• 瀏覽: 4,593
  • 回覆: 29
其實美國President election唔只兩黨 president candidate
仲有自由黨, 同green party等第三黨既代表

不過近幾屆都無人留意


Third Party Candidates
Republican Candidates
Democratic Candidates
Libertarian Candidates
Independent Candidates
Green Party Candidates
Constitution Party Candidates


http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/?other=other

最勁既1992年既獨立人士Perot
取全國18%既votes
可惜係winners take all system下,
一張electoral vote都得唔到..

Even in the 1992 presidential election, when Reform Party candidate Ross Perot won an incredible 18.9% of the votes, the party did not receive even a single seat in Congress for their effort. Similarly, despite regular losses at state and federal level, Libertarian and Green parties’ candidates regularly win a significant share of the votes but cannot be awarded with any representation at state legislatures and Congress. Compare that to the third highest performing party in the 2013 Bundestag election in Germany, Die Linke (The Left). The party earned 64 of the 631 seats in the Bundestag after winning just eight percent of the votes.



As long as the country practices a first-past-the-post voting system, third parties will never gain sufficient strength to enable its candidates to win the presidency. Polling exclusions, presidential debate participation and ballot access legislations also create additional barriers to third-party candidacies. This is the harsh truth. However, third party candidates have played the spoiler role successfully before.

• In 1848, former president Martin van Buren failed to win the Democratic nomination. With the support of the abolitionist elements from the Democratic Party, van Buren established the Free Soil Party and ran as a third-party candidate. He only secured 10% of the votes, but it siphoned enough votes away from Democratic candidate Lewis Cass to enable Whig candidate Zachary Taylor to win the presidency.

• In 1856, another spurned former Democratic president Millard Fillmore ran under The Know-Nothing Party banner and won 21.5% of the votes - and eight states. He took away sufficient votes from John C. Frémont of the Republican Party, who was also running on the abolitionist platform.

• In 1860, two third-party candidates, John Bell and John C. Breckinridge, won 30.7% of the votes to ensure the victory of Abraham Lincoln (who only managed to win 39.65% of the votes, the second lowest in history).

• In 1912, former president Teddy Roosevelt’s third-party run under the Progressive Party ticket outperformed that of the incumbent Republican president, William Taft, consigning the latter to a humiliating third-place finish.

• In 1924, the Progressive Party again played the spoiler role, but this time, its candidate Robert M. La Follette took advantage of the split in the Democratic Party to win 16.6% of the votes and gifted the election to Republican Calvin Coolidge.

• In 1968, American Independent Party candidate George Wallace, a former Democratic governor of Alabama, won 13.5% of the votes and the electoral votes of five states (46). It ultimately proved insufficient to derail Republican Richard Nixon’s eventual victory. However, Wallace’s candidacy is significant because he is the last third-party candidate to carry a state in a presidential election.

• In 1992, Ross Perot’s candidacy under the Reform Party very nearly upset the formbooks. By the middle of the year, Perot was actually leading the race in a few polls. However, he withdrew from the race in July allegedly due to homophobic threats made against his daughter. He reentered the race in October, and still managed to secure almost nineteen percent of the votes, mostly from the southern, Deep South and Bible belt states.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Li ... ed_States_elections



2016 Green Party Presidential Nominee
Physician, Reformer, Environmental Activist
Jill Stein
Dr. Jill Stein, a Harvard-trained physician, has emerged as the favorite protest candidate of the progressive grassroots. Her stances on single-payer health care, campaign finance reforms and student loan debt forgiveness, and her refusal to accept money from corporate donors have resonated with millennials. Dr. Stein’s current polling numbers suggest that she is well on track to match – and even surpass – Ralph Nader’s performance in 2000 presidential election.


2016 Libertarian Presidential Nominee
Former Governor of New Mexico





The Ross Perot presidential campaign of 1992 began when Texas industrialist Ross Perot opened the possibility of running for President of the United States in the election of 1992 as an independent candidate on the February 20, 1992 edition of Larry King Live. Though he had never served as a public official, Perot had experience as the head of several successful corporations and had been involved in public affairs for the previous three decades. Spawned by the American dissatisfaction with the political system, grassroots organizations sprang up in every state to help Perot achieve ballot access following his announcement. James Stockdale, a retired United States Navy vice admiral, was Perot's vice presidential running mate.




Gary Johnson
Governor Veto, as Gary Johnson was not-so-fondly known during his two terms as governor of New Mexico, has an enviable track record of success both in the private and public sector, an accomplishment that very few politicians can boast off. The fiscally conservative and socially liberal former construction company owner is seeking to build on his record breaking performance in 2012 by elevating the Libertarian Party to major party status in this election cycle.




https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_election,_1992

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross_Perot_presidential_campaign,_1992



都係奧巴馬好d


[隱藏]
呢2條友玩成咁 唔排除玩到PLAN B 收曬佢地皮 換其他人上嫁


呢d咪「真」普選囉


引用:
原帖由 焦急的等待 於 2016-11-2 02:49 PM 發表
呢d咪「真」普選囉
係d刷鞋仔講姐
美帝自己都唔敢認



美國兩黨輪流坐總統位。其他黨太弱,不成氣候。


【白宮之路第四站】「這些機會不是我的」 為何第三黨總是跑龍套

「如果要麼投票給癌症,要麼投給心臟病,那為什麼我還要投票?」美國知名億萬富翁、科氏工業創辦人科赫(Charles Koch)對兩位候選人的批評毫不客氣,更將希拉里及特朗普比喻為兩種致命疾病。美國總統大選臨近,不少選民無奈表示要在「騙子」希拉里與「瘋子」特朗普之間二擇其一。

美國作為泱泱民主大國,選舉制度及方法讓全球借鏡,何以今年竟選出兩位歷來最不受歡迎的總統候選人?《香港01》將解構選舉七部曲,剖析美國選舉的弊病,揭示選舉與民主之間的裂口。

約翰遜?施泰因?或許不少人──特別在美國以外──都會好奇,逐鹿總統寶座的,不是只有民主黨希拉里和共和黨特朗普嗎?答案當然「不是」。其實美國總統候選人多的是,不過大都寂寂無名。自由黨的約翰遜(Gary Johnson)和綠黨的施泰因(Jill Stein)已算比較為人認識,各有個位數的百分點支持度。

「紅對藍之外,還有選擇。」自參選以來,約翰遜最愛標榜自己是希拉里和特朗普以外的不二之選。不過社會最熟悉的,卻是他的「瘀事」。接受訪問之時,他竟然連阿勒頗也不懂。這個敘利亞城市深陷戰亂,經常出現在新聞中,約翰遜難免淪為笑柄。

另一個候選人施泰因可以說比較「穩打穩紮」。她從醫出身,後來加入綠黨,踏上參政之路。先是選州長、州議員,再選州長、總統,但施泰因選甚麼,輸甚麼。她今年再接再厲,主打「大學生免學債」牌,希望直闖白宮。

單看牌面,已可肯定他們必會落選,總統寶座最後還是民主、共和兩黨的囊中物。但第三勢力不興,絕非只因候選人缺乏實力。事實上,紐約前市長彭博在今年1月,也曾考慮參選。他不只坐擁千億身家,而且是政壇元老,有財有勢。論實力,彭博未必低於希拉里或特朗普。

考慮歸考慮,最後彭博還是決定「唔博」。歸根究柢,於他深諳美國選舉政治,知道以獨立或第三黨身分出戰大選,必處處受掣肘。電視辯論未必「受你玩」,選票也未必有其名,若有一定民望,又會被指「鎅票」。凡此種種,可謂「未打先輸」。

 電視辯論 兩黨「玩晒」

美國總統大選電視辯論,最早出現於1960年。當年的共和黨總統候選人尼克遜和民主黨的甘迺迪,首次在大氣電波,當着全國電視觀眾面前辯論政綱。其後電視辯論終止了16年,直到1976年才復辦。從那年起,每屆總統大選前,例必舉行全國電視辯論,讓候選人闡述理念、展現個人魅力和應變能力。不過這個舞台只限民主、共和兩黨總統候選人參加,多年來唯一上過主流電視台、與傳統兩黨候選人同台較量的,只有1992年的獨立候選人佩羅(Ross Perot)。

本身是富商的佩羅原本支持度只有7%至9%。不過兩名對手、共和黨的老布殊和民主黨的克林頓,民望不算高。佩羅於是抓緊契機,在電視辯論中突圍而出,成功令不少選民改投他一票。他最終獲得近2,000萬票,是總票數19%。佩羅被指分薄了老布殊的票源,助克林頓勝出大選,足證第三方勢力有能力透過電視辯論,扭轉局勢,甚至左右選舉結果。

為了控制選情,共和、民主兩黨共同建立了總統辯論委員會,隨即修例,規定候選人必須在全國5大民調機構的調查中,獲得平均最少15%的支持度,才有資格參與電視辯論。委員會名義上是「為觀眾提供更全面的信息」,美其名讓選民更容易選出心目中的理想人選,實際上是要提高參與辯論的門檻,將原已缺乏人力財力的第三黨候選人和獨立候選人拒諸門外,用心非常明顯。遊戲規則一改,等同禠奪絕大多數第三黨及獨立候選人在鎂光燈下陳述施政理念、質詢對手的機會。

以今屆總統選舉為例,芸芸候選人當中,支持度排第三的自由黨約翰遜,以及緊隨其後的綠黨施泰因,都因為未能突破15%支持率的門檻,無緣電視辯論。雖然有份辯論不一定有利選情,但可以肯定的是,這套遊戲規則,對小黨極不公平,亦令兩黨制更牢不可破。

 選舉惡法 打壓第三方 

19世紀初的美國選舉,對選票以至投票流程都沒有嚴格規範,選民都只是隨手拿起一張紙,寫上候選人名字便成。後來才由各政黨和候選人,負責印製、分發和收集選票。雖然這個做法較有系統,但仍然無法杜絕選舉舞弊。直至19世紀80年代,各州政府為了改革選舉制度,將印製選票的權力收歸「州」有,並制定法律,規管哪些人才有資格名列選票上。有關法例其後成為了各州執政黨用來打擊競爭對手的工具。

美國埃默里大學(Emory University)法律教授Michael Kang在《輸不起法與民主競爭》(Sore Loser Laws and Democratic Contestation)中,詳細分析各州的選票列名法(ballot access laws),如何限制和打壓民主、共和兩黨以外的候選人,以致美國政壇長期由兩黨把持。其中一個例子是,獨立候選人必須在每一個州收集特定數目的市民聯署,其名字才會在選票上出現。當中以加州的選票列名法最嚴苛,獨立候選人必須收集近18萬個聯署,才有機會「被選」。有傳媒估計,每位獨立候選人要在全國收集多達880,000個簽名,才能保證會出現在50個州的選票上。對於欠動員力的無黨派人士來說,這無疑是個極高的門檻。

另外,南達科他、俄勒岡和得薩斯等州,都實施所謂「輸不起法」(Sore loser laws),顧名思義,就是禁止任何人在黨內初選落敗後,脫離所屬政黨,以獨立人士身分參選。Michael Kang在論文中指出,「輸不起法」的原意就是杜絕黨內温和派候選人,拉攏中間選民支持,脫黨參選,然後「鎅」走該黨候選人的選票。有了「輸不起法」,傳統大黨便能遏制第三方勢力崛起,使兩黨政治得以進一步鞏固。

 前車可鑑 一旦鎅票將無限鞭撻

每逢選舉,總會聽到「鎅票論」,香港人對此亦不陌生。比較弱勢的參政者通常被指不自量力,分薄票源,令壞人得逞。在美國社會,這個說法特別盛行,原因在於前車可鑑。

話說2000年總統大選,民主黨戈爾決戰共和黨小布殊。在關鍵戰場佛羅里達州,綠黨的納德(Ralph Nader)被指吸票「太多」,令原本勢均力敵的戈爾,以僅僅537張票不敵布殊,將總統寶座拱手相讓。

16年來,納德不時遭人「回帶」,批評他「鎅票」(spoiler)。納德日前在媒體上撰文,力陳這種說法只會阻礙有心人參選。「你們應該支持一場有競爭的選舉,有更多選擇。」納德又說,憲法保障了每個人都有參選的權利,「鎅票論」仿如將第三方候選人說成次等公民。

不過即使納德言之成理,現實是,「鎅票」效應多年來一直為美國社會所警剔。紐約前市長彭博決定「唔博」,都是以此為由,擔心自己分薄選票,最終令特朗普當選。其實就算是比較少人支持的約翰遜和施泰因,一直都有輿論擔心他們會吸走希拉里部分選票。「成事不足,敗事有餘」,攔阻第三方候選人的心理因素,可以說是相當無形,但又那麼實在。

http://www.hk01.com/美國大選2016/51464/-白宮之路第四站-這些機會不是我的-為何第三黨總是跑龍套



[隱藏]
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
總統是誰不重要,重要是黨在國會的權力,黨冇權總統做唔夠三個月就比人彈劾,所以好多地方只選國會議員,如日本,英國,西班牙等,黨一定要過半數權力先叫政府,議員選首相(都只是最大黨選)。


提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
提示: 作者被禁止或刪除 內容自動屏蔽
引用:
原帖由 FtoGcup 於 2016-11-8 09:37 PM 發表

唔通中央欽點先叫真??

不過美國係兩黨大哂, 中國就一黨專政
根據歷史,美國發展民主超過200年,由有限度民主發展到現在的仍然有限度民主
好多人開口埋口話大陸極權,既然係咁,乜香港可以完全離地去追求連美國200年來都未達致嘅"真普選"



[隱藏]
如果今屆桑德斯以獨立身份出選, 應該可以輕取總統寶座.


鍵盤翻頁
左右
[按此隱藏 Google 建議的相符內容]