Ross Perot appears in these excerpts as a recurring reference point in discussions of third-party candidacies and their effects on American elections. He is not the subject of either episode; rather, two guests invoke his 1992 presidential run to illustrate structural features of the electoral system and the debate process.
The 1992 election and the Electoral College
In a 2022 episode on enhancing trust in democracy, Ned Foley discussed the Electoral College and the difference between majority and plurality winners. Foley said his own preference would be to replace the Electoral College with a national popular vote, but with the caveat that he would not want a pure popular vote if somebody could be president with 33% or 22% of the vote in a multi-candidate race. He said the founders cared about the distinction between majority winners and plurality winners, and that they wanted majority winners because they thought that was how to represent the public as best as possible Enhancing Trust in Democracy (2022).
Foley explained that a problem of the current system is that although a candidate needs a majority of electoral votes, that majority can be obtained by winning a plurality in the states. He asked his students how many states Bill Clinton won a majority of the popular vote in when he won for the first time in 1992. Bob Zadek recalled that Clinton got about 43% of the popular vote, and said that was compliments of Ross Perot. Foley agreed, saying that was the nationwide number, and that Clinton never crossed 50% nationally. Clinton did win a majority of electoral votes because he won enough states, but the only state where he won a majority of the popular vote was his home state of Arkansas, plus the District of Columbia, which has three electoral votes. Every other state Clinton won, he won with under 50%, and in some states he was under 40% because Perot was strong enough and Bush was strong enough to create a three-way split that allowed a win with 38% or 35% of the vote. Foley called that not a good system, saying that if we want to elect someone to this powerful office, we should have a system that gets you to a majority Enhancing Trust in Democracy (2022).
Foley connected this to the second main structural feature in the Guardrails report. Beyond eliminating gerrymandering, he said it is essential, whether for presidential elections or elections to the US Senate, to have a system that builds upon the insights of how to design a system that best achieves a majority winner.
Third parties and the debate stage
In a 2023 episode on moving California forward with the Common Sense Party, Tom Campbell discussed how the deck is stacked against third parties. Bob Zadek framed the discussion by saying that when any organization—a business, a union, or a political party—obtains protection of its monopoly by governmental action rather than exposing itself to the freedom of the voter, that explains it must be an inferior product, because the organization does not want to be tested in an open election. He said the two political parties have profound governmental, statutory protection against anybody crowding their turf, the same monopoly that governments gave to railroads and utilities to the detriment of consumers—in this case, the consumers are voters. Zadek asked Campbell to explain issues such as ballot access and control of the debate stage Moving California Forward with the Common Sense Party (2023).
Campbell gave three examples. The first was access to the debate stage. He said the Presidential Debates Commission is a private foundation run by the Democratic and Republican parties, and that they kept the Libertarian candidate out of the presidential debates the last three cycles. He said this is not to the benefit of America, and that when people think the presidential debates are fair and give exposure to different views, they are mistaken—it is run by the Democratic and Republican parties and that is who gets invited. Campbell said Ross Perot broke in because of his high standing in the polls and his ability, frankly, to spend the money to get that high standing in the polls. But if you are not independently very, very, very wealthy, you do not get onto the debate stage Moving California Forward with the Common Sense Party (2023).
The second example Campbell gave was access to the ballot by signatures. He cited a newsletter published by Richard Winger in the Bay Area that monitors what it takes to get on the ballot in all 50 states. Campbell said it is state after state, example after example, where it is easier for the two major parties to retain their position on the ballot than for a new party to get onto the ballot. Once you cross the threshold, you are grandfathered in. And then in power, those agencies of the Democratic and Republican party—in California the Democratic Party, in some other states the Republican Party—lift the threshold. So the number of signatures needed to qualify for the ballot is a barrier: once you are in, you stay in, but if you are trying to get in, the folks who are already up in the treehouse have pulled the ladder up Moving California Forward with the Common Sense Party (2023).
The third example was money. Campbell noted that Zadek had correctly identified the Supreme Court opinion of 1976, Buckley v. Valeo, that struck down an attempt to limit how much an individual can spend. But the court in that opinion was careful to say a reasonable limit would be okay. So what you have now in the state of California is a 10-to-1 advantage for funds for somebody running for the legislature if they get help from the registered party. If you do not have help from a registered party, if you are running as a non-party preference person, good luck if you are not independently wealthy. Campbell said those laws are passed by the Democrats and Republicans in coordination with each other in Sacramento. He said he believes the Supreme Court opinion allows for his rule, which was if you cannot vote for me, you cannot contribute to me, but that is a simplification. He said that in order to get it past the Supreme Court, you would have to say if you cannot vote for me, you can give me $100, but if you can vote for me, then use the other limits like $4,500 if you are running for the legislature. Those are the three examples he gave: access to the ballot, who gets to debate, and the 10-to-1 advantage in fundraising availability for candidates for the legislature Moving California Forward with the Common Sense Party (2023).
Across episodes
The two episodes treat Ross Perot in different contexts: in the 2022 episode, Ned Foley cites Perot’s 1992 candidacy as a factor that allowed Bill Clinton to win electoral votes without popular-vote majorities in most states; in the 2023 episode, Tom Campbell cites Perot as the exception who broke into the presidential debates through high poll standing and personal wealth. The excerpts show no development or change in how Perot is characterized between the earlier and later treatment; each guest invokes him independently to illustrate a distinct structural point.
What the sources do not cover
The excerpts do not state Perot’s full name, his business background, the year of his birth or death, the specific percentage of the popular vote he received nationally in 1992, or the details of his 1996 candidacy. They do not describe his policy positions, his party affiliation, or the mechanics by which he qualified for the ballot in any state. They do not state whether he won any electoral votes, nor do they give the outcome of any election in which he was a candidate beyond the effects on Clinton’s vote shares described by Foley.