Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Nextrush

We can’t have but two major parties in Federal elections due to the fact that most states are winner take all, and the electoral collage requires an absolute majority less the election goes to the house.


49 posted on 05/26/2014 8:05:19 AM PDT by Monorprise
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 42 | View Replies ]


To: Monorprise

George Wallace won states without a majority of the popular vote as a third party candidate and got all their electoral votes in 1968.

The candidate that wins the most votes in a state will get all its electoral votes and perhaps there would be a deadlock going to the House, perhaps there wouldn’t.

Perot the third candidate for president could have won outright when he rode high in the polls in 1992, then he pulled out of the race for a few weeks and started saying crazy things. He had to tamp down his support so Clinton could win.


54 posted on 05/26/2014 8:54:43 AM PDT by Nextrush (AFFORDABLE CARE ACT=HEALTHCARE= INDUSTRY BAILOUT ACT)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

To: Monorprise

Well, we can have more than two, but not for long. The only time we really see more than two gain any ground, historically, is in times of transition, when one party was going extinct and a new one was supplanting it. I don’t think that ever lasts more than one or two federal election cycles though.


58 posted on 05/29/2014 5:18:25 PM PDT by Boogieman
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson