Effigenius
Member
Romney has already said he is not supporting Trump (I believe) though so....
-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Mitt Romney meets with Bill Kristol to discuss potential 3rd party.
- Thread starter Team Alucard
- Start date
- Status
Romney has already said he is not supporting Trump (I believe) though so....
Not quite. Lets imagine a scenario: Its election day 2016. Four candidates are running and nobody got a majority of the electorate. The House of Representatives will decide the next president HOWEVER its the Representatives that were elected in 2014 (House of Representatives have 2 year terms). The 2016 version of the House doesn't take office until February of 2017. So image Clinton gets 49% of the electoral votes and the Democrats take the majority in the House. The current House majority are Republicans, and its this House that would decide the President, and there is a 0% chance they would vote Clinton. Even though a few months later the new Democratic House members are sworn and and would have voted for her.
The way the Constitution is set up is each state gets a number of electoral votes and you need a majority of these to become present, which right now is 270. The electoral votes are divided between the states based off population, so states like California and NY have a lot more than North Dakota. But, the constitution doesn't tell the states how they are supposed to use their electoral votes (most just do it by popular vote within their state). There is a sorta loophole to force the US into a straight up national popular vote system called the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. The states in the compact would vote for the candidate who won the majority vote nation wide. If this compact reaches 270 electoral votes in strength in comes into effect and we got ourselves a popular voting system. Right now 165 electoral votes are in this compact, and 104 votes worth of states have it in pending in their legislatures. (and again this doesn't take effect until the compact has a strength of 270 electoral votes)
friskykillface
Banned
Infinite parties running
Infinity war hype starting now?
Hydra party getting assembled?
Infinity war hype starting now?
Hydra party getting assembled?
JinjoUnchained
Member
Romney is bringing back the Bull Moose Party.
linkandzelda
Member
Nope, your shit electoral college (and a few other things) means that isn't how it works.
Also I don't see how anyone in the Republican Party could think this is a good idea. Trump's supporters have been shown to be very loyal to him making a third party run even more stupid than usual and that's saying a lot. This would just split the vote and guarantee Clinton a landslide.
EatinOlives
Member
0% chance of this happening.
First of all, millions aren't gonna be spent with a gigantic movement to get a 3rd party candidate running just because Kristol wants one. He doesn't have that kind of clout.
Second of all, Romney? He led a pretty mediocre effort in 2012 and only resurfaced recently get smacked down by Trump. This would only viable if the sole intention is to deny Trump any remote chance at the presidency.
Third of all, this is what they mean by "discussing the possibilities".
First of all, millions aren't gonna be spent with a gigantic movement to get a 3rd party candidate running just because Kristol wants one. He doesn't have that kind of clout.
Second of all, Romney? He led a pretty mediocre effort in 2012 and only resurfaced recently get smacked down by Trump. This would only viable if the sole intention is to deny Trump any remote chance at the presidency.
Third of all, this is what they mean by "discussing the possibilities".
Just donate that money to charity now. Seeing all this backlash from the Republicans and GOP is hilarious. They all hate Donald Trump because he has become the literal and vocal embodiment of all their policies and all they ever wanted. You think Lindsey Graham and Paul Ryan and Mitt Romney don't want to deport Mexicans, ban Muslims from entering the country blah blah. They just hate that he has taken the very electorate they have spent decades building. Those subversive tactics and policies are now becoming a reality which is why Donald is winning. The angry Trump voting base finally wants action and Trump seems to be the only one acting like he will give it to them. Just crazy this election cycle. The GOP and possibly even the Democrats may not survive this election.
exmachina64
Banned
Do it, Romney.
AntraxSuicide
Banned
And of course, even if those 104 join the pact, that only adds up to 269. We'd be one vote shy.
And people don't understand our system because we use words differently than other countries. Much like "state" in a lot of the world refers to an independent nation, it doesn't here.
See, here we have "parties," but they're not parties like the UK, for instance. They're closer to coalitions, where multiple parties team up for common ground. This is clearly good game theory since team-ups will stomp out lone parties. In the US, we've got environmentalists, social justice folks, liberal economic theorists, labor, etc.. in the Democratic Party, and we've got the religious, conservative economic theorists, capitalists, etc... in the Republican Party.
The Dems are a tight coalition. Not a lot of squabbling (I can guarantee no one will even remember half of Sanders' attacks in a year, let alone 4). But the GOP? This is a coalition split right here. The Trump wing just can't work with the business wing anymore. The divide over social vs. economic interests has fractured that coalition.
So, parties aren't exactly some scheme to control the world or anything. If we got rid of FPTP, we'd just end up breaking up the RNC/DNC into smaller parties, which would then (if they're smart) form right back up into a "coalition" instead. And since that's functionally the same thing as the parties right now, and I'm not a prescriptivist, I don't see much to do.
On topic: Romney doing this is too late, but it even if they ran him under some other party's banner (like the Constitution Party), he'd flop. Might win a few states, but he'd only be stealing from Trump. Hillary would end up taking any of the toss-up states (which aren't the usual OH/FL/CO but instead former hard-red states like GA/MS/UT). She'd hit over 400 EVs if they split the vote.
And since Trump would know that he was going to lose in that situation, he'd torch the party so badly they'd need decades more to recover. Remember: Trump isn't a politician, so he doesn't care about burning bridges. It's not like he's ever got to work with these people again. If they screw him, he can tell his supporters to unregister as Republicans en masse, then laugh at the damage. Then he fucks off to one of his hotels while Priebus tries to repair their image.
For the RNC to weather this storm, they have got to make sure Trump legit tries to win. No letting him spend in NY or CA (he'll want to), no losing red states (Hillary will fight him on this), and try to keep the gaffes to a minimum. If Trump feels screwed, then there's nothing stopping him from doing as much damage as possible.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
The strategy isn't just to play spoiler to Trump it will be to Hillary as well.
They are going to want to punt this to the House of Representatives, which they control
They are going to want to punt this to the House of Representatives, which they control
I'm afraid that there's a possibility that an election in our lifetime can top the insanity of this one.
Like, what the hell is even going on? Is this real life? Has the last year been a weird tripped out hallucination?
A 3rd party republican would only have a chance of winning states that are red anyway.
Like, what the hell is even going on? Is this real life? Has the last year been a weird tripped out hallucination?
A 3rd party republican would only have a chance of winning states that are red anyway.
makingmusic476
Member
I would not like two different flavors of conservative running. That would probably increase conservative turnout and fuck up Congress even more.
linkandzelda
Member
Yes, your parties are more like coalitions than the traditional definition of parties but they are Permanent coalitions. In most of the rest of the world coalitions are temporary. Parties can make deals with other parties that will advantage them at that specific time not over the long term. And crucially people vote for parties, not coalitions which means their voices and opinions are better heard.
There is no evidence that if you used a nation-wide instant runoff voting system for president and a proportional system (Doesn't have to be straight up D'Hondt, there are plenty of systems that keep local representation while approximating proportional representation) for parliament that parties would reform permanent coalitions.
Running Romney isn't going to magically turn blue states red. If anything it will swing red states to Hilary as Trump and Romney split the conservative vote, allowing Hildawg to capture the plurality of the vote in that state (in which case she get all of the electoral votes)
Even if the current system was perfect, Bernie Sanders still wouldn't win.
He had that choice, he'd just look like a sore loser now. He joined a party just to win their election.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
They don't need to run a republican-only ticket. Maybe someone like Bloomberg or someone who has cross-party appeal. They would at least want to try. Whether or not it works is another thing entirely.
Bloomberg stated he didn't want to run because it'd hurt Hillary more than the Republicans.
davepoobond
you can't put a price on sparks
I know he won't. I'm just saying someone like him.
Velcro Fly
Member
we are going to elect one of these three and on January 21, 2017 people are going to be wishing we still had Barack Obama
Canada had three parties and it fucked them over.
Isn't Trump basically a third party that has written off the Republican party by exposing it for the horror the GOP has made of it while also appropriating it? Sure he ran as a Repub, but he isn't one. At this point, I feel like the GOP needs to take the L, concede the Presidency, and restructure for the next election (I am not a Repub... But damnit we need AT LEAST a two-party system, and I would love to see the GOP step away from its extremes.) Trump has made the party into something that even THEY don't want, and maybe this will make them realize that pandering to the basest aspects of humanity is no longer an option because Trump is what can happen when you do that.
That said, where do we draw the line between conservative politicians and the beliefs of their power base? If you know that base is objectionable but pursue it anyway, in my eyes that means that you care about results first and people second. So either Conservatives have been delusional about their base or they haven't cared. Either way it's a fail.
In the same sense, maybe some of Bernie's policies (and the support for them) might change the DNC for the better if he heads it. He can't do shit as a President. He can do a lot of good reforming the DNC, though, imo. This is why I am not voting for Bernie in the GE to delusionally cock-block Hillary. I believe that the best exit from this shit show is Hillary as Pres while Bernie does work in the DNC.
This whole election is nightmare fuel, but it might be a really good thing. It might cause a lot of good change in both parties. The next four years is gonna be rough, though.
I just hope Americans learn something from this fucking circus. It's like a cartoon chase scene where everyone is killed by a landslide. No one wins. Nothing about it seems real. At all.
That said, where do we draw the line between conservative politicians and the beliefs of their power base? If you know that base is objectionable but pursue it anyway, in my eyes that means that you care about results first and people second. So either Conservatives have been delusional about their base or they haven't cared. Either way it's a fail.
In the same sense, maybe some of Bernie's policies (and the support for them) might change the DNC for the better if he heads it. He can't do shit as a President. He can do a lot of good reforming the DNC, though, imo. This is why I am not voting for Bernie in the GE to delusionally cock-block Hillary. I believe that the best exit from this shit show is Hillary as Pres while Bernie does work in the DNC.
This whole election is nightmare fuel, but it might be a really good thing. It might cause a lot of good change in both parties. The next four years is gonna be rough, though.
I just hope Americans learn something from this fucking circus. It's like a cartoon chase scene where everyone is killed by a landslide. No one wins. Nothing about it seems real. At all.
If Mitt runs, I feel that is the real goal. Its pretty reasonable that some Republicans rather a Democrat win then Trump represent a Republican President.
Frozenprince
Banned
LIES BERNIE CAN WIN YOU CAN'T BEAT ME, MATH!
EatinOlives
Member
I can see establishment Republicans definitely going for this, since there's a real possibility that they'll be ousted if Trump is truly successful in his bid for the presidency. The party crumbles the more relevant he is.
It's astounding to see all the hemming and hawwing of the GOP through all of this. They keep saying they dislike Trump but there's no real effort to actually get him off. If they genuinely want him out they would've easily announced a 3rd party candidate by now and hand the election to Hillary to maintain the status quo as a GOP that they're familiar with. Right now all their jobs seem in jeopardy and the best they can do is "well we'll just keep talking about how much we kinda dislike Trump, and then promptly ignore him when he inevitably talks back".
excelsiorlef
Member
No because the House would still be made up of the two parties. In this case GOP controlled.
A president does not a party make.
Soapbox Killer
Grand Nagus
I'd vote for a Romney/Sanders ticket. I would also like to win the Kentucky derby in 12 hours. Lets see what happens first.
excelsiorlef
Member
Well that'd be a fucking stupid duo.
Onevway ticket to historical villainy for Sanders
The third party thing has been crazy to me since the start. Like I could kind of see how a Strongly Credentialed Conservative Governor / Major City Mayor + Trump could add up to 50% +1 of the popular vote, but I don't see how it works on the electoral map. A conservative tag-team doesn't just need majority popular vote, they need to take state wins away from Hillary. How does a "third party" establishment conservative win in a single state at this point? Isn't the likely best case scenario that such a candidate pulls votes from Hillary and gives Trump the state win? Maybe the spoiler could take his home state? At most?
tearsintherain
Member
A "true republican" (whatever that means) independent run would be solely for one purpose: to get all those people who'd rather stay home than vote for Trump or Hillary to maybe go out to the polls, so they vote for senate and house and local seats. Its basically these guys not liking at all Trump representing them and deciding to abandon the Presidency to Hillary for 4 or 8 years.
Predictably, it will backfire horrendously on the neocons and their ilk if they try and afterwards they will blame everyone but themselves for the deeper hole they have dug themselves in.
Predictably, it will backfire horrendously on the neocons and their ilk if they try and afterwards they will blame everyone but themselves for the deeper hole they have dug themselves in.
WhiteRabbitEXE
Member
I come across way too many people who wear that shit as a badge of honor, proudly spouting how little fucks they give about politics and elections while barfing out "everyone's corrupt anyway" and "it's not like it really matters".
Dash_Riprock
Member
I can understand high school seniors and college kids saying that since so many are naive little shits but when I see 40 and 50 year olds saying the same thing it really pisses me off.
linkandzelda
Member
I can't understand that. I'm a Student and I don't do that. Everyone I know does though, there was a series of local and regional elections two days ago in the UK. Out of the nine people in my flat I was the only one who voted. The worst part is that about half of them have strong political opinions but they still don't vote. I just don't understand it.
Well no, it didn't, plus it's a totally different system so the comparison is dumb.
Donald Trump is terrible. Not only for the republican party but for our entire country. That said, the idea of enlisting Mitt Romney of all people to run 3rd party as a conservative candidate just shows how truly out of touch the conservative elite are. Mitt Romney gets you nothing.
The majority requirement for a party is silly for president choice.
You should fix that America.
How would coalitions work in the US though? Say Bernie Sanders Socialist Party and Hillary Clinton Democrat party can make a majority - would that be allowed? Or your countries paperwork has nothing in regards to coalitions that most parliament democracies use or can use?
"Hillary, our party will form a collation with you so you are president if you do X Y and Z" and they could always threaten to dissolve the collation to trigger a new vote. That's how other democracies do it.
You should fix that America.
How would coalitions work in the US though? Say Bernie Sanders Socialist Party and Hillary Clinton Democrat party can make a majority - would that be allowed? Or your countries paperwork has nothing in regards to coalitions that most parliament democracies use or can use?
"Hillary, our party will form a collation with you so you are president if you do X Y and Z" and they could always threaten to dissolve the collation to trigger a new vote. That's how other democracies do it.
Speedy Blue Dude
Banned
Mitten's save us from a Hillary Hell and a Trump Travesty. Mitten's please.
exmachina64
Banned
To implement this in America would require a constitutional amendment, so that's a non-starter.
KiwiLannister
Member
A third party is a stupid idea in the ridiculous system you guys have over there.
MMP is so much nicer. Having actual legitimate options is so much better.
Also campaign finance should really be given out by the government rather than having parties fund themselves.
MMP is so much nicer. Having actual legitimate options is so much better.
Also campaign finance should really be given out by the government rather than having parties fund themselves.
Sure, we'll just get 2/3 of the two-party congress to propose it and 3/4 of the states to approve it and we'll get right on that.
So how do you feel about us abolishing elections and making the Presidency tied to a trial by combat? You know, while we're talking about irrelevant shit that is technically possible but also won't happen?
Besides, removing the majority requirement would just make it possible for us to have an election where Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton split 60 percent of the vote evenly, and Donald Trump waltzes into the white house with 33 percent of the vote. Sounds awesome to me!
Big Baybee
Member
Until the House of Reps gets to pick the president lol
DrForester
Kills Photobucket
I was wondering something about that. People keep talking coalitions. If we had four candidates, could 2 candidates get together after the vote and pool their Elector Collage numbers?
AuthenticM
Member
Please do so, Romney. Go ahead and split the conservative vote.
it's called the Alternative Vote
- Status
Similar threads
- Locked
- Locked