Ross Perot Wins!!!

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

Let's say that Ross wins, the particulars are not really that important. What would he have done and what does that do for the nation? Being spared the Clinton years (yes, there were a lot of problems with Clinton, including corruption, deregulation, and the education issue), how does America evolve? Do we still have the Bush years after and does he get a second term? Perhaps the old John Mccain gets a shot in 2000.
 
The particulars would affect how Perot governs.

If he gets a landslide, that's one thing, but if he squeaks by, that's another.

For starters, if it's a squeaker, both parties in Congress could cooperate to undermine him and get away with it.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Both the Republicans and Democrats would be horrified at the prospect of a genuine third party emerging, so they would unofficially cooperate in Congress to prevent Perot from getting anything done. Perot would do himself little good, as he has a tendency to shot himself in the foot on a regular basis.
 
Assuming the Congress shuts down in 1993-94 following a Perot victory, the '94 Mid-Term elections are going to IMO force the emergence of a third party. Supporters of Perot are going to have to form a genuine Third Party in order to achieve the faintest hope of getting things moving again in Washington.

This of course becomes apparent quite early on in the 93/94 congressional session so by 94 the Perot Supporters (henceforth referred to as the Reform Party) are prepared to launch a full on campaign and have already begun campaigning in (and perhaps winning) state elections.

The Mid-term elections of 1994 see the Reform party make it's appearance winning a slice of the House and a few Senate Seats. However this changes little as the Democrats and Republicans still control the majority of the house. Perhaps the only thing that gets done is (assuming a narrow win by Perot) the passing of an amendment analogous to OTL's Bayh-Celler amendment abolishing the electoral college in favor of a more direct presidential election (done so despite Perot's wishes).

1996 sees the US enter into it's second 3 way race for the White House as Perot attempts to not only secure the Presidency but also the Congress as well. This of course fails miserably as quite literally nothing has been done during the past 4 years. Making matters worse, the GOP sensing a more moderate trend in American politics emerging runs none other than Colin Powell who annihilates both Perot and the Democrat nominee. Powell wins the election (now determined by the popular vote) by a fair margin of 56% as well as a majority in both the House and the Senate.

Following the 1996 race Perot drops out of politics, without his leadership the Reform party falls apart never to be a force in American politics again...
 
But abolishing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, wouldn't it?

About Congress refusing to cooperate with President Perot, would Perot be capable of using the "bully pulpit" to its best effect and denounce Congress for being obnoxious and partisan?
 
Don't cry for me, Texarkana

I cannot see Peron oops I mean Perot winning by anything but the narrowest margin. And I can't see his Presidency being successful in any meaningful way. The worst case scenerio about a 10% chance is that he in a fit of Ego tries to declare an emergency and make himself dictator.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
But abolishing the electoral college would require a constitutional amendment, wouldn't it?

Indeed. And that is why it will NEVER happen, at least not in our lifetimes. Even if you achieved the miracle of two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives voting for it (which is close to ASB), you still need three-fourths of the state legislatures voting to approve it, and the small states have more than enough pull to keep this from happening.

The only chance I can see for an amendment to abolish the electoral college would be a string of presidential elections that result in the candidate winning even though he or she received fewer votes than their opponent. Once every few decades (i.e. 2000) won't matter- it would have to be several times in a row. Even then, I don't think it would happen through congressional action, but rather through a convention called by the states in accordance with Article V.
 
Indeed. And that is why it will NEVER happen, at least not in our lifetimes. Even if you achieved the miracle of two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives voting for it (which is close to ASB), you still need three-fourths of the state legislatures voting to approve it, and the small states have more than enough pull to keep this from happening.

The only chance I can see for an amendment to abolish the electoral college would be a string of presidential elections that result in the candidate winning even though he or she received fewer votes than their opponent. Once every few decades (i.e. 2000) won't matter- it would have to be several times in a row. Even then, I don't think it would happen through congressional action, but rather through a convention called by the states in accordance with Article V.

I don't know...In OTL the Bayh-Celler amendment (which proposed to eliminate the electoral college in favour of the popular vote) got pretty darned close after 1 "close" election that was nothing near a potential Perot victory in 1992.

But I do see your point.
 
Indeed. And that is why it will NEVER happen, at least not in our lifetimes. Even if you achieved the miracle of two-thirds of both the Senate and the House of Representatives voting for it (which is close to ASB), you still need three-fourths of the state legislatures voting to approve it, and the small states have more than enough pull to keep this from happening.

True. However the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact is a pretty decent way to sidestep it.
 
EDIT: I was about to bring up the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact, but it appears that Electric Monk did that job for me. Click his link to see what it is.

I really want to see the Electoral College eliminated. For one, it would prevent another 2000 from happening. Secondly, it would break the lock that the two major parties have on American politics and give third parties a chance in the presidential election, forcing all of the parties to innovate. Sure, Perot may have been a wacky burn-out, but at least he scared the two-party system.

Oh, and how could Perot have had a fighting chance in 1992? Well, in July, Perot dropped out of the race, only to re-enter it a few weeks later. He would also claim, after re-entering, that his withdrawal was due to Republican operatives trying to disrupt his daughter's wedding. This created two problems: first, on election day, many voters weren't aware that Perot was still running, and second, many people thought that Perot was a kook for spreading conspiracy theories about the Republicans. Eliminate these two weird bits of behavior, and you'll see Perot in either second place or in the White House. If he wins, Fearless Leader's description of a Perot presidency would probably be accurate.
 
One thing is for sure Perot would have been a very frustrated man. He was used to the power of CEO, not checks and balances. He also did not have a party bloc in Congress to support him. I see him hanging it up after one term.
 
Setting up a party on short notice is hard. You could do get a candidate elected, in thsi case Perot. But it need to evolve over time so you don't get a lot of nutcases taking over your party.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
A good read for those interested in American third parties is "Spoiling for a Fight" by Micah Sifry. A point he stresses is that, because most members of third parties are ideologues (if they weren't they'd be Republicans or Democrats), they never function very effectively. For one thing, they are unwilling to make the necessary compromises to win elections at any level. Furthermore, they become embroiled in intra-party squabbling when certain members are perceived as not ideologically pure enough (i.e. a Green candidate agrees with the entire Green platform aside from the proposed ban on nuclear power, and for that the party refuses to support him).
 
One big problem is that Perot and then Buscanan´s Reform Party was nothing more than a personality cult. He would have trouble creating a real politcal party.
 
One big problem is that Perot and then Buscanan´s Reform Party was nothing more than a personality cult. He would have trouble creating a real politcal party.

And that is part of the reason why third parties have so much trouble. In my mind, there are five reasons why this is so. Allow me to list them.

1. Voting, debate, and ballot access laws. The two major parties have made it very difficult for third parties to obtain ballot access and to make it into the debates, and the Electoral College doesn't make things any easier.

2. Cults of personality. Paul V McNutt put it perfectly. Many third-party runs - Ross Perot in '92 and '96, Ralph Nader in 2000, Teddy Roosevelt in 1912 - are built around the strength, charisma, and message of the candidate, not their party. These parties may have one great year, winning double-digit vote percentages and even a couple of states, but when that figure leaves the party, it collapses by the next election. The fall of the Reform Party in the late 1990s is a textbook example of just such a collapse.

3. Fringe ideologies. Eugene Debs' Socialist Party of the early 20th century is a prime example of this. They couldn't moderate their socialist ideology and bring it from the inner-city to Main Street, which meant that they had a lot of trouble getting more than five percent of the vote. Today, the three largest third parties - the Greens (leftist and environmentalist), the Libertarians (obsessed with individual freedom, at any cost) and the Constitution Party (protectionist and Christian fundamentalist) - all have this problem, even though their solid ideologies tend to make them very durable.

4. Single issues. Parties built around single issues tend to fade away once their positions on those issues become unpopular, or when one of the major parties co-opts their position. For example, take the American Independent Party. In 1968, both parties were supporting civil rights, which caused the diehard white supremacists to defect and support a third party. Enter George Wallace and the AIP, which took up the banner of segregation and won five states in the Deep South. By 1972, racism was becoming increasingly unpopular, leading to the failure of the AIP to win a single state.

5. Disenchantment with both major parties. Protest candidates and parties are usually the only ones that see any success in elections, and it often ties into the personality cults. Leftists voted for Nader in 2000 because they felt that both Bush and Gore were the candidates of big business. Many people voted for Perot in 1992 and 1996 because they felt that neither party could run the country. Moderates voted for Anderson in 1980 because they were upset with Carter's failed policies, but they felt that Reagan was too conservative. And this year, you'll probably be seeing social conservatives (less so after Palin) and the Ron Paul crowd voting for Bob Barr.
 
Last edited:
Sorry, to bring this up but What If by having a pod, where Perot doesn't drop out but sticks out in the race, giving him and his team more time to properly vet their VP candidate. Id like to think that Perot, picks someone to more reinforce his Independent status, but shore up his weakness of foriegn policy issues and executive expierence. After doing some research, I think the perfect fit for Perot at this time would have been to go with former Republican Senator, and Conneticut Party Governor Llowell P Wiecker Jr. How might Weicker do in the debate against Gore, and Qualye? Also can he convince enough reform minded voters to vote Perot to be their next president?
 
Top