Because the other two won't allow it.
there will be soon, saying you are a republican now is starting to become like saying you believe in angels
Because the two parties have made it impossible through obligatory petitions to get on the ballot, ridiculous laws determining residency, education, political influence,, and discriminatory campaign finance requirements. For example my state has one of the least restrictive ballot access requirements. A few fees and a few hundred voter signatures. HOWEVER the process for the political party to be recognized is much harder, requiring about 30,000 votes to cast in the last election for the party to even be considered a party. Since the party did not exist in the last election, this effectively makes it impossible for a third party candidate to get on the ballot. (http://ballotpedia.org/Ballot_access_requirements_for_political_candidates_in_New_Hampshire)
There has been at times during the 1800's.
These days, it's become increasingly harder to make a serious run as a third party because of all the money involved in running a campaign.
People may ... will it happen ... maybe ... my guess is not likely !!!
Ask Ross Perot, wonder why he withdrew, hmmmm?
The powers that be are used to "participating" in elections with a stacked deck. That is the only reason the same sorry bunch of politically correct, sock puppet, globalist stooges keep winning.
I think it is because people treat politics like sports. The Dems don't want the Repubs to win and vise versa. So voting for any other party seems like a win for what your against. As you see, everyone wants to rally behind a Dem or a Repub but not a third party candidate. Money does not mean win. There have been plenty of examples where politicians won with less money. The vote does count and if we keep treating politics like some type of sport, third parties will never have a chance.
Money has a huge impact on Presidential elections. Money is the deciding factor in NATIONAL elections.
Johnny, actually no. There have been various elections where the most money didn't win. Money is important in elections, particularly when challenging an entrenched incumbent with name recognition and media presence. For a House candidate, the first $500,000 or so is absolutely crucial. After that, the returns diminish sharply, and each next dollar spent is worth less than the last.
However, dumping massive amounts of cash into an election certainly does not guarantee victory. Take former eBay CEO Meg Whitman, who spent $144 million of her own money only to lose the California gubernatorial race to Jerry Brown. Or conservative donor Sheldon Adelson, who spent $42 million in 2012 backing nine candidates with only one of them winning. Or the Koch brothers, who spent $33.5 million on ads attacking Obama, and we know how that turned out.
True, the higher-spending candidate usually wins the election, but did he/she win because of the money? That’s a more difficult question. Donors like to back winners, and they will often give to candidates just because they think they will win. This is especially true when low contribution limits make it difficult for a single donor to make a big difference in the outcome. Rather than giving a small amount to someone who will lose anyway, they give to the leading candidate. Candidates in safe districts, districts where the margin of victory all but ensures that one party will win, still get donations. According to election guru Nate Silver, the number of landside districts has doubled since 1992. There are now 242 of them. Candidates who oppose the entrenched party or incumbent receive very few donations and party support, thus essentially ensuring that, in those 242 districts, the “bigger spending” candidate will win. But it is the demographics and gerrymandering that cause those victories, not the spending.
Another example, the 31st Congressional District, four Democrats faced off against three Republicans. Paul Chabot finished in first place. Chabot managed the win with less than $66,000 to spend, or $9.78 per vote. Compare that to the second-place campaign of Redlands Mayor Pete Aguilar, who spent more than $1 million in his bid for the seat, or $108 per vote.
There are various examples that say money does not win elections.
the first 2 are working together to stop one from getting very far