I think...

[78BO]

Originally Posted by Mkonyn

Indeed, none have won...that was never my point. My argument was the words "doesn't matter", perhaps you missed the bold print in my post? My request was to research the parties...not post quantitative results.

ALL, every single one of these "meaningless" parties changed the course of history.

Charles Cotesworth Pinckney ran as a 3rd party in 1800 causing John Adams to lose to Thomas Jefferson.

James Birney ran as a 3rd party in 1844 causing Henry Clay to lose to James Knox Polk

Theodore Roosevelt ran as a 3rd party in 1912 causing William Howard Taft to lose to Woodrow Wilson

George Wallace ran as a 3rd party in 1968 causing Hubert Humphrey to lose to Richard Nixon

Ross Perot ran as a 3rd party in 1992 causing George H. W. Bush to lose to Bill Clinton

I consider that changing the world...maybe I missed something.

Not sure how anyone can look at the results of 3rd party action and conclude that changing the outcome of an election "doesn't matter"

I think because the country was still growing and so was the process I?ll stick to the current elections that incorporate all the states.

In 1912 Wilson would have won even if Roosevelt had Tafts votes. 435-88-8

In the 1968 elections Nixon would have won the election even it all the independent people voted for Humphery. 301-191-46.

And the same goes for Clinton. I don?t see any thing that the independent party has done.

[78BO]

Originally Posted by Mkonyn

Haha, I saw "UT" and living in nashville thought University of TN? Good luck with that one bud...then realized Texas . Once again, had no problem with your arguments. There are flaws in every system. Those specific parties each had huge impact upon a certain election.

Oh, and I must have miss read, I thought you had been throwing around the ignorant word. My bad.

I forget not everyone is a University of Texas Fan .

I understand these topics can get people heated. Especially when people like myself are in them. I'm not very good at getting my point out. Sometimes it comes across as being a little harsh. It's all good.

[Mkonyn]

Originally Posted by 78BO

I think because the country was still growing and so was the process I’ll stick to the current elections that incorporate all the states.

In 1912 Wilson would have won even if Roosevelt had Tafts votes. 435-88-8

In the 1968 elections Nixon would have won the election even it all the independent people voted for Humphery. 301-191-46.

And the same goes for Clinton. I don’t see any thing that the independent party has done.

Maybe. We'll never know. I do think it would be interesting to see if bull moose's Roosevelt would have captured more electoral college votes if he had captured Taft's popular vote. Regardless, Taft took 2 states, and the Republican party was beaten by a third.

I think it would be interesting if restriction was placed on the amount of money a given party can spend on campaigning.

Though, I do believe the electoral college is needed. I don't know how you would structure an election without it.

[duanewhatley]

Originally Posted by Motorcharge

Sounds like you'd like the Libertarian Party, basically the Tea Party before the Tea Party and not full of idiots who think Glen Back and Sarah Palin are going to save us all.

Libertarian Party | Maximum Freedom, Minimum Government

Socially Liberal, fiscally Conservative, it's essentially a middle ground between both the Dems and Reps. Only issue I don't agree with them on is their advocacy of open boarders. It and abortion seem to be the 2 biggest issues people within the party disagree with the most.

Glenn Beck is a memeber of the Libertarian Party