find out that the winner was actually the least popular candidate. Let's say that two Republicans (one may call himself something else) run against one Democrat, and there are more Republican voters. We further pretend that the Republicans ruin it for each other (splitting the votes from Republican voters), and the Democrat won. It turns out that either of the two Republicans would have beat the Democrat, had the other Republican chosen not to run. The winner was the least popular candidate.

That situation is very likely, and is the reason that the major parties hold primary elections and conventions."

 

I think thats a pretty crappy excuse for not wanting a 3+ party system...
you are assuming that 2 of the people running will be "republicans" when a third would be from a seperate party, with different views... (hopefuly different views)

 

Isn't this what is happening between Democrats and Nader right now only to a lesser degree?

 

thanks to perot, clinton got in with only 33% of the vote. so i didn't think anyone would object to it.

 

You'll be singing a different tune if Nader takes votes away from Kerry and we're stuck w/Georgie for another term...

 

I think it is one of the BEST reasons for not wanting one. Someone who, in some cases, less than 20% of the public voted for could win an election, if there were enough candidates.

I also think Clinton got more than 30% of the popular vote.

here. I found it. From CNN.com

 

Republicans would face the same risk from Libertarians. I think it's a small price to pay for breaking up our corporate party "duopoly."

Maggie,

I think KC was talking about 1992, when Perot definitely helped Clinton. I don't even think Perot ran in 1996, though Nader did.

 

Oh yeah?

Well lets say that while like-minded people are dividing their parties over and over again to pick a candidate that is especially close to each person's heart...

... A David Duke wannabe gets the 20-25% vote needed to win the white house.

The large majority can be stuck w/a candidate that represents a small minority.

 

Wrong election. Clinton / Bush / Perot, not Dole vs. Clinton.

 

I think that's pretty fanciful. Candidates must have a substantial level of popular support to qualify for the ballot in most states.

I also think that instant runoff voting might reduce the risk of this freakish hypothetical scenario. (See the other "third party" thread.)

 

David Duke has been on ballots.

 

I wouldn't call 15,000 that substantial.

We used to have several more parties. Read up on what happened when Linoln ran...At least 3 other candidates. He didn't even get 50%.

Parties and people learned the value of strength in numbers.

 

Yes, but I can't fathom him ever winning national election, under any circumstances. I guess I have a little more faith in the voting public than you do.

 

The link I provided covers that as well.

 

WHY?

Hitler was Elected for godssake...

 

The more candidates the greater the liklihood that a candidate with a belief system WAY outside the mainstream and a strong base will be victorious.

 

Multiply that by 50, and you see the unlikelihood of David Duke ever winning national office.

What percentage of electoral votes did he get? In any case, our Constitution has provisions for such situations. If we ever had a close 4-way race between a Republican, Democrat, Green, and Libertarian, I could live with the winner having less than 50% of the the vote. It would force us to have meaningful policy debates, rather than the soundbites and mudslinging we have now.

 

That is where you and I will have to agree to disagree.

I could not.

 

First, I don't think many Americans are Nazis at heart. Second, I doubt that Weimar Germany had our constutional system of checks and balances. Even if you believe that Bush is the sinister fascist that liberals smear him as, his actual power is very limited in our (small "r") republican form of government.