Why is it hard for a third-party candidate to win at least one US state?

    The first time a third-party candidate won at least one US state was in 1832.


    In 1832, Andrew Jackson of the Democratic Party carried sixteen states, Henry Clay of the National Republican Party carried six states, John Floyd of the Nullifier Party carried only one state, and William Wirt of the Anti-Masonic Party also carried only one state.


    The last time a third-party candidate won at least one US state was in 1968 when George Wallace of the American Independent party carried five states.


    Why is it hard for a third-party candidate to win at least one US state?

    ~~ :red-heart: QUEEN SUNMI :red-heart: ~~

    ★BLACK STAR★

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    People probably think it's meaningsless to vote on a canidate that will loose anyway. That it is the problem if you have systems where "the winner take it all". What is need is a change of the system or that one or two 3rd party canidates starts to win so people see that you can acctually vote on a 3rd party and win.

    Quote from patrik-k

    People probably think it's meaningsless to vote on a canidate that will loose anyway. That it is the problem if you have systems where "the winner take it all". What is need is a change of the system or that one or two 3rd party canidates starts to win so people see that you can acctually vote on a 3rd party and win.

    Both the Republican nominee and Democratic nominee for president can drop out of their party and join whatever third party they want to join (Libertarian Party, Green Party, etc.), and the third party candidate can still win.


    For example: Abraham Lincoln won as a member of the Republican Party back in 1860, but he won re-election as a member of the National Union Party back in 1864.

    ~~ :red-heart: QUEEN SUNMI :red-heart: ~~

    ★BLACK STAR★

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    Edited once, last by bethesda ().

    Quote from bethesda

    Both the Republican nominee and Democratic nominee for president can drop out of the Republican Party and join whatever third party they want to join (Libertarian Party, Green Party, etc.), and the third party candidate can still win.


    For example: Abraham Lincoln won as a member of the Republican Party back in 1860, but he won re-election as a member of the National Union Party back in 1864.

    Sure, maybe, but in the normal case where they don't drop out. Even if they do as you say they need to be very popular in the first place and be able to get the needed founding without getting backed up by a big party

    Quote from patrik-k

    Sure, maybe, but in the normal case where they don't drop out. Even if they do as you say they need to be very popular in the first place and be able to get the needed founding without getting backed up by a big party

    Or maybe there needs to be a significant issue affecting the United States.


    In 1860, the significant issue affecting the United States was slavery, and we had the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate along with 2 third party candidates all running for president.


    In 1968, the significant issue affecting the United States was discrimination, and we had the Democratic candidate and the Republican candidate along with 1 third party candidate (George Wallace of the American Independent Party) all running for president.


    George Wallace was a Democrat before he switched to the American Independent Party (he carried five states).


    Robert F. Kennedy Jr. was a Democrat before he switched to Independent (he won't carry a single state)

    ~~ :red-heart: QUEEN SUNMI :red-heart: ~~

    ★BLACK STAR★

    External Content youtu.be
    Content embedded from external sources will not be displayed without your consent.
    Through the activation of external content, you agree that personal data may be transferred to third party platforms. We have provided more information on this in our privacy policy.

    cause realistically 3rd party won't win, which means you might just take a vote from the other party you'd like more than the third. Example, you'd normally vote Democrat, you like the independent better, vote for them, Republicans win.


    If the US had a more European voting system where there's coalitions and every vote counts, it would be a different story, but the electoral college means there's no way anyone but the big 2 win unless the winning candidate switches parties and that seems unlikely in this age.


    and the US will never abolish the electoral college system if the Republicans have anything to say about it, cause they know they're never winning an election again without it.

  • AllKill VIP

    A third party won't win because the two existing parties are very entrenched, and they both have large political machines in each state. And at least one of the parties already is popular enough to win in many states. Third parties, quite frankly, can have many of their issues under the umbrellas of one of the two major parties anyway, so that's even less reason to vote third party.


    Relatedly, third parties also don't have good enough infrastructure on a state level, limiting their appeal and organization. They may be able to make some noise on the municipal level, but it's more difficult the higher you go.


    Third parties tend to win in America, at a state or national level, when one of the two parties completely collapses either due to extreme unpopularity or an extended period of mismanagement. You mostly see this in the 1800s, which is why the Whigs no longer exist despite being one of the two main parties in the early years of America.


    Today, there's no real unpopularity or mismanagement that's severe enough to collapse a party. Some predict that the Republicans are teetering close to a collapse due to infighting, but they're still able to rally around a candidate, so for now they're safe. It should also be noted that political realignments are, in some ways, a "third party" winning it instead of rebranding they continue to use the brand of the party that had collapsed. That's why it's been the Republicans vs Democrats for over 100 years but the parties have gone through very drastic shifts in relatively short periods of times over the years.

Participate now!

Don’t have an account yet? Register yourself now and be a part of our community!

Register Yourself Login