How can third party candidates swing an election in a two party system?

Answer 1

They sometimes gain enough votes to cause a major party to lose.

(Reasoning That Might help You : There are usually only two major parties that have the most power in U.S. politics, even though those parties have changed over time. Third party candidates, however, are still able to influence elections. A third party can gain votes from people who would have otherwise voted for one of the major parties, and enough of these votes can cause that major party to lose. One of the most famous times this occurred was in the 1912 presidential election, when Theodore Roosevelt's Bull Moose Party gained voters who would have supported the Republican William Taft. The Republican vote was split between Roosevelt and Taft, so the Democrat Woodrow Wilson won the election. )

Answer 2

They offer another party to vote for instead of the larger ones(democrats andrepublicans). And (this ones negative effect) they take away votes from the larger parties. i.e. when Ralph Nader and the green party(liberal leaning party) took votes away from Al Gore, some speculated that it cost Gore the election

Answer 3

Third party candidates can attract votes from major party candidates. Sometimes a relatively small number of votes can tip an election. For congressional election, third party candidates have been known to win. Most of the winners are incumbents who fell out of the major party they used to belong to.

Probably the most disliked effect that strong third-party candidates could have on US presidential elections would be if such a candidate diverted enough votes from the major-party candidates to force the U.S. House of Representatives to elect the President due to no candidate receiving votes for President from a majority of the electors. That hasn't happened in a presidential election since the 1824 election, but I'm sure it would be disliked at least as much today as it was then (especially when the House in 1825 elected a candidate who was neither the most popular among the voting public nor the most popular among the electors).

I performed an experiment, the results of which support Mr. Helm's comment about a relatively small number of third-party votes changing the outcome of an election, but in this case they would have prevented either of the frontrunners from getting the required majority of at least 270 votes. I was reading some suggestions for reforming the U.S. presidential election process. After reading a suggestion about having every state split its electoral votes so each candidate's portion matches as closely as possible the statewide popular vote, I worked out how every election from 2012 back to 1864, the first election in which every participating state chose its electors by popular vote, would have turned out using the "proportional plan" without changing any of the apportionments. The results I got from the 2000 election were a little surprising. The election was so close between Bush and Gore that applying the "proportional plan" resulted in Al Gore getting 268 votes, George W. Bush getting 267 votes, and Ralph Nader getting only 3 votes. I was shocked that Nader's 3 votes would have been enough to send the election to the House. Since an absolute majority of state delegations in the House had a Republican majority at that time, Bush would have been the easy winner for President, but I think Joe Lieberman probably would have won the vice presidency (1796 flashback!).

(Please message me if you would like to know more of the results of my experiment; I'm dying to share!)


Strong third party candidates are often a disruption on elections, detrimentally affecting the voting that would normally have gone to one or the other leading political party candidates.

Answer 4

She/he can negotiate withdrawal, making the election process simpler by promising to back either of the two remaining if they accede to and promise to incorporate certain elements of her/his platform.

Answer 5

Third party candidates can attract votes from major party candidates. Sometimes a relatively small number of votes can tip an election. For congressional election, third party candidates have been known to win. Most of the winners are incumbents who fell out of the major party they used to belong to.

Answer 6

Probably the most disliked effect that strong third-party candidates could have on US presidential elections would be if such a candidate diverted enough votes from the major-party candidates to force the U.S. House of Representatives to elect the President due to no candidate receiving votes for President from a majority of the electors. That hasn't happened in a presidential election since the 1824 election, but I'm sure it would be disliked at least as much today as it was then (especially when the House in 1825 elected a candidate who was neither the most popular among the voting public nor the most popular among the electors).

I performed an experiment, the results of which support Mr. Helm's comment about a relatively small number of third-party votes changing the outcome of an election, but in this case they would have prevented either of the frontrunners from getting the required majority of at least 270 votes. I was reading some suggestions for reforming the U.S. presidential election process. After reading a suggestion about having every state split its electoral votes so each candidate's portion matches as closely as possible the statewide popular vote, I worked out how every election from 2012 back to 1864, the first election in which every participating state chose its electors by popular vote, would have turned out using the "proportional plan" without changing any of the apportionments. The results I got from the 2000 election were a little surprising. The election was so close between Bush and Gore that applying the "proportional plan" resulted in Al Gore getting 268 votes, George W. Bush getting 267 votes, and Ralph Nader getting only 3 votes. I was shocked that Nader's 3 votes would have been enough to send the election to the House. Since an absolute majority of state delegations in the House had a Republican majority at that time, Bush would have been the easy winner for President, but I think Joe Lieberman probably would have won the vice presidency (1796 flashback!).

(Please message me if you would like to know more of the results of my experiment; I'm dying to share!)

Answer 7

By diverting to himself votes which would otherwise have gone to one of the other two candidates, who as a result might have won the election.

Answer 8

They sometimes gain enough votes to cause a major party to lose.

Answer 9

Answer this question… They can force one or both of the major parties to adopt parts of their agenda as a way of broadening electoral support for the major party candidates.

Answer 10

Strong third party candidates are often a disruption on elections, detrimentally affecting the voting that would normally have gone to one or the other leading political party candidates.