PDA

View Full Version : 3rd Party or indie is guaranteed to...

PauliticsPolitics
02-07-2008, 06:03 AM
Let's look at this!
If Ron Paul runs Third party we might see results like this:

CLINTON= 35%
McCAIN= 25%
PAUL= 40%

YAY!!!
Ron Paul wins in a surprise victory!!!

NOOOOOO!!!!!!

The system works like this:
A candidate has to get 51% of the delgates to win.
51% ! ! !

That's really asking alot of any candidate if there is a powerful third party.

SOOOOO.
If no one gets 51% - - THEN CONGRESS VOTES amongst the candidates.

That means CLINTON WINS.

Anyone who really wants a third party, the best method is to get elected under an existing major party, and then switch when you are in office.

please, REALIZE THIS BEFORE YOU POST ANOTHER "THIRD PARTY WILL WIN" POST.

WilliamC
02-07-2008, 06:13 AM
Presidential elections are not decided by 51% of the popular vote.

They are decided by the electoral college.

Bill Clinton did not win 51% of the popular vote in 1992, nor did George Bush in 2000.

If Ron Paul runs as an independent all he needs to win is enough States to get a majority of the electoral votes.

PauliticsPolitics
02-07-2008, 06:23 AM
Presidential elections are not decided by 51% of the popular vote.

They are decided by the electoral college.

Bill Clinton did not win 51% of the popular vote in 1992, nor did George Bush in 2000.

If Ron Paul runs as an independent all he needs to win is enough States to get a majority of the electoral votes.

you need 51% of the delegates!!!!

WilliamC
02-07-2008, 06:27 AM
you need 51% of the delegates!!!!

Delegates have nothing to do with the general election, only the primaries.

The electoral college is where the President is elected.

Now if you mean Ron Paul needs 51% of the delegates to the electoral college, then I agree.

But that doesn't mean he needs a majority in the popular vote.

PauliticsPolitics
02-07-2008, 06:31 AM
Delegates have nothing to do with the general election, only the primaries.

The electoral college is where the President is elected.

Now if you mean Ron Paul needs 51% of the delegates to the electoral college, then I agree.

But that doesn't mean he needs a majority in the popular vote.

I never said anything about popular vote:
show me where i said popular vote!

any who, yes, RP needs 51% (definition of majority) of the delegates (YES delegates of the electoral college) which is very unlikely for any candidate:

wikipedia:
The individual who receives a majority of votes for president — 270 votes are needed for a majority — will be the president-elect of the United States; and the individual who receives a majority of electoral votes for vice president will be the vice president-elect of the United States. If no presidential candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College, then the president-elect will be selected by a vote of the House of Representatives, with each state receiving a single vote. If no vice presidential candidate receives a majority, then the vice president-elect will be selected by a vote of the Senate.

WilliamC
02-07-2008, 06:33 AM
I never said anything about popular vote:
show me where i said popular vote!

any who, yes, RP needs 51% (definition of majority) of the delegates (YES delegates of the electoral college) which is very unlikely for any candidate:

wikipedia:
The individual who receives a majority of votes for president — 270 votes are needed for a majority — will be the president-elect of the United States; and the individual who receives a majority of electoral votes for vice president will be the vice president-elect of the United States. If no presidential candidate receives a majority in the Electoral College, then the president-elect will be selected by a vote of the House of Representatives, with each state receiving a single vote. If no vice presidential candidate receives a majority, then the vice president-elect will be selected by a vote of the Senate.

Ok I got 'cha.

Just recently everyone talking about delegates has been refering to the Republican convention and since you hadn't specifically mentioned the electoral college in your original post I assumed you were too.

Oops.

colecrowe
02-07-2008, 02:05 PM
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/U.S._Electoral_College#Apportionment_of_electors

A candidate must receive a majority of votes from the electoral college (currently 270) to win the Presidency. If in either election for President or Vice-President no one receives a majority, the election is determined by Congress (the House votes for presidential candidates, and the Senate votes for vice presidential candidates)...

Yeah, that would suck.

But still go iNDY and win the popular vote.

boondoggle
02-07-2008, 02:39 PM
I doubt they would dare go against what the majority of Americans voted for... If that ever happened the outcry by Americans would be enormous, nobody would agree with it. I'm sure even people from the campaigns that lost wouldn't agree with that.

Congress would be forced to vote for Paul just because people would think their vote wouldn't matter if they didn't. Think about the news coverage "American's vote Paul, Congress votes Clinton"... It isn't feasible.

Dan D.
02-07-2008, 02:52 PM
The term is "electors", not "delegates"

ronpaulfollower999
02-07-2008, 03:06 PM
I doubt they would dare go against what the majority of Americans voted for... If that ever happened the outcry by Americans would be enormous, nobody would agree with it. I'm sure even people from the campaigns that lost wouldn't agree with that.

Congress would be forced to vote for Paul just because people would think their vote wouldn't matter if they didn't. Think about the news coverage "American's vote Paul, Congress votes Clinton"... It isn't feasible.

Gore won the popular vote but they decided that Bush won.

Sauron
02-07-2008, 03:08 PM
Gore won the popular vote but they decided that Bush won.

I'm glad they did. Fuck Gore.

colecrowe
02-07-2008, 03:12 PM
I'm glad they did. Fuck Gore.

Yeah, rule of law and truth doesn't matter. Too bad you hadn't been in the military when they made that decision so you would get to experience the results of that.

Dan D.
02-07-2008, 03:45 PM
Gore won the popular vote but they decided that Bush won.
There is no national popular vote. There are only 50 state votes. The electoral college voted for Bush according to the wishes of the population of their respective states.

colecrowe
02-07-2008, 04:56 PM
There is no national popular vote. There are only 50 state votes. The electoral college voted for Bush according to the wishes of the population of their respective states.

Actually no. Everything you say is very correct except for the fact that Florida voted for Gore. They did 2 recounts--Gore won both of those; and Bush won the third one--then the Supremes gave the election to Bush.

We'll never know because they never really did a recount.

nate895
02-07-2008, 05:24 PM
Your hypothesis is possible, but still unlikely even in a three man race. In a three man race where the candidates receive 40-35-25, the 25 will most likely receive few, if any, electoral votes. The 35 would probably be competitive in the electoral college, but they'd have to fight for every single state with an RP-like case since he appeals to both Democrats and Republicans, putting states like Michigan, New York, and New Jersey into play, making that much harder for a Democrat to win. Since Ron Paul is a conservative, the South would probably make up a core area for support, making the campaign for us that much easier. The national numbers are usually well reflected by battleground states, and these have a large number of electoral votes. Ohio is usually the closest, and it would only take a little effort to win PA and a few other battlegrounds.

cindy25
02-09-2008, 08:38 PM
if there is no majority in the electoral collage then congress (House for Pres, Senate for VP) must decide among the top two.

02-11-2008, 01:42 PM
Unfortunately, the original poster is correct.

mtmedlin
02-11-2008, 01:50 PM
Actually no. Everything you say is very correct except for the fact that Florida voted for Gore. They did 2 recounts--Gore won both of those; and Bush won the third one--then the Supremes gave the election to Bush.

We'll never know because they never really did a recount.

Dude, I live in Florida and watched the re-count. Bush won outright. Get over it, they both would have sucked but to keep saying that gore won 8 years later, jesus give it up already. That internet myth of 3 re-counts. 1 re-count was done with multiple interpretations. The supreme court stepped in and said how they were doing the re-count was illegal because there was not a standardized method of which votes counted. A full recount wasnt done properly and according to the law, whatever number you have as of the reporting date IS the amount. Katherine Harris certified the number because she HAD to according to the law.

JS4Pat
02-11-2008, 01:55 PM
That means CLINTON WINS.

So What???
She'll win under the current strategy as well.

The only question is which strategy will give us both the best chance of winning and allow us to reach the greatest number of people with our message?

I still contend that given the political landscape (assuming McCain vs Clinton) this is a GOLDEN opportunity...

* 2 Pro-War Candidates with an electorate who is 70% anti-war

* 2 Washington Insiders with an electorate looking for "change"

* An Independent option who has a creative, passionate, loyal and GROWING grassroots base.

* A movement that is able to raise large sums of money very efficiently

* The country has very little time left to save itself from financial ruin! This is bigger than a congressional seat!

PC_for_Paul
02-11-2008, 02:24 PM
If it's Hillary/McCain, we would be stupid not to give it a go. Who care what the GOP thinks?

Once RP is past the Congressional Primaries I see no reason why he couldn't accept a 3rd Party Nomination. Even if he stays in the GOP he should be able to accept a nomination. Then the GOP would have to throw him out.

That would be GREAT PR.

At 72 I don't know how long he expects to be in Congress.

defe07
02-11-2008, 02:56 PM
So What???
She'll win under the current strategy as well.

The only question is which strategy will give us both the best chance of winning and allow us to reach the greatest number of people with our message?

I still contend that given the political landscape (assuming McCain vs Clinton) this is a GOLDEN opportunity...

* 2 Pro-War Candidates with an electorate who is 70% anti-war

* 2 Washington Insiders with an electorate looking for "change"

* An Independent option who has a creative, passionate, loyal and GROWING grassroots base.

* A movement that is able to raise large sums of money very efficiently

* The country has very little time left to save itself from financial ruin! This is bigger than a congressional seat!

And, let me add, the chance of actually seating a current Representative in the White House :D