The Electoral College has an effect, but there's a lot of other things keeping a third party out of the Presidency.
First off, they wouldn't have any default group of Congresscritters in either house with loyalty to them or their platform. A third party President would both have a very difficult time getting their agenda through Congress and have to devote a *lot* more time to building individual alliances there.
Most of the significant third parties in the last century have been built around a cult of personality (with a side order of causes); Teddy Roosevelt, George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, to a lesser degree the Dixiecrats. They don't establish an actual party base to work with when the individual goes away.
There's also a lot of things now legislated into the system that work against third parties, such as requirements for getting on the ballot in the first place, money which goes to parties/candidates who are expected to be able to influence the system, etc. It's also the case that, in general, both parties can't stray too far from the center since there are only two of them. But that means they'll generally appeal to more people than parties further from the center, weakening the chances of those parties. You've also got around 30-40% of the populace for each party that will just automatically vote for that party barring them putting up a Nazi symbol festooned inanimate object as the candidate (note that Bush still has a +20% approval rating).
Personally, I think the best chance for a "new party" is to start at ground level with state and local candidates that gradually work their way up the ranks to take over one of the existing parties. This is pretty much what happened with the Republicans over the last 40 years, and they're in prime shape to have it happen again.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png)
yati
no subject
Date: 2008-10-29 03:30 am (UTC)First off, they wouldn't have any default group of Congresscritters in either house with loyalty to them or their platform. A third party President would both have a very difficult time getting their agenda through Congress and have to devote a *lot* more time to building individual alliances there.
Most of the significant third parties in the last century have been built around a cult of personality (with a side order of causes); Teddy Roosevelt, George Wallace, John Anderson, Ross Perot, Ralph Nader, to a lesser degree the Dixiecrats. They don't establish an actual party base to work with when the individual goes away.
There's also a lot of things now legislated into the system that work against third parties, such as requirements for getting on the ballot in the first place, money which goes to parties/candidates who are expected to be able to influence the system, etc. It's also the case that, in general, both parties can't stray too far from the center since there are only two of them. But that means they'll generally appeal to more people than parties further from the center, weakening the chances of those parties. You've also got around 30-40% of the populace for each party that will just automatically vote for that party barring them putting up a Nazi symbol festooned inanimate object as the candidate (note that Bush still has a +20% approval rating).
Personally, I think the best chance for a "new party" is to start at ground level with state and local candidates that gradually work their way up the ranks to take over one of the existing parties. This is pretty much what happened with the Republicans over the last 40 years, and they're in prime shape to have it happen again.