Skip to main content

What steps would have to happen within the United States government for a third party candidate to someday win a presidential election?

The United States government would most likely need to change its voting system drastically for a third party candidate to win the presidency. Known by political scientists as Duverger’s Law, the way officials are elected in the United States creates and continues the country’s two-party political system. The American winner-take-all election system with one legislative seat per district supports—and practically guarantees—having only two dominant parties. This contrasts with the proportional representation systems of most of the world’s democracies. In many countries, citizens vote for a party who receives proportional representation, allowing various political groups with diverse platforms all to have a voice.


One way a third party candidate could conceivably win a presidential election is if a large number of voters defected from a traditional party to a new, formerly third, party. There is historical precedence for this sort of action. Abraham Lincoln’s election was the last time a third party candidate won the presidency, establishing the Republican Party in place of the Whig Party.


American voting systems would also need to be changed dramatically just to encourage more third party candidates. For example, a system called Approval Voting would allow people to vote for as many candidates as they wished. This way, the person with the majority of votes still wins, but votes for third party candidates do not unintentionally reward the opposition.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Is there a word/phrase for "unperformant"?

As a software engineer, I need to sometimes describe a piece of code as something that lacks performance or was not written with performance in mind. Example: This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. Based on my Google searches, this isn't a real word. What is the correct way to describe this? EDIT My usage of "performance" here is in regard to speed and efficiency. For example, the better the performance of code the faster the application runs. My question and example target the negative definition, which is in reference to preventing inefficient coding practices. Answer This kind of coding style leads to unmaintainable and unperformant code. In my opinion, reads more easily as: This coding style leads to unmaintainable and poorly performing code. The key to well-written documentation and reports lies in ease of understanding. Adding poorly understood words such as performant decreases that ease. In addressing the use of such a poorly ...

Is 'efficate' a word in English?

I routinely hear the word "efficate" being used. For example, "The most powerful way to efficate a change in the system is to participate." I do not find entries for this word in common English dictionaries, but I do not have an unabridged dictionary. I have checked the OED (I'm not sure if it is considered unabridged), and it has no entry for "efficate". It does have an entry for "efficiate", which is used in the same way. Wordnik has an entry for "efficate" with over 1800 hits, thus providing some evidence for the frequency of use. I personally like the word and find the meaning very clear and obvious when others use it. If it's not currently an "officially documented" word, perhaps its continued use will result in it being better documented.