Ron Paul can he run separately? (UK here)

Forgive my ignorance in US politics but I have been following the Republican Party presidential primaries and Iam surprised that Ron Paul is not winning (he seems a stand up guy) so if he isn't going to be the republican presidential candidate can he say "Ok I will run by myself?" or is it not allowed?
Here in the UK we have many political partys and in theory any of them can win.
So do you only have 2 choices or Rep/Demo or can you have more? if not why? because it seems to me the more choice you have (In the senate as well) the better it will be.

Oh just one of our more "different" political partys here



and one of the candidates.



R.I.P Lord sutch

Yes, if Ron Paul can get enough signatures on a petition (which he certainly can) he can run as an independent candidate. Independent candidates rarely win in national elections. His candidacy would only serve to "steal" conservative votes from the Republican ticket, assuring Obama's re-election.

As stated above he could in theory run as an independent, but he would need to get on the ballot on each of the 50 states. Each state differs on how many petition signatures are needed to get on the ballot and what the deadline is. This site breaks that all down:

Petition drive deadlines, 2012

And of course he would need a ton of money. Not an easy feat.

THE ONLY PLACE RON PAUL SHOULD RUN ...IS OFF A MOUNTAIN TOP....

Originally posted by tom1701
THE ONLY PLACE RON PAUL SHOULD RUN ...IS OFF A MOUNTAIN TOP....

Thanks for shouting that and a great informative post thanks....

He could, but I don't think he will. At least every time I have heard the question asked, the answer has always been no.

reply to post by boymonkey74


The other 2 posters are correct. However, what most people outside of the US do not understand (and frankly alot of US citizens do not understand either) is that while there is a nationwide popular vote, the offices of the President and Vice-President are in actuality selected by a body called the "electoral college". Because of this, sometimes the person who garners the most popular vote does not always win the election. Prime example is in 2000 when Gore won the popular vote but Bush won the electoral college and there by won the presidency. This link will attempt to explain it if you are interested. US Electoral College @ archives.gov

So while Dr. Paul could petition all 50 states to appear on the ballot as an Independant, it would be all but impossible for him to win as such. It would indeed take a great deal of money on Dr. Paul's part as well as the average US citizen to shake off their apathy, get off their collective rear ends and vote to make this happen. I just do not see it happening, although, it would be great to see and would send a clear signal to Washington to start going about the people business rather than serve their own self interests. Just my 2 cents.

The answer is Yes. In fact, when Ron Paul didn't get the Republican Party nomination last time, in 2008, he ran as the presidential candidate for the Libertarian Party.

And, back in 2000, when Pat Buchanan couldn't get the Republican Party nomination, he ran as the candidate of the Reform Party (and ran that party into the ground).

In 1912, Theodore Roosevelt, having been out of office for four years (after two terms as President), and unable to get the Republican Party nomination (a third term was permitted back then), organized his own third party, the Progressive Party (also known as the Bull Moose Party), and ran as its candidate.

All 3 of them lost. But in 1912, Roosevelt finished ahead of the Republican, incumbent Pres. William Howard Taft (whose Vice-Presidential candidate had died a week before Election Day, so there is more than one explanation for this result).

reply to post by tom1701


BAA BAAA BAAAAA! your turn for slaughter!!

reply to post by Shoonra


UH......I don't think RP ran as the Libertarian candidate in 2008....I think you're thinking of 1988.

If he runs as an independent, he splits the conservative vote and gives victory to the Democrat.
Just as Governor Wallace split the Democrat vote in 1968 and perhaps helped Nixon to victory.
Was this the end of the "Democrat South" tradition?

reply to post by liquidsmoke206


Yes, Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 1988.

But he also showed up as a third party candidate (unclear which party, evidently not THE Libertarians) in 2008 and got about 19000 votes, mostly California and Texas.
www.fec.gov... (see page 3)

Yes, I admit I was wrong is saying that Ron Paul ran as a Libertarian in 2008. It was back in 1988, but his name showed up on ballots in a few states in 2008 - even if he didn't make a serious run. Back in 1988 he also was then officially a Republican, but did run for the Libertarians on a ticket selected at the Libertarian Convention about 3 weeks after the Republican Convention nominated Old Bush by acclamation.

It is possible that some voters remember him running separately against the Republican candidate - either in 1988 or in 2008 - and this is affecting their eagerness to vote for him in the Republican primaries. Perhaps some of them figure that he'll run on some ticket even if they vote for another Republican contender, so they cast a vote for whom they want the Republican Party to choose with the expectation that Ron Paul will still be on the November ballot for some other party.

In any case, the short answer to the original question was Yes, a Republican (or Democrat) who doesn't win his own party's nomination could still run for President for a third party. The chances of winning the Presidency that way are nil, but it can be, and has been, done.