You dont get it. You need 1 more than 50% of electoral votes to become President. Otherwise... (Reply #51)

In the discussion thread: We Need 3 Major Parties [View all]

Sun May 26, 2013, 03:33 PM

51. You dont get it. You need 1 more than 50% of electoral votes to become President. Otherwise...

the Presidential election gets thrown into the House of Representatives and the Vice President is selected by the Senate.

There are 538 electoral votes. Party A's candidate doesn't win if they get 250 electoral votes and Party C and D's candidates each get 144 electoral votes. Whoever controls the House state delegations at that point would appoint the President.

Any more than two major parties means that there is a huge chance the House of Representatives will select the President on a regular basis.

Reply to this post

Back to OP Alert abuse Link to post in-thread

Always highlight: 10 newest replies | Replies posted after I mark a forum

Replies to this discussion thread

87 replies	Author	Time	Post
We Need 3 Major Parties [View all]	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	OP
They'll become Independents long before they become Democrats.	JaneyVee	May 2013	#1
Let's hope so.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#3
I completely agree.	JaneyVee	May 2013	#6
That wouldn't change anything	procon	May 2013	#28
What we need is one that works	randr	May 2013	#2
The Tea Party Christian Right will never separate from the business sector of the GOP	steelmania75	May 2013	#4
I think there's more of them than that.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#8
Message auto-removed	Name removed	May 2013	#5
I've thought about this a lot.............	socialist_n_TN	May 2013	#7
All I know is, we'll definitely have 4 parties if	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#10
Well it's inevitable then..........	socialist_n_TN	May 2013	#17
some republicans might start finding out they	datasuspect	May 2013	#13
I don't think they'll change, at least not enough.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#21
You can't stop anyone from joining a party.	former9thward	May 2013	#9
You can make them very uncomfortable.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#11
Those are elected officials.	former9thward	May 2013	#15
Message auto-removed	Name removed	May 2013	#14
That's one thing they do right here in Mississippi.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#16
Message auto-removed	Name removed	May 2013	#19
I'm taking about the run-off in the primaries.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#23
Message auto-removed	Name removed	May 2013	#24
They nominee has to win a majority here.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#26
Not sure that's a good idea.	Savannahmann	May 2013	#12
I'm not talking about dragging the Democratic Party	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#18
You're overlooking the vast number of potential voters who are further left, waiting for ...	Scuba	May 2013	#76
The more choices, the better.	bigwillq	May 2013	#20
The Winner-take-All system doesn't allow for a 3-party system in our government.	BlueCaliDem	May 2013	#22
Our liberals are nowhere near as radical as the Teabaggers.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#25
How will that work with the electoral votes? Look at 1968 for instance.	graham4anything	May 2013	#27
I think the electoral college would favor us.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#29
You dont get it. You need 1 more than 50% of electoral votes to become President. Otherwise...	stevenleser	May 2013	#51
I suspect three-party systems are inherently unstable.	Donald Ian Rankin	May 2013	#30
If by "unstable" you mean a greater chance of change,	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#31
No, I mean "collapse into two-party systems, and stay that way". N.T.	Donald Ian Rankin	May 2013	#34
You could be right or you might be wrong.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#36
How many political parties there will be isn't a decision made by any "we".	Donald Ian Rankin	May 2013	#43
Two party systems are also unstable	FarCenter	May 2013	#59
On the national scale it seems stable.	Donald Ian Rankin	May 2013	#60
In the US each party has enjoyed long stretches of control	FarCenter	May 2013	#66
I think we should have 5, all in the debates	Ter	May 2013	#32
I agree.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#35
I personally don't think there should be any debates anymore. All they are is gotchas.	graham4anything	May 2013	#44
Provided its real libertarians	LostOne4Ever	May 2013	#78
The two corporate parties seized control of the debates	woo me with science	May 2013	#84
We need complete campaign finance reform. Until we have that and politicians	octoberlib	May 2013	#33
I'd like to see publicly financed elections, not a penny	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#39
+1000000	woo me with science	May 2013	#83
Teabaggers and conservatives are different from "republicans"? They are all the same: Republicans.	AlinPA	May 2013	#37
All of them are our political foes, certainly, but	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#40
The political system, by design, defaults to two.	nadinbrzezinski	May 2013	#38
I don't see why we can't have more than two parties.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#41
It is the winner take all system	nadinbrzezinski	May 2013	#42
I would really like to see us have a constitutional convention.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#46
The other problem you have	nadinbrzezinski	May 2013	#48
The Constitution is holy writ to some people.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#53
Exactly, this is a serious problem	nadinbrzezinski	May 2013	#56
Corporations are only wiling to fund a two party system, so we're shit out of luck......	piratefish08	May 2013	#45
You're probably right, but we've got to try.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#47
Mathematically, three parties doesn't work	bhikkhu	May 2013	#49
We had 3 candidates in 1992 and 1996.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#50
I was disapointed in Perot's pick of a senile VP, as well as his dropping out/in	markiv	May 2013	#57
That VP choice was a major mistake.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#64
most nations have more than 2 parties	markiv	May 2013	#52
Good analogy	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#54
A dozen parties where no party had a majority would be a good system	bhikkhu	May 2013	#68
well, the two party system isnt doing it for me	markiv	May 2013	#73
3 parties would be worse - that's the point	bhikkhu	May 2013	#74
I don't think that it's a matter of whether it would be worse or not............	socialist_n_TN	May 2013	#80
Why would the repugs split while they are a minority?	bhikkhu	May 2013	#82
They would split BECAUSE they don't feel represented. Remember...	socialist_n_TN	May 2013	#87
If there was an OWS party	mick063	May 2013	#55
We need 3 Major Parties?	bvar22	May 2013	#58
Huey Long had a good story about that.	LuvNewcastle	May 2013	#63
Thank You!	bvar22	May 2013	#65
republicans will never let their bagger 'squidges' (R-word not mine)free,they're not done USING them	Sunlei	May 2013	#61
That was made impossible by the framers of the Constitution.	DevonRex	May 2013	#62
those are very good points- "everything republicans do is legal" by sunlei 5/2013 and........	Sunlei	May 2013	#67
Exactly. They made slavery legal and ensured it'd be damned hard to get rid of.	DevonRex	May 2013	#69
We need Instant Runoff Voting	Martin Eden	May 2013	#70
Read this book:	Benton D Struckcheon	May 2013	#71
Canada has had three parties or more for 70 years. We are a liberal country. We've	applegrove	May 2013	#72
The reason the Koch's formed the Tea Party was to drag the Country further right.	Scuba	May 2013	#75
We have 6 major parties.	Democracyinkind	May 2013	#77
All good ideas-But	fredamae	May 2013	#79
The system virtually locks in two parties, with change accommodated through primaries.	Jim Lane	May 2013	#81
What we need is reform of the system so that non-corporate voices can run and be heard.	woo me with science	May 2013	#85
Most PEOPLE don't comprehend the simple fact that it was designed	DevonRex	May 2013	#86

Edit History

Please login to view edit histories.