Try the political quiz
@9GMY3DQ Agreements3yrs ago

The Electoral College as-is actively limits the ability for a third party to take hold

If no candidate receives a majority of electoral votes, then the election goes to the House of Representatives. As a result, Martin Van Buren helped push for a stable two-party system back in the 1800s as a way to mitigate the need for this back-up method to choose a victor. Without the Electoral College, the United States could move to another voting system that more actively encourages third party and independent engagement without the fear of an election in the House or playing "spoiler" in your specific swing state.

+
Expand

Knowledge quiz

How much do you know about Elections?

See if you know more than the average American.

Test your knowledge!

2 Replies

 @9GN4G2P from California  agreed…3yrs3Y

I do not think that the Electoral College currently holds back third parties as it is unlikely they will get the votes anyway. still, I think if there ever was a third party that got some attention, it would most likely hold them back and I think overall the Electoral College is a very poorly thought out and unnecessary system.

  @Renaldo-MoonGreen  from Pennsylvania  commented…2yrs2Y

The third parties often dont get votes because people assume its impossible for them to win and because of the way the funding is set up. The GOP and Dems are the ones who get the most funding so they can actually campaign unlike independants and 3rd parties who never have enough funding.

About this author

Learn more about the author that submitted this agreement.

@9GMY3DQ

Last activeActivity4 discussionsInfluence1 engagementsEngagement bias100%Audience bias27%Active in
Counter Arguments  2 Disagreements  2 Agreements  2
PartyUndeclaredLocationUnknown

More conversations

Join in on more popular conversations.

 @ISIDEWITH submitted…2yrs2Y

A Moment of Darkness': Washington Post's No-Endorsement Decision Ignites Media Firestorm

Even though the presidential race between former President Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris is neck and neck, The Washington Post has decided not to make a presidential endorsement for the first time in 36 years, the publisher and CEO announced Friday."We are returning to our roots of not endorsing presidential candidates," Will Lewis wrote in an opinion piece published on the paper's website. He referenced the paper's policy in the decades prior to 1976, when, following the Watergate scandal that the Post broke, it endorsed Democratic nominee Jimmy Carter. The last time the Post did not endorse a presidential candidate in the general election was 1988, according to a search of its archives.Colleagues learned the news from the editorial page editor, David Shipley, at a tense meeting shortly before Lewis' announcement. The meeting was characterized by someone with direct knowledge of discussions on condition of anonymity to speak about internal matters.Shipley said that he told other editorial board leaders Thursday by management that there would be no endorsement, though he has known for weeks. He added that he "owns" this decision. The reason he cited was to create "independent space" where the newspaper does not tell people for whom to vote.Colleagues were said to be "shocked" and uniformly negative. Post corporate spokespeople have not responded to multiple messages left by NPR on the subject.Former Washington Post Executive Editor Martin Baron, who led the newsroom to acclaim during Trump's presidency, denounced the decision starkly."This is cowardice, a moment of darkness that will leave democracy as a casualty," Baron said in a statement to NPR. "Donald Trump will celebrate this as an invitation to further intimidate The Post’s owner, Jeff Bezos (and other media owners). History will mark a disturbing chapter of spinelessness at an institution famed for courage."A similar decision by Los Angeles Times owner Patrick Soon-Shiong led this week to the resignations of the paper's editorials editor and two editorial board members. Soon-Shiong said that he had asked the editorial board to draft a "factual analysis" of Trump and Harris' policies and plans. In her resignation letter, editorials editor Mariel Garza said the decision made the paper look “craven and hypocritical,” given its past reporting and editorials on Trump.

▲  1013 replies