Third Party Candidate?

Denerick

What are the chances of a third party candidate emerging to claim some of the popular vote in 2012? There have been third party candidates in the past - Bill Clinton in particular has much to thank Ross Perot for. Will a tea party standard bearer rise up? Will the Libertarians get more than 1% of the vote? A Green candidate? Even if the third party candidate took around 5% of the vote in important states like Florida or Virginia it could make all the difference. And the likely result of somebody in the vein of Ross Perot emerging would be a genuine Obama landslide.

matthew8

The libertarians have a former 2 term governor who could do well out west, former LA governor Buddy Roemer should get on a lot of ballots with AE but I'm not sure where he'd gain traction. I think if it's a close race no 3rd party candidate will get over 1%, but if the economy keeps "improving" and Obama gets a nice cushion people won't care about throwing away their vote and the sum total of the 3rd parties could reach 5%. There'll be no Ross Perot though, Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer are charisma vacuums.

Black Swan

There was a lot of press about Ron Paul running as a 3rd party candidate during January news releases, but that seems to have died down during February. His son Rand Paul was against it. If Ron Paul were to run as a 3rd party candidate, chances are he would pull a percentage of Republicans away from the GOP nominee, which may be enough to guarantee Obama the 2nd term.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Black Swan

When Gary Johnson "privatized half of the state prisons" as New Mexico's Governor, he lost my (Independent) vote as a 3rd party candidate for president. Prisons for profit is problematic (and would make for a good topic on another thread).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Sindri

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

If they were private they would have to be regulated as closely as a Brazilians bikini wax.

I doubt many Libertarians would be in favour of that.

matthew8

Black Swan wrote: »

When Gary Johnson "privatized half of the state prisons" as New Mexico's Governor, he lost my (Independent) vote as a 3rd party candidate for president. Prisons for profit is problematic (and would make for a good topic on another thread).

Do you not think that drug legalisation and things like the Patriot act outweight that?

Brian?

There won't be any third party candidate from the right. The conservatives here hate Obama so much that they will want to give the Republican nominee the best chance possible at beating him.

Pacifist Pigeon

I hope that Paul jumps ship and rejoins the Libertarian Party and runs as a third party candidate for them at the last minute. He has little to lose I think, and he'd help boost up the popularity of the Libertarian Party, hopefully making it a serious contender in future elections.

Brian?

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

I hope that Paul jumps ship and rejoins the Libertarian Party and runs as a third party candidate for them at the last minute. He has little to lose I think, and he'd help boost up the popularity of the Libertarian Party, hopefully making it a serious contender in future elections.

Aaaaaaaah good ol Ron Paul, the great Libertarian hero. Only he's not a even a real Libertarian. No real Libertarian would agree with legislating on contraception or abortion.


That aside, there is no way he'll run as an independent or 3rd party candidate. Jr. is up for Mitt's VP.

Pacifist Pigeon

briankeating wrote: »

Aaaaaaaah good ol Ron Paul, the great Libertarian hero. Only he's not a even a real Libertarian. No real Libertarian would agree with legislating on contraception or abortion.


That aside, there is no way he'll run as an independent or 3rd party candidate. Jr. is up for Mitt's VP.

Shut up! SHUT UP! Ron Paul is SUPER JESUS!!

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

Aaaaaaaah good ol Ron Paul, the great Libertarian hero. Only he's not a even a real Libertarian. No real Libertarian would agree with legislating on contraception or abortion.


That aside, there is no way he'll run as an independent or 3rd party candidate. Jr. is up for Mitt's VP.

I've never heard him talk about contraception. And he wouldn't legislate on abortion as president, and since when are all libertarians pro-choice?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

I've never heard him talk about contraception. And he wouldn't legislate on abortion as president, and since when are all libertarians pro-choice?

How can a Liberatarian not be pro choice???? I thought it was the core of the entire philosophy!

I heard him talk about contraception during the Arizona debate. Abortion too, he is anti both.

Brian?

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Ron Paul clearly stated that he is not pro choice when it comes to abortion. I see that as an inherent contradiction with his so called "libertarian beliefs" .

I respect his views on American foreign policy, but find everything else he proposes abhorrent. Anyway this thread is about 3rd part candidates and not libertarians in general.

I apologise for dragging it off-topic.

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

How can a Liberatarian not be pro choice???? I thought it was the core of the entire philosophy!

I heard him talk about contraception during the Arizona debate. Abortion too, he is anti both.

You're making this stuff up. Pro-choice being the core of the entire philosophy? Give me a break. If someone believes that a fetus is a human being, then what difference does it make if that person is libertarian?

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

How can a Liberatarian not be pro choice???? I thought it was the core of the entire philosophy!

I heard him talk about contraception during the Arizona debate. Abortion too, he is anti both.

You're making this stuff up. Pro-choice being the core of the entire philosophy? Give me a break. If someone believes that a fetus is a human being, then what difference does it make if that person is libertarian?

I am making nothing up. Isn't libertarianism ultimately about having the right to choose? I don't just mean on abortion.

How can you say the rights of the individual are paramount and be anti abortion?

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

How can a Liberatarian not be pro choice???? I thought it was the core of the entire philosophy!

I heard him talk about contraception during the Arizona debate. Abortion too, he is anti both.

You're making this stuff up. Pro-choice being the core of the entire philosophy? Give me a break. If someone believes that a fetus is a human being, then what difference does it make if that person is libertarian?

I am making nothing up. Isn't libertarianism ultimately about having the right to choose? I don't just mean on abortion.

How can you say the rights of the individual are paramount and be anti abortion?

_Gawd_

briankeating wrote: »

How can a Liberatarian not be pro choice???? I thought it was the core of the entire philosophy!

I heard him talk about contraception during the Arizona debate. Abortion too, he is anti both.

Ron Paul is not the best example of a Libertarian but I do support him as he's the best chance we've got at the moment.

As it stands, he can be summed up as a "Constitutional Conservative". Whether he is running under this umbrella just top get into the WH is anyone's guess. I sincerely hope he's an undercover Rothbardian and totally smashes the State to oblivion.

Denerick

briankeating wrote: »

I am making nothing up. Isn't libertarianism ultimately about having the right to choose? I don't just mean on abortion.

How can you say the rights of the individual are paramount and be anti abortion?

If someone believes a foetus is a living human being with the rights universal to all men and women, then being pro-life is in no way contradictory to libertarian political philosophy.

If someone believes a foetus is not a living human being with the associated rights of man then obviously they will view things differently.

troposphere

Denerick wrote: »

What are the chances of a third party candidate emerging to claim some of the popular vote in 2012? There have been third party candidates in the past - Bill Clinton in particular has much to thank Ross Perot for. Will a tea party standard bearer rise up? Will the Libertarians get more than 1% of the vote? A Green candidate? Even if the third party candidate took around 5% of the vote in important states like Florida or Virginia it could make all the difference. And the likely result of somebody in the vein of Ross Perot emerging would be a genuine Obama landslide.

There is a group Americans Elect which is on the ballot in 17 states so far and in the process of getting on 18 others. They are going to hold an online votes to choose a bipartisan ticket in June. I think there is something like 50+ candidates taking part so far. If they get on the ballot in most of the states it could be a way for a well known name to jump into the race.

Brian?

Denerick wrote: »

If someone believes a foetus is a living human being with the rights universal to all men and women, then being pro-life is in no way contradictory to libertarian political philosophy.

If someone believes a foetus is not a living human being with the associated rights of man then obviously they will view things differently.

Surely if everyone is free to choose as they wish in a libertarian society, it has to be up to the woman to choose.

Either way how can libertarians support legislation on it either way?

I think Ron Paul, as with any "libertarian" politician, loves to spout the idea of a libertarian society but when it comes to it they are simply right wing authoritarians trying to get votes. Now I know there are libertarian philosophers that actually believe in it, but they tend not to get elected. No one actually wants to elect a true believer in the US. It's why Rick Santorum will never be president.

Anyway, 3rd party candidate? No chance.

matthew8

briankeating wrote: »

Surely if everyone is free to choose as they wish in a libertarian society, it has to be up to the woman to choose.

Either way how can libertarians support legislation on it either way?

I think Ron Paul, as with any "libertarian" politician, loves to spout the idea of a libertarian society but when it comes to it they are simply right wing authoritarians trying to get votes. Now I know there are libertarian philosophers that actually believe in it, but they tend not to get elected. No one actually wants to elect a true believer in the US. It's why Rick Santorum will never be president.

Anyway, 3rd party candidate? No chance.

For god's sake, if you think that abortion is murder, then why wouldn't you legislate on it?

Pacifist Pigeon

briankeating wrote: »

Surely if everyone is free to choose as they wish in a libertarian society, it has to be up to the woman to choose.

Either way how can libertarians support legislation on it either way?

I think Ron Paul, as with any "libertarian" politician, loves to spout the idea of a libertarian society but when it comes to it they are simply right wing authoritarians trying to get votes. Now I know there are libertarian philosophers that actually believe in it, but they tend not to get elected. No one actually wants to elect a true believer in the US. It's why Rick Santorum will never be president.

Anyway, 3rd party candidate? No chance.

Abortion is a contentious issue amoung libertarians as it involves another potential human life. Some think that human life is created at the moment of conception, and others think it's something that forms gradually, eventually becoming a human life at some point during the pregnancy but not at the moment of conception.

The fundamental issue around libertarianism is prohibition of the use of force and the individual's right to choose - but at some point in a pregnancy (I believe) the mother's natural right to choose and the natural right to life of the child come into conflict.

Obviously then, as no-one should have the right to choose whether a person should live or die, the right to life of the child takes precedent over the mother's right to choose at some point in the pregnancy.

This is not about authoritarianism, it's solely about natural individual rights. The contention here surround when during a pregnancy should the unborn child be recognised as having the same individual rights as others.

Anyway, Ron Paul, as far as I gather, wants the issue to be a matter for each individual state to decide, not for him or congress alone to decide.

With regard to contraception, I don't see how why any libertarian would be against it.

Denerick

briankeating wrote: »

Surely if everyone is free to choose as they wish in a libertarian society, it has to be up to the woman to choose.

Either way how can libertarians support legislation on it either way?

You've literally not thought about what I've posted.

If someone believes abortion to be murder, then legislating against it in no way contradicts their philosophy.

Your argument is as sensible as that a parent has the right to abuse their child, as 'it has to be up to the parent to choose' whether they can abuse children or not.

Are you grasping the elementary political philosophies we're discussing here?

I think Ron Paul, as with any "libertarian" politician, loves to spout the idea of a libertarian society but when it comes to it they are simply right wing authoritarians trying to get votes.

I'm not a libertarian but that is patently absurd.

Brian?

matthew8 wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Surely if everyone is free to choose as they wish in a libertarian society, it has to be up to the woman to choose.

Either way how can libertarians support legislation on it either way?

I think Ron Paul, as with any "libertarian" politician, loves to spout the idea of a libertarian society but when it comes to it they are simply right wing authoritarians trying to get votes. Now I know there are libertarian philosophers that actually believe in it, but they tend not to get elected. No one actually wants to elect a true believer in the US. It's why Rick Santorum will never be president.

Anyway, 3rd party candidate? No chance.

For god's sake, if you think that abortion is murder, then why wouldn't you legislate on it?

If he came straight out called it murder I would respect him more. He wants the states to legislate on it, this is the contradiction.

If he believes it's murder shouldn't the federal government outright ban it?

Brian?

Pacifist Pigeon wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

Surely if everyone is free to choose as they wish in a libertarian society, it has to be up to the woman to choose.

Either way how can libertarians support legislation on it either way?

I think Ron Paul, as with any "libertarian" politician, loves to spout the idea of a libertarian society but when it comes to it they are simply right wing authoritarians trying to get votes. Now I know there are libertarian philosophers that actually believe in it, but they tend not to get elected. No one actually wants to elect a true believer in the US. It's why Rick Santorum will never be president.

Anyway, 3rd party candidate? No chance.

Abortion is a contentious issue amoung libertarians as it involves another potential human life. Some think that human life is created at the moment of conception, and others think it's something that forms gradually, eventually becoming a human life at some point during the pregnancy but not at the moment of conception.

The fundamental issue around libertarianism is prohibition of the use of force and the individual's right to choose - but at some point in a pregnancy (I believe) the mother's natural right to choose and the nature right to life of the child come into conflict.

Obviously then, as no-one should have the right to choose whether a person should live or die, the right to life of the child takes precedent over the mother's right to choose at some point in the pregnancy.

This is not about authoritarianism, it's solely about natural individual rights. The contention here surround when during a pregnancy should the unborn child be recognised as having the same individual rights as others.

Anyway, Ron Paul, as far as I gather, wants to issue to be a matter for each individual state to decide, not for him or congress alone to decide.

With regard to contraception, I don't see how why any libertarian would be against it.

All good points, intelligently put.

I stand by my point though, I honestly believe Ron Paul is a vote getter foremost and not a true libertarian.

Denerick

briankeating wrote: »

I stand by my point though, I honestly believe Ron Paul is a vote getter foremost and not a true libertarian.

He hasn't been very good at being a 'vote getter', seeing as he hasn't won a single state this presidential cycle and was a fringe outsider in the last one.

You're holding an opinion that is by definition contrary to the facts.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Brian?

Denerick wrote: »

He hasn't been very good at being a 'vote getter', seeing as he hasn't won a single state this presidential cycle and was a fringe outsider in the last one.

You're holding an opinion that is by definition contrary to the facts.

He's an excellent vote getter. In fact he's the 4th best vote getter nationally in the Republican party right now.

How many times has he been re elected to congress? What about his son being elected to the senate?

My opinion is completely in line with the facts.

Denerick

briankeating wrote: »

He's an excellent vote getter. In fact he's the 4th best vote getter nationally in the Republican party right now.

How many times has he been re elected to congress? What about his son being elected to the senate?

My opinion is completely in line with the facts.

He is elected in a strange Texas congressional district where he is a local hero.

His son is not Ron Paul, and that is bizarrely irrelevant.

As the 4th best vote getting Republican he is literally the worst vote getter in that party (As there are only four candidates)

Basic rules of social decorum are preventing me from expressing the many nasty and witty things I really want to say right now.

matthew8

Ron Paul is not a vote getter. If he was his current views would be similar to Mitt Romney, which is the GOP norm. Problem with Mitt (and there would be the same problem with Paul) is he's clearly a faker.

Brian?

Denerick wrote: »

briankeating wrote: »

He's an excellent vote getter. In fact he's the 4th best vote getter nationally in the Republican party right now.

How many times has he been re elected to congress? What about his son being elected to the senate?

My opinion is completely in line with the facts.

He is elected in a strange Texas congressional district where he is a local hero.

His son is not Ron Paul, and that is bizarrely irrelevant.

As the 4th best vote getter in the Republican he is literally the worst vote getter in that party (As there are only four candidates)

Basic rules of social decorum are preventing me from expressing the many nasty and witty things I really want to say right now.

Nasty things eh? I'm done so. You've gotten personal once, I don't need you're bullying tactics.

Denerick

briankeating wrote: »

Nasty things eh? I'm done so. You've gotten personal once, I don't need you're bullying tactics.

Well, I didn't actually say anything, but if you want to be like that...

I think you're wrong not because you're mistaken, mislead, or have made an error of reasoning, I think you're wrong because you are willfully ignoring facts. This is an important distinction, and should be highlighted and challenged where possible. Unfortunately there is too much of this lazy cynicism in American politics and its endangering the national discourse in a frightening way. At times I'm reminded of the various European countries in the early 1930s, before the rise of fascism. The level of irrationality is that shrill.

Pacifist Pigeon

briankeating wrote: »

All good points, intelligently put.

I stand by my point though, I honestly believe Ron Paul is a vote getter foremost and not a true libertarian.

Well he has to be. Ron Paul is trying to get votes from hard line Republican voters you must remember - he has to bend the sticks a little to get them on board. That would entail saying things that would be seen as slightly "un-libertarian". You must consider the competition Ron Paul is up against, he has no choice.

One thing has to be said though, he has been one of the most consistent candidate in any US Presidential Election in resent times. In fact, he's been pretty much consistent in what he has said throughout most of his political career. Same issues, same message, same approach.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Valmont

Denerick wrote: »

Basic rules of social decorum are preventing me from expressing the many nasty and witty things I really want to say right now.

You have a lot to bring to these debates if you would just dispense with the haughty contempt and get on it with it.

The point is that Ron Paul has a message that is resonating with many Americans at the moment and this number has been growing steadily during the last few years. I don't think its correct to measure his popularity solely in terms of votes because the vote-buying game that is American politics seems to be one of the issues he is campaigning against.

I'm not going to buy your vote with bail-outs, welfare, or state-jobs, I'm going to buy your vote by leaving you alone. That is one of the kernels of Ron Paul's platform; which, understandably does not translate well to the game of democracy as practiced in the U.S.A--although I still think he is polling particularly well given these facts.

kev9100

Valmont wrote: »

The point is that Ron Paul has a message that is resonating with many Americans at the moment and this number has been growing steadily during the last few years.

I'm not going to buy your vote with bail-outs, welfare, or state-jobs, I'm going to buy your vote by leaving you alone. That is one of the kernels of Ron Paul's platform; which, understandably does not translate well to the game of democracy as practiced in the U.S.A--although I still think he is polling particularly well given these facts.

It's all very well and good to say he's not playing the game, but the facts are still facts. Paul is coming last in most polls and his only strategy is to try and bring in a slow trickle of delagates. No matter what way you try and spin it, the extreme libertarianism/states rights approach of Paul is just not very popular and he struggles to expand his base from from die-hard paulites and college kids.

_Gawd_

Denerick wrote: »

He is elected in a strange Texas congressional district where he is a local hero.

His son is not Ron Paul, and that is bizarrely irrelevant.

As the 4th best vote getting Republican he is literally the worst vote getter in that party (As there are only four candidates)

Basic rules of social decorum are preventing me from expressing the many nasty and witty things I really want to say right now.

Of course Paul is a "vote-getter".

He's not winning primaries but what would be the point? they're nothing more than beauty contests. He's picking up delegates and as of right now, he has the second highest committed delegate count after Mitt Romney.

Something tells me that somebody doesn't understand the Presidential nomination process. :rolleyes:

Black Swan

_Gawd_ wrote: »

He's picking up delegates and as of right now, he has the second highest committed delegate count after Mitt Romney.

Given that there are 2,286 delegates (1,144 needed to win), isn't it a bit early to declare GOP primary leaders based on delegate count? According to Real Clear Politics today:

• Romney = 170
• Santorum = 74
• Gingrich = 33
• Paul = 31

BOHtox

Black Swan wrote: »

Given that there are 2,286 delegates (1,144 needed to win), isn't it a bit early to declare GOP primary leaders based on delegate count? According to Real Clear Politics today:

• Romney = 170
• Santorum = 74
• Gingrich = 33
• Paul = 31

Are they not just predictions? I saw something, might have been from a while ago, on some news channel in America that very few delegates have actually cast their vote and that most media just guess what way the delegates will vote.

_Gawd_

Black Swan wrote: »

Given that there are 2,286 delegates (1,144 needed to win), isn't it a bit early to declare GOP primary leaders based on delegate count? According to Real Clear Politics today:

• Romney = 170
• Santorum = 74
• Gingrich = 33
• Paul = 31

Oh please - do a bit of mathematics yourself and stop regurgitating what the MSM are churning out. Go county by county and see for yourself who has the second most delegates. No one even knows who Romneys delegates are. Come August, the sheer number of Paul delegates will have enough power to hold the whole convention to ransom. As even the mainstream media have now admitted, nobody can win this nomination without Ron Paul and they know it. He's just far too powerful now...CNN call him a Rockstar.

Denerick

I think I finally understand what Americans mean when they talk about somebody having drunk the 'kool-aid'

Pacifist Pigeon

American elections aren't about ideas, they're about who has the most money and the amount of naive followers you can garner.

BOHtox

Black Swan wrote: »

Given that there are 2,286 delegates (1,144 needed to win), isn't it a bit early to declare GOP primary leaders based on delegate count? According to Real Clear Politics today:

• Romney = 170
• Santorum = 74
• Gingrich = 33
• Paul = 31

Update:

• Romney = 173
• Santorum = 74
• Paul = 37
• Gingrich = 33

Atlantis50

matthew8 wrote: »

The libertarians have a former 2 term governor who could do well out west, former LA governor Buddy Roemer should get on a lot of ballots with AE but I'm not sure where he'd gain traction. I think if it's a close race no 3rd party candidate will get over 1%, but if the economy keeps "improving" and Obama gets a nice cushion people won't care about throwing away their vote and the sum total of the 3rd parties could reach 5%. There'll be no Ross Perot though, Gary Johnson and Buddy Roemer are charisma vacuums.

Watch out for this guy. There's big money and Democrats who have been close to Obama behind him.

It wouldn't surprise me if he becomes a spoiler for Republicans and hands the election to Obama.

Suryavarman

Atlantis50 wrote: »

Watch out for this guy. There's big money and Democrats who have been close to Obama behind him.

It wouldn't surprise me if he becomes a spoiler for Republicans and hands the election to Obama.

Buddy Roemer got 0.4% of the vote in New Hampshire. He refuses to accept donations of more than $100 per person and doesn't have a superpac. What on Earth makes you think he will have the slightest impact in the general election?

Atlantis50

Suryavarman wrote: »

Buddy Roemer got 0.4% of the vote in New Hampshire. He refuses to accept donations of more than $100 per person and doesn't have a superpac. What on Earth makes you think he will have the slightest impact in the general election?

He's running for the nomination of "Amercians Elect", a shady group that has suddenly sprung up and is backed by former Obama supporters and staffers:

Prominent Democrat Endorses Third-Party Group


Even as Republicans wage a bitter, intra-party feud for the right to challenge President Obama, a group called Americans Elect is steadily building support — and a 50-state infrastructure — for a bipartisan ticket that could challenge both parties for the White House.


That effort will get a fresh push on Tuesday from David Boren, a former Democratic senator and governor from Oklahoma who backed Mr. Obama in 2008 but says he is now looking for a way to provide “electric shock therapy” to the political system.


[...]


Mr. Boren served as a Democratic governor in the late 1970s and then was a Democratic senator from 1979 to 1994. He currently serves as the co-chair of Mr. Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board. He praised Mr. Obama’s national security successes and said that his endorsement of the Americans Elect group is not meant as a criticism of the president.


[...]
There is deep suspicion among Republican and Democratic strategists that the Americans Elect effort is secretly aimed at helping one party or the other.
Mr. Boren said his friends in both parties had whispered to him their conspiracy theories. Republicans tell him the group is part of a plot to re-elect Mr. Obama. Democrats tell him they believe it’s a front group to put a Republican in the White House next year.

The author of this piece tries to muddy the waters by saying that both Republicans and Democrats accuse it of being a front for the other party, however it is obvious that Republicans suspicions have more merit. I mean this guy David Boren is an Obama backer who "currently serves as the co-chair of Mr. Obama’s Intelligence Advisory Board".

Given the facts, and especially if Roemer is the candidate, it appears to be an obvious Democrat front group to aid Obama's reelection.

http://thecaucus.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/28/prominent-democrat-endorses-third-party-group/

InTheTrees

Bah. American politics is a mess.

For there to be a viable third party candidate there's needs to be a viable, enduring and visible third party.

Ross perot popped up right before the election and disappeared right afterwards. not a peep out of him since. If that was the level of his commitment then its lucky he didnt win.

Similarly Ralph Nader spent decades, jumping into the election as the "green party" candidate and stealing democrat votes and then vanishing back into obscurity afterwards. It was regular as clockwork and totally infuriating. Imagine the damage he's done and what has he ever achieved? Seatbelts??

Its like Ron Paul. Nobodies sure why he's in the "republican" primaries if there's actually a Libertarian Party out there somewhere? And if there isnt a libertarian party out there what does that say to the viability of libertarian philosophy.

Just a thought.

Denerick

InTheTrees wrote: »

Similarly Ralph Nader spent decades, jumping into the election as the "green party" candidate and stealing democrat votes and then vanishing back into obscurity afterwards. It was regular as clockwork and totally infuriating. Imagine the damage he's done and what has he ever achieved? Seatbelts??

Thats the problem with the duopoly right there - those votes weren't democratic, they were green! Nobody has stolen anyone's votes.

In a first past the post system anything other than a two party system would be a mess anyway, as the third party candidate would probably cause regular anomalies (Such as a President getting elected with the electoral vote but not having the largest popular vote of the three candidates; its a tricky situation.)