If he does not pull out, I think the most important possibility is that he prevents Clinton from getting enough electoral votes to win. And thus the election goes to the House of representatives. BUT since the Dems have full control there he wins anyway.
The most interesting effect is probably a much stronger effort by both parties to court the Perot voters, who clearly have enough power to become shift the outcome of elections.
I think Perot could've won, but I'm no American and don't have that detailed knowledge about your politics.
Could America see its first coalition government? Between whom?
I think Perot could've won, but I'm no American and don't have that detailed knowledge about your politics.
Could America see its first coalition government? Between whom?
I was speculating what most likely would have happened in this scenario, but lets say for arguments sake Perot carries a few states so that he gets 39 electoral votes and, as a result, neither Bush nor Clinton gets the necessary 270 votes. So Clinton gets 241 electoral votes and Bush gets 258 votes and leads Clinton by a popular vote margin of 465,000 votes. It goes to the house of representatives, so who becomes the next president?Well let's say he does pick up about 25% of the vote, and sends the election into the house of Representatives. Clinton will still get the presidency, but I think most importantly I think we will have a stronger Reform Party as well, possibly picking up seats in the House and cut into Newt's Revolution...It's hard to tell how Perot does in'96
Clinton will win in the House of Representative vote since Democrats are the majority means Clinton has lacked of mandate of the voters since 50% of Perot votes would go to Bush.
It's been awhile since US government class, but I thought the Presidency only went to the house after the electoral college voted. The election is in November. Lets say for arguments sake that Perot finishes with 30%, Clinton with 38%, and Bush with 33%. Lets also say that no candidate can claim a majority of the electoral votes. The Electoral College doesn't meet until many weeks after the election. Perot could, in theory, pledge his electors to either candidate and singlehandedly decide the election. A corrupt bargain ala 1824, Bush is pledged the electors in exchange for killing NAFTA and supporting Perot as the GOP nominee in 1996. I think that would be Perot's best bet.
Now...If Perot does stay in the election for the entire course of the process...They were several states that he came in second, that he may have won...like Utah and Maine...and a few that he came in a close third,...But I say might Perot have more leverage with lets say 25%-35% percentage of the popular vote? Could he push and get more Reform seats into the House and possibly to the senate to boulster his run in 96?