It has been: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/01/28/jon-stewart-college-kid-at-dead-kennedys-show_n_1239067.html
The bizarre answer is: it wouldnât really matter. When it comes to the Presidency, our popular vote is largely symbolic. The President is voted on by the 270 members of the Electoral College, who are voted in by each state, so they theoretically represent the popular vote. Since very very few members of the College are independent, even if Sanders got the majority of the vote as a third-party candidate, the chances of him being elected are very slim. So even if nobody got a majority of the popular vote, itâd all come down to voting among the Electorates, not the actual vote of the American people.
Itâs a strange archaic system and I donât know anyone who understands why we still have it.
9 Likes
The president is elected by electoral college. The candidate with the plurality of the vote in the state gets all the electors from that state (except in Maine or Nebraska, where itâs proportional) - assuming the electors follow the direction of the voters, which they donât actually have to do.
Clinton won in 1992 with 43% of the popular vote.
Which in your scenario, would probably mean that TBD ÂŽ would get the largest vote in most states and become president. Consider the impact of Perot in 1992, Nader in 2000 (and Wallace in 68?)
2 Likes
As far as the media is concerned there are only two parties. No third party has ever been invited to major debates and are mostly left out in the cold. Which is why I suspect most media outlets are currently ignoring him. They had to go back 4 decades to even dig up dirt on him and failed miserably at trying to make it blow up.
as for your proposed situation; Iâm pretty sure the electoral college would make sure a Democrat or a Republican would win.
2 Likes
damn too slow.
[edited to remove content of response]
Be well, you crazy diamond.
Thanks for the replies everyone. That says a lot to me about why Sanders might prefer to run as a democrat rather than independent under the current system
2 Likes
I take it you were a wee lad when Bill Clinton ran for president in 1992. Though running as an independent in many states, Ross Perot participated in the presidential debates that year.
3 Likes
I think perot was able to do that for 2 reasons - 1) (I think, anyhow) the league of women voters, an organization independent of the major parties) still set the debate agenda, and 2) he had so much money he could be outside of the system.
1 Like
He had a conversation with Edward Said, so heâs suddenly the Great Left Hope? Sanders has been in Congress a very long time. He understands it, and yet manages to be a very successful independent senator. This is a man who knows how to play the game without sacrificing a lot of his principles. Will he sacrifice some? Inevitably. This is a democracy with three branches of government, heâs going to make certain compromises to move forward because of the manner in which the system was designed. The question is where and how he compromises and what he considers important. Show me a candidate who wonât compromise at all, and Iâll show you a candidate who wonât winâbut thatâs not even importantâbecause even if they do win, they wonât know how to get things done. Revolutionaries belong in revolutions, not electoral politics.
2 Likes
While I know it isnât exactly the most love reference site, Wikipedia has Clinton listed as a democrat for the 1992 election.
And as far as I am concerned if you are a third party running under the flag of the major parties, you are part of that group you affiliate with.
I voted for him twice, just based on the sole fact that he wasnât attached to the dominant party.
I still canât figure out how they let him in the debates at all, other than the fact that he was a billionaire.
Never mind, answered my own question.
1 Like
@IronEdithKidd meant Ross Perot, who indeed ran as an independent. Clinton was and continues to be the mainstream of the Democratic party.
1 Like
I wouldnât vote for Perot on principle after experiencing EDS as an IT provider.
5 Likes
you would be correct, read @IronEdithKiddâs comment incorrectly. I do remember Perot, but mainly as fodder for WB cartoons. And I think @MikeTheBard answered the question as to why he (Perot) was able to participate, as well as being a colorful character who brought entertainment value.
1 Like
I respect that. Personally, I didnât like him, and thought heâd be a terrible president- But until the second Bush term created a âcanât afford to lose a single voteâ situation, my policy was to vote for whoever the strongest third party candidate was.
Happens to the best of us, right? 
[quote=âLDoBe, post:30, topic:59394â]
Whatâs your take on dismantling the electoral college?
[/quote]I think itâs a travesty. I donât think people who live in rural areas should garner more votes than those who live in urban areas. Itâs also yet another critical factor in thwarting third parties by making them despised as spoilers (see Problem No. 7) within this breakdown here:
I do think most Americans want a more proportional voting system and I applaud those who are fighting for it including Krist Novoselic (the bassist for Nirvana).
8 Likes
It seems really weird to me that since a presidential election only has one constituency, the system used is so complex, and even worse than FPTP. Some kind of instant-runoff system would be really easy to implement, and you could get rid of that bullshit about getting on the ballot in all states.
1 Like
Thatâs the fundamental paradox of electoral reform, though. In order to get the power you need to change the system, you have to win under the current system.
2 Likes
