Can third parties form an electoral pact or alliance for elections in the USA?
831700
Why not??  If they can SPLIT, then there's no reason you can't have two organize themselves into one.\nOur current major parties were once all part of the same party called the "Democratic-Republicans".
800831
It isn't realistic. There will always be right wingers and left wingers. However a new middle party is a good idea.
861246
Yes it is possible. If no one gets the required electorial votes to win president but does have "the most" they could still lose the election once it enters the House of Representatives. This is very unlikely in our two party system but if we had a strong third party it is very possible.
981708
The political process in this country has been locked down in favor of the two parties for a long time.  The road for a third party would be extremely difficult.  First, the democrats would have to fail miserably in the next couple of years for there to be any movement to a third party.  Then, the public would have to organize massively in their discontent around another grouping and put the weight of their numbers behind it.  If that were to happen, then a third party might be viable.  But not without great numbers of people supporting it.
933638
I remember one year when a dead guy won his state, and his wife sat for him...yes, when you have only a choice between bad and worse, you make dumb decisions.  Vote third party!
1076376
Sure, but first you have to convince the entire electorate not to support them. Incumbents typically have an 80%- 90% re-election rate.\n\nGood luck.
224471
Third party candidates don't have much of a chance.
922000
Probably not, because the two parties are of opposite beliefs as to how the country should be run.  Things will settle down a little, and the barbs will be more subtle.  Remember, the Presidential election is next, and it will start up about a year before the election.
857798
Third parties are a bad idea. With a three party system, the winner is usually elected with a less than majority vote. Clinton won in 96 with a majority of people voting against him.
795839
Fusion voting was tried in the past. In the 1860 elections groups ran slates of electors agreeing to proportion their vote.  It did not work, and was abandoned.  With the high cost of running, the major parties don't want to siphon off their strength.
958198
You're much better off trying to help the current 3rd parties (green, libertarian, constitution), they have been around for many years and still can't get on most ballots.
52084
It has been almost a century since a third party had enough traction to run a competive race.  A party nomination would be best.\n\nThe first thing to do is volunteer for campaigns.  Then donate money to mainstream canidates.  Have friends that are way more intellegent than you because they are going to be your best advisors.\n\nRead Edmund Burke, John Locke, Machevelli, the Federalist Papers, writings of George Washington, Thomas Jefferson, and least of all the communist manefesto just so you know what socialists believe.\n\nFollow current events, but when you do ask yourself "why is this person lying to me?"  It will help you figure out what a person's adgenda is.\n\nStudy Truman's decision on dropping the nuclear bombs in case you would ever have to make that decision.\n\nTake up hunting, golf, and fishing.  Those things will help you relate to everyone.
594684
Yes it is.  That is why we need viable third parties, to suck the air out of those windbags in politics.  The game of one-upmanship has taken the place of doing what's best for the people of this country.
1064699
A two party system can't really represent a population as diverse and huge as the US.  There are other parties, but most people are creatures of habit and do not want to stop doing what they've always done, picking Dem or GOP at every election.  The major parties focus on important political issues because they want to gain seats in congress, but they don't necessarily focus on issues that really matter in the lives of Americans, because those might not get as many people to the voting booths come november.\n\nI hope that people will seize on any curiosity caused by this question and check out some third parties.  Even if you never vote for a third party member, it's good to get another perspective on the issues that face the US today.
328162
It would be nice, but no. These two parties are too powerful and have too much money for a third party to compete. They will try, as they have in the past, but they won't succeed. I don't like to believe that any vote is "wasted" but I do believe that voting for the third party just increases the chances of getting someone like Bush in office again. I find it apalling that anyone could still support this man or the Republican party after all they have done to damage our country.\n\nI have voted for a third party in the past, but as I've grown older I realize that it just did more damage than good, so I will remain a democrat. The only way I would vote for a 3rd party again would be if I saw (through the polls) that the person running clearly had a chance, and if they ran on a platform I could really support.\n\nBut don't ever not vote. Don't ever believe that your vote doesn't count. We have a responsibility to vote for the person we believe should be in office, even if you do vote for a third party candidate.
953101
I think it it would force the parties to understand they have to start working together.\nCurrently both parties are focused on what is best for the party, NOT what is best for the people, a third party would force an end to this abomination.
1014966
There is a simple solution that would eliminate the two party system instantly.  It is called instant runoff voting.  Instead of choosing one candidate for president, you choose the top three, or four or whatever.  This eliminates the concept of a "throwaway vote" for a third party candidate. \n\nYou are right.   The democrats and republicans are all just pawns for the people who are really in control.   American Democracy has been dead since 2000, when George W. Bush was appointed president, not elected.  In 2004 there is strong evidence to support that the election was rigged. \n\nYou don't have to rigg the election so a candidate gets 100% of the vote, you just have to find the places where he would only need a few extra votes to win, like Ohio.  In Ohio they used electronic voting machines. There is no paper trail.  It would only take one person with access to the machines to open the back door and alter the votes.  WWW.BLACKBOXVOTING.ORG \n\nIt is proven that the machines were built with a secret back door that would allow manipulation of votes without leaving a trace.\n\n"We are committed to helping Ohio deliver its electoral votes to the president next year."  CEO of DIEBOLD.