Netphoria Mock Presidential election!

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

choose not to follow your conscience.

actually no i think he is

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

whether or not you believe in it, FPP basically mandates a two party system. as i've said before, i will advocate for full blown electoral reform. but until that is a reality, you have two choices. and refusing to make one isn't exactly noble.

if you hate both equally, then whatever. but if you hate one less, that's the one you should vote for if you want to be at all practical.

this. You are cognizant of the fact that a third party candidate is everything short of being physically barred from winning an election, so until we ditch the electoral college, a vote outside the two parties is only important in who it is taking away from

[redbreegull]

I mean it is basically the same as not voting except that at some miniscule level your protest has been noted

[Nimrod's Son]

The more votes a third party gets, the more incluence it gains And its issues start to be taken seriously.

The real problem isn't the electoral college it's the debate commission. I m is it seems silly now but until he went loony Ross Perot had a legitimate shot of winning in the 90s - because he was included in the debates.

[Trotskilicious]

he was always loony

[redbreegull]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

The more votes a third party gets, the more incluence it gains And its issues start to be taken seriously.

The real problem isn't the electoral college it's the debate commission. I m is it seems silly now but until he went loony Ross Perot had a legitimate shot of winning in the 90s - because he was included in the debates.

the most successful third party candidate in history. perot received almost ONE FIFTH of the entire popular vote! remind me how many electoral votes he got?

[Trotskilicious]

at one point he was polling at 30%

and teddy roosevelt is the most successful 3rd party candidate ever. won 3 states as i recall.

[redbreegull]

yeah I should have said modern history or the post-war era or something. Lincoln was actually the best performing third party candidate in all of history

[redbreegull]

but still, to receive 19% of the popular vote and get ZERO electoral votes is pretty telling of what the problem is

[Starla]

I'm voting for Gary because I think he's the better candidate.

[Eulogy]

Originally Posted by Nimrod's Son

The more votes a third party gets, the more incluence it gains And its issues start to be taken seriously.

The real problem isn't the electoral college it's the debate commission. I m is it seems silly now but until he went loony Ross Perot had a legitimate shot of winning in the 90s - because he was included in the debates.

it's not impossible but http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law

and i agree about third party inclusion in the debates. but politicians are cowards.

[Trotskilicious]

i dunno if you ******* one guy then you'll have to ******* another and pretty soon you have 2 or 3 real candidates and a stage full of loonies

[Eulogy]

i'd say requiring that a candidate be on a certain percentage of ballots would be a fine way to avoid that.

[Nimrod's Son]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i dunno if you ******* one guy then you'll have to ******* another and pretty soon you have 2 or 3 real candidates and a stage full of loonies

Up until a few years ago the law was that if you are on 85% of the ballots you have a right to debate.

i still don't know why you people don't get that a vote for gary johnson in california is not going to take away anything because of course fucking obama is winning california
i mean i guess romney could win new jersey but i'm still in a basically safe zone where i can vote for a looney far-left candidate and know the idiot i'd prefer out of the two major candidates will probably win
i mean stop fucking yelling at people who vote for other candidates with this bullshit

like i am not yelling at you for voting for obama, knock yourself out. fucking chomsky says he would vote for obama if he lived in a swing state

i mean i get that nimrod made that vote with your conscience nonsense comment first but since i'm gonna vote third-party any response to that about how anyone who does is some douchebag is relevant to my interests

i mean i get that i am in fact a douchebag and none of my rants make sense anyway i just want a world where i can read one person post one opinion without first explaining why everyone is outright stupid for doing it

although voting for gary johnson is outright stupid
fucking sideshow act with his crowdsurfing

i'm such a fat dumb hypocrite

[Future Boy]

Originally Posted by Trotskilicious

i dunno if you ******* one guy then you'll have to ******* another and pretty soon you have 2 or 3 real candidates and a stage full of loonies

http://www.energydigital.com/renewab...0in%20Iowa.jpg

[Future Boy]

maybe its age and putting up with the dems feckless bullshit but Ive gone from Nader fucked things up to they need to earn the vote. I dont blame anyone for actually voting for someone. And if the dems lose its not because those people are irresponsible or short sighted, its because the DEMOCRATS SUCK.

[Starla]

I voted for Obama last time. Before him it was Kerry, then Gore. I'm done with the democrats.

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

http://www.energydigital.com/renewab...0in%20Iowa.jpg

bingo

[Trotskilicious]

Originally Posted by Starla

I voted for Obama last time. Before him it was Kerry, then Gore. I'm done with the democrats.

well it's not like kerry and gore got to do anything

[hnibos]

Originally Posted by Future Boy

http://www.energydigital.com/renewab...0in%20Iowa.jpg

Pretty sure that's just a stage full of loonies.

[killtrocity]

Originally Posted by Eulogy

whether or not you believe in it, FPP basically mandates a two party system. as i've said before, i will advocate for full blown electoral reform. but until that is a reality, you have two choices. and refusing to make one isn't exactly noble.

if you hate both equally, then whatever. but if you hate one less, that's the one you should vote for if you want to be at all practical.

What do you say to graveflower's point about a voter living in California or Illinois or Alabama or something like this? My vote literally does not matter. Unless everyone spontaneously decided not to vote and only one person showed up on that particular day, deciding the election. But that's like saying "what if all the atoms in a table spontaneously moved in the same direction?". Possible in theory but never observed because the probability of such an event happening approaches zero