[–]imnotacrazyperson 411 points 17 hours ago  As long as we still have so many people who are party loyal no matter what, it's not going to happen. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]Cursethewind 315 points 16 hours ago  As long as people are convinced that they have to vote one way or the other to keep the other guy out makes it worse as well. A lot of people bring up the first past the post election style thing, but, the reality is, people using it as an excuse to not vote third party is a self-fulfilling prophecy in its own right. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]Donut_of_Patriotism 16 points 11 hours ago  Well yeah, thats the whole thing behind first past the post. Do I vote for the candidate I love, but has no chance at winning, or do I vote for the candidate with a real chance at winning that I can live with? We have to change the system to get the votes. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply load more comments (11 replies) load more comments (47 replies) load more comments (15 replies) [–]Pharrun 23 points 12 hours ago  The way it's currently going in the UK right now, it's pretty much guaranteed that neither of the two biggest parties (Labour and Conservatives) will have a majority vote and that it will be another hung parliament. They'll need to make a coalition deal with one of the smaller parties (Liberal Democrats, SNP, Plaid Cymru, UKIP or the Greens). Note, the Liberal Democrats made a coalition deal with the Conservatives in the last election, with the most amount of votes that they had gained in a long time, then practically committed political suicide when the Conservatives passed policies which were opposite to what the Lib Dems promised (i.e. tuition fee hike, the Lib Dems said they'd lower them). Now they're at a huge low and nobody has faith in them. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply load more comments (3 replies) [–]BeerInTheBabySeat 137 points 16 hours ago  The election in 2012 marked the first time a Libertarian got 1% of the vote. It's becoming more likely, but very slowly. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]CarnivorousAvenger 129 points 14 hours ago  I think Theodore Roosevelt has been the most successful third party candidate in the US. Bull Moose 2016. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]rikross22 73 points 12 hours ago  Ross Perot did really well in 92 permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply

formatting helpreddiquette save [–]CarnivorousAvenger 4 points 12 hours ago  Yep, he's been the most successful since TR. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]rikross22 9 points 12 hours ago  Honestly I'm more impressed with Perot, TR was a former president. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]CarnivorousAvenger 3 points 11 hours ago  Yeah, it was really impressive. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]lightmonkey 6 points 11 hours ago  George Wallace, Strom Thurmond, and Robert M. LaFollette all managed to win electoral votes. Perot did get more than them in the popular vote in 1992, but when he ran with a party in 1996 he did not do nearly as well. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]BeerInTheBabySeat 7 points 10 hours ago  I had never heard of Strom Thurmond until you mentioned him. Born in 1902, ran in 1948 with the States' Rights Democratic Party and actually won electoral votes. He then served in the US Senate almost uninterrupted for 49 years and then he died in 2003 at the age of 100. Hell of a life. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]b6passat 14 points 8 hours ago  He was also a giant racist! permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]Baseproduct 9 points 8 hours ago  Who, like all good racists, had his very own mixed-race child. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]BeerInTheBabySeat 7 points 8 hours ago  Spent 24 hours in a filibuster against a Civil Rights Act. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]lightmonkey 3 points 9 hours ago  He once lasted over 24 hours in a filibuster, setting the record for longest filibuster by a single person. He was 55 at the time. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]BeerInTheBabySeat 4 points 9 hours ago  The record for the longest filibuster goes to U.S. Sen. Strom Thurmond of South Carolina, who spoke for 24 hours and 18 minutes against the Civil Rights Act of 1957, according to U.S. Senate records. Thurmond began speaking at 8:54 p.m. on Aug. 28 and continued until 9:12 p.m. the following evening, reciting the Declaration of Independence, Bill of Rights, President George Washington's farewell address and other historical documents along the way. Once in history class my teacher challenged the first person brave enough to do a filibuster on a current issue. I did a six day long (I'll ask him tonight on the real length of it) filibuster on the genocide in Darfur. And that was with 23+ hour breaks in between. I couldn't imaging going for more than 24 hours nonstop. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]CarnivorousAvenger 1 point 10 hours ago  Fucking George Wallace. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]BagOfShenanigans 1 point 6 hours ago  What a winner. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]Niftoria 1 point 8 hours ago  He probably would have won, or come very close had he not dropped out and then got back into it again. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]nojacket 1 point 2 hours ago  And then the two parties made sure no other 3rd party would be in the debates. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply [–]aredna 1 point 1 hour ago  I was young at the time so my recollection is colored by those around me, but when he pulled out and then went back in I felt like he lost a ton of the vote that he had before. He may not have won anyways, but it hurt him significantly. permalinksaveparentreportgive goldreply load more comments (14 replies) load more comments (16 replies) load more comments (17 replies)

I think one of the most underappreciated turning points in modern American history was Ross Perot earning 18.9% of the popular vote in the 1992 election. I understand that Perot was already an "evil- villainous- billionaire-type", but his ambitious bite of third party politics should have earned him a spot as an American folk legend, but I am not sure that ever really happened.