Please turn on javascript in your browser to play chess.
Debates Forum

Debates Forum

  1. Standard member wittywonka
    Chocolate Expert
    02 Jun '12 21:35
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/americans-elect-and-the-death-of-the-third-party-movement/2012/05/17/gIQAIzNKXU_blog.html

    Late Thursday night, Americans Elect, a much-ballyhooed group dedicated to securing ballot access for a serious third-party presidential candidate in 2012, issued a statement acknowledging failure.

    “As of this week, no candidate achieved the national support threshold required to enter the Americans Elect online convention in June,” the statement read. “The primary process for the Americans Elect nomination has come to an end.”

    That’s a somewhat remarkable — and ignominious — end for a group that carried a number of high-profile backers in the political strategist and donor community and who, as of earlier this month, had secured ballot access in more than half of the 50 states.

    And it’s a telling indication that, despite widespread discontent with the two-party system and near-record numbers of people saying that they would be open to voting for a third-party candidate, the future of another major political party emerging any time soon is more pipe dream than practical.

    “Good and qualified people see politics as so poisonous today that they simply don’t want to participate,” explained Mark McKinnon, a former adviser to President George W. Bush and a major player in the Americans Elect movement. “It’s just damn difficult to break the iron grip of the two-party system.

    McKinnon added: “This may not be a death knell for third-party efforts, but it’s a pretty good shot to the groin.”


    Anyone interested in speculating as to the reason for AE's failure, or the implications thereof?

    Although I give AE credit for being thoughtful and novel, I wonder if they weren't really just trying to patch together the holes in the two-party system, rather than reinvent the system altogether.
  2. Donation rwingett
    Ming the Merciless
    04 Jun '12 01:11 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by wittywonka
    http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/the-fix/post/americans-elect-and-the-death-of-the-third-party-movement/2012/05/17/gIQAIzNKXU_blog.html

    Late Thursday night, Americans Elect, a much-ballyhooed group dedicated to securing ballot access for a serious third-party presidential candidate in 2012, issued a statement acknowledging failure.

    “As of this patch together the holes in the two-party system, rather than reinvent the system altogether.
    The system is specifically designed to exclude third parties. Trying to work within that system by launching a third party is therefore a waste of time. The only possible avenue for change would be in changing the system itself. But the two parties will never allow that. So as long as you're operating within the political system, you're stuck with those two parties.
  3. 04 Jun '12 02:49
    Originally posted by rwingett
    The system is specifically designed to exclude third parties. Trying to work within that system by launching a third party is therefore a waste of time. The only possible avenue for change would be in changing the system itself. But the two parties will never allow that. So as long as you're operating within the political system, you're stuck with those two parties.
    I think Ross Perot could have won had he not dropped out. He then could have successfully launched a third party if he played his cards right. Rumor has it, however, that he and his family were threatened, so he dropped out.

    Dealing with the 2 party system is like dealing with the mob.
  4. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Jun '12 03:11
    Originally posted by whodey
    Rumor has it, however, that he and his family were threatened, so he dropped out. Dealing with the 2 party system is like dealing with the mob.
    What kind of threat?
  5. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Jun '12 03:16
    Originally posted by whodey
    I think Ross Perot could have won had he not dropped out. He then could have successfully launched a third party if he played his cards right..
    Dropped out? Perot contested the 1992 election. He went on to contest the 1996 election as well, and did so under the banner of the Reform Party which he had launched.
  6. 04 Jun '12 03:27 / 3 edits
    Originally posted by FMF
    Dropped out? Perot contested the 1992 election. He went on to contest the 1996 election as well, and did so under the banner of the Reform Party which he had launched.
    http://www.shmoop.com/political-parties/ross-perot-third-parties.html

    Ross Perot was leading the polls in June 1992 with about 39% of the vote compared to Bush with 31% and Clinton 25%. Then he inexplicably dropped out citing that political enemies had threatened to release compromising pictures of his daughter if he continued. Even though he resumed the race later in the fall his supporters felt betrayed and no one took him seriously again even though he ran again 4 years later.

    Looking back Perot seems to have been the only hope for the country.
  7. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Jun '12 03:34
    Originally posted by whodey
    Ross Perot was leading the polls in June 1992 with about 39% of the vote compared to Bush with 31% and Clinton 25%. Then he inexplicably dropped out citing that political enemies had threatened to release compromising pictures of his daughter if he continued. Even though he resumed the race later in the fall his supporters felt betrayed and no one took him seriously again even though he ran again 4 years later.
    Well he can't have dropped out "inexplicably" AND it be 'explicable' too. So you're sounding a bit breathless there, whodey. Besides, he only paused his campaign and went on to contest the 1992 election and got about 20% of the vote.
  8. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Jun '12 03:43 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by whodey
    Looking back Perot seems to have been the only hope for the country.
    He was apparently not ready for the rough and tumble of retail politics. He put avoiding some run ofr the mill family embarrassment ahead of wanting to be "the only hope for the country", so perhaps he kind of deserved the "quitter" label. I personally imagine that Perot would have been a disastrous president. He couldn't even run an election campaign, let alone the U.S.
  9. 04 Jun '12 04:17 / 1 edit
    Originally posted by FMF
    He was apparently not ready for the rough and tumble of retail politics. He put avoiding some run ofr the mill family embarrassment ahead of wanting to be "the only hope for the country", so perhaps he kind of deserved the "quitter" label. I personally imagine that Perot would have been a disastrous president. He couldn't even run an election campaign, let alone the U.S.
    What can I say, he was leading in the polls and dropped out. In short, he got spooked, but by what? I"m not sure I believe the reason he gives.

    I don't care what anyone says, this is highly unusual and unprecedented.

    He ran on the premise that he as concerned with the massive debt being incurred on the country. As a result, I think he was the nations last hope.
  10. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Jun '12 04:54
    Originally posted by whodey
    What can I say, he was leading in the polls and dropped out. In short, he got spooked, but by what? I"m not sure I believe the reason he gives. .
    He obviously wasn't cut out for it. He probably would have been a de facto lame duck from the get go.
  11. Standard member sh76
    Civis Americanus Sum
    04 Jun '12 11:59 / 2 edits
    Originally posted by whodey
    What can I say, he was leading in the polls and dropped out. In short, he got spooked, but by what? I"m not sure I believe the reason he gives.

    I don't care what anyone says, this is highly unusual and unprecedented.

    He ran on the premise that he as concerned with the massive debt being incurred on the country. As a result, I think he was the nations last hope.
    Perot was not leading in the polls when he dropped out. From Wikipedia:

    By mid-July, the Washington Post reported that Perot's campaign managers were becoming increasingly disillusioned by his unwillingness to follow their advice[60] to be more specific on issues,[54] and his need to be in full control of operations[60] with such tactics as forcing volunteers to sign loyalty oaths.[61] Perot's poll numbers began to slip to 25%, and his advisers warned that if he continued to ignore them, he would fall into single digits. Co-manager Hamilton Jordan threatened to quit,[54] and on July 15, Ed Rollins resigned after Perot fired advertisement specialist Hal Riney, who worked with Rollins on the Reagan campaign. Rollins would later claim that a member of the campaign accused him of being a Bush plant with ties to the CIA.[62] Amidst the chaos, Perot's support fell to 20%.[63] The next day, Perot announced on Larry King Live that he would not seek the presidency.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992#Decline_and_withdrawal

    He was leading at one point, but he was trailing and fading by the time he dropped out. In any case, he later re-entered the race and had a profound impact on it (probably helping Clinton by siphoning off more Bush voters).
  12. 04 Jun '12 14:05
    Originally posted by FMF
    He was apparently not ready for the rough and tumble of retail politics. He put avoiding some run ofr the mill family embarrassment ahead of wanting to be "the only hope for the country", so perhaps he kind of deserved the "quitter" label. I personally imagine that Perot would have been a disastrous president. He couldn't even run an election campaign, let alone the U.S.
    What part of running a successful campaign do you think prepares a presidential candidate for the job they will be doing?
  13. 04 Jun '12 14:13
    The US system effectively excludes any serious third party candidate. The system ought to be changed to proportional representation.
  14. Subscriber FMF
    a.k.a. John W Booth
    04 Jun '12 15:15
    Originally posted by dryhump
    What part of running a successful campaign do you think prepares a presidential candidate for the job they will be doing?
    If you think running a successful campaign does or does not "prepare" a candidate for office is a matter for you. That wasn't what I was talking about. What I said was that Perot couldn't even run an election campaign and therefore was apparently not ready for the rough and tumble of retail politics.
  15. 04 Jun '12 16:11
    Originally posted by FMF
    If you think running a successful campaign does or does not "prepare" a candidate for office is a matter for you. That wasn't what I was talking about. What I said was that Perot couldn't even run an election campaign and therefore was apparently not ready for the rough and tumble of retail politics.
    The exact quote was "He couldn't even run an election campaign, let alone the U.S." Which leads me to believe you think running a successful campaign correlates in some way to running a country.