Starting today August 7th, 2024, in order to post in the Married Couples, Courting Couples, or Singles forums, you will not be allowed to post if you have your Marital status designated as private. Announcements will be made in the respective forums as well but please note that if yours is currently listed as Private, you will need to submit a ticket in the Support Area to have yours changed.
Because it was once true.That line never gets old.
Most democracies give more than two choices.Because it was once true.
BTW a democracy gives the people choice between two opposing sides. The S of A is given choice of two sides of the same coin, both of which are funded by the same people who never lose. Time for people to remind government they are supposed to serve the people , not the lobbyists and financial backers..
Except in close races, where it benefits the major party candidate you prefer the least.Yeah, that's definitely true. The sad reality is, though, that there's not much that can be done about it. You could try a write-in vote for a 3rd party candidate, but don't expect it to make a difference.
For example, it helped in getting Bill Clinton elected.If your going to challenge the choice of the party establishment, you need to have enough money to do it. We've seen how that is done...
The candidates lobbyists and the rich pick are ones who will do the most for them and the least for everyone else.
Ever wonder why there's no one to vote for? The multi-zillionaires own both parties and pick both candidates, and when they get in, the politicians move Trillions of dollars up the the very rich.
If you're in the part of the economic spectrum I'm in, even a small medical bill is more than I earn in a year. The money keeps getting sucked up the economic ladder.
A party called Unity2020 have proposed to run both Andrew Yang and Admiral McRaven and claim to have ways to get them onto the ballot.
Change.org has a petition to get them onto the ballot and people are signing it and contributing at a good rate, looks like it will reach the target before midnight, I mean in 3 hours.
Right or Left there is a good non-corrupt candidate in that pair for you and both are better than the ones the main parties are backing.
It should make little difference which is President and which is VP because they are willing to work together and the overall plan is they should reach an agreement on (hopefully) everything.
But let's assume the Indy candidate is viable. 3 major candidates in each state means the chance of one winning a clear majority of a state's votes could be remote.
If that's a concern, give some thought to how a direct popular vote would work out. People never seem to do that, but if the election were at all close (as with your own example of Bush v. Gore), the recounts and court challenges would go on for the better part of a year. That's one advantage to having the Electoral College instead.So that state's EVs would then go to whoever wins the plurality. Those pluralities could well be small. Is it really fair if all of a state's EVs go to a candidate who wins, let's say, only 40% of the vote?
The purpose of voting is not for you to feel good. Its to try for the best actual outcome for the country.Most states have minor party candidates on the ballot, and if your conscience says to refuse your vote to the candidates of both of the major parties, do consider voting third party.
Some people will say it's a waste of your vote, but so is voting for the candidate of whichever one of the two major parties winds up losing the election, if you think about it for a moment.
In any case, your conscience deserves not to be ignored too casually.
I don't think anyone said to vote in order "to feel good."The purpose of voting is not for you to feel good.
Again, I have no idea from where this odd notion should have come from. It wouldn't seem to have been anything that was posted on this thread.Feeling good about yourself while advancing your worst choice candidate is almost childishly irresponsible. Thats what happens when you cast a spoiler vote... unless youre in a "safe" state.
What else is casting a spoiler "conscience" vote for? Its not about the country, as youve done nothing at best, and quite possibly advanced the worst candidate. Its about you and feeling good about your vote.I don't think anyone said to vote in order "to feel good."
Following one's conscience is not a matter of doing whatever makes you feel good and doing it for that reason only. That's the case even though following one's conscience probably will also make you feel at ease with your decision.
Again, I have no idea where you might have gotten this odd notion from anything posted on this thread.
Speaking of his choice. He is supposed to announce his choice next week.
Because it was once true.
BTW a democracy gives the people choice between two opposing sides. The S of A is given choice of two sides of the same coin, both of which are funded by the same people who never lose. Time for people to remind government they are supposed to serve the people , not the lobbyists and financial backers..
Most people who vote third party are convinced either that their candidate is the best one in the field (even if he or she has little chance of winning) or else they feel that the two-party duopoly that has governed our country for many generations is not working in our best interests or that of democracy itself.What else is casting a spoiler "conscience" vote for?
And it was also argued that Pat Buchanan being on the ballot as well was what tipped the outcome...and he was at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Nader.Look at FL 2000 for a perfect example. Nader "conscience" votes probably cost Gore the state.
Not in their own eyes. In yours, perhaps, if you would have preferred Gore, but you cannot say that voting for Nader "advanced their worst choice candidate."Result: all those conscience voters actually advanced their worst choice candidate
And yet you are asking that third party voters who are opposed to always compromising and taking the "lesser of two evils" ought themselves to compromise.So yeah, assuaging my conscience at the cost of advancing the worst candidate is all about me and my feelings rather than the actual outcome for country. Its an unwillingness to compromise in a system thats always about compromise.
She may be what you say, but there's a lot of "downside" to this person that also needs to be taken account of.He would do well to select Liz Warren. She's the only one with the chops to take over as POTUS. However he seems to be committed to a black woman.
She may be what you say, but there's a lot of "downside" to this person that also needs to be taken account of.
I tend to think that statement is untrue...the majority of US americans prefers it this way.
I tend to think that statement is untrue.
However, the parties have legally entrenched themselves, preventing grass root changes.
Picking your absolute "best candidate" is a vanity vote in our current system. In a natural 2-party game (first-past-the-post voting), which is what we have, actual best outcome requires compromise with everyone else on your binary side. As I said I'm all for changing the game.... but until then, pretending we have a different game so you can vote "conscience" is pure vanity.Most people who vote third party are convinced either that their candidate is the best one in the field (even if he or she has little chance of winning) or else they feel that the two-party duopoly that has governed our country for many generations is not working in our best interests or that of democracy itself.
On that basis, these voters can hardly be faulted. You yourself made spoke favorably of us changing from the current system to the "ranked voting" system that has gained some favor lately and which would be one way of breaking the stranglehold of the two party system we have now.
Nader voters were left-side and would prefer D over R by large margin. And if I am wrong in this case. either way, the spoiler principle is well understood and not controversial.And it was also argued that Pat Buchanan being on the ballot as well was what tipped the outcome...and he was at the opposite end of the political spectrum from Nader. Not in their own eyes. In yours, perhaps, if you would have preferred Gore, but you cannot say that voting for Nader "advanced their worst choice candidate."
Of course I am. Unwillingness to compromise in politics is childish. Its "give me every single thing I demand or I'll advance the worst candidate". Thats childish.And yet you are asking that third party voters who are opposed to always compromising and taking the "lesser of two evils" ought themselves to compromise.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?