jared8783

iTrader: (2)

if RP goes third party i dont see how he could not get five percent of the vote.

now are we talking five percent of popular vote or electoral college?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

(Sent from phone via capitalism)

No. My minset is reason and logic. Yours is cotton candy and unicorn

It doesn't consent to the situatuion but it undertstands that you don't make change by voting in an electon.

I rememmeber a republican that lost in recent history because of a third party...and he wasn't very viable.

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

IIRC, it's popular. Not electoral. 5% gives that party the same standing and privileges of the Democrats and Republicans. I fail to see how Ron Paul could not possibly get 5%.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

(Sent from phone via capitalism)

Who is more likely to vote for ron paul as a write in: an undecided republican or democrat?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I've already been through this, complete with numerous sources and statistics to dispute that Brainy.

Perot took more votes from Clinton then Bush by -every- metric except for two, in which Clinton lost as many votes as Bush.

I know a LOT of undecided Democrats where I am that I've talked into writing in RP over voting for Obama.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

(Sent from phone via capitalism)

What about nader?

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Which election specifically?

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

Ross Perot would have made a great president
i voted for him
too bad it was in an elementary school election
i was in the fourth grade

he wasn't like the rest with all the classic signs of being a sellout
no shame in voting for him
you cant get a decent president if no one votes for him

especially since RP will take alot of independent
and alot of democrat votes (see facebook page blue republican, it is a page dedicated to dem's registering repub in support of RP)
he actually has a chance as a third party
you cant get a decent pres
if you dont vote for him

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spoiler_effect

this election.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

is it worth keeping obama in office, knowing that RP if a third party has no chance to win?

voting for RP as a write in doesn't make logical sense.


My state will go Red regardless of who I vote for, but if I do vote RP, it's one less vote against the winner/loser.

jared8783

iTrader: (2)

let me repeat my self
i haven't been to school for a while
and i forget all the details
but yeah if i can help the libertarians get more support
(fawk i forget how that all works
blaenn you should fill me in)
then yes


im not voting for the classic
i will screw you one way or another candidate
i would really rather not pick my poison

im surely not about wealth distribution
and im surely not about more bs a$$ wars
then again im sure a dem will be just as trigger happy as a repub

nonetheless
not tryin to pick my poison

do you see just how loyal rp supporters are?
if YOU vote for the repub nom and rp is a third party candidate then it is YOU who is voting for obama.
that statement truly makes just as much sense as what you are trying to tell me

Ross Perot
case and point

btw at least my dad voted for him irl
he changed his mind last minute
the night before the election Ross bought a slot on tv
an hour i think?
and just explained himself

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

I've got to head out soon, so this is the usual disclaimer of: This response will be imperfect and another will take awhile.

However, I do not view the 2000 elections as particularly legitimate. Gore lost his home state (This is EXTRAORDINARILY unusual), a huge amount of Democrats "mysteriously" voted Republican in Florida (Again, unusual), and there is substantial controversy around Ohio (With some seriously shady Brainy going on here. This is a topic I'd like to discuss here sometime, actually). As I think about it, I have an extremely long list of concerns about the 2000 elections, of which Nader is a very minor part of that list.

Nader may have been a spoiler in 2000, and he's the only potential spoiler I am aware of in the history of US elections. But I have far, far deeper concerns with the 2000 elections then Nader's votes in one state. Frankly, I think Nader is used as a scapegoat to distract people from far more pressing concerns. It's not cut and dry like Perot is - even the numbers for who would have voted for who vary radically, numerous polls state Bush lost more votes than Gore even!

And you know my single biggest concern with 2000 and 2004?

The person who won the election, and who won the most votes was not elected president. It's possible to be elected president with as little as 20% of the popular vote. This is a problem. 2000 should have highlighted that, not AWMAHGAWDSPOILERSAWMAHGAWD!!!!! In some states, a vote can be worth 10 or even 20 times as much as a vote in another state. This isn't "democratic" by any means.

rleete

iTrader: (21)

Maybe because this isn't a democracy?

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

Al Gore vs. George W. Bush
Adams vs.Jackson
Hayes vs. Tilden
Harrison vs. Cleveland


Nothing "shady"

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Nothing "shady" about the Bush Elections, Brainy?

The number of Bush's votes in some counties in Ohio exceeded the number of registered voters, creating turnout rates as high as 124 percent in Perry county as an example.

Let me reiterate.

124 percent of registered voters voted in several Ohio counties overwhelmingly for Bush. Not only this, but certain urban and heavily democratic areas only showed turnouts as low as 7 percent.

Let me reiterate. SEVEN percent. These 7 percent areas had 40+% turnouts pre-Bush elections and post-Bush elections. The worst turnout ever prior to the Bush elections since those precincts began voting was in the low-to-mid 30 percent. You'll have to pardon my skepticism, but the same population, the same people, and the same geographical demographic don't show up in 40%+ numbers one year, then 4 and 8 years later, only 7% show up...then 12 years later, 40%+ show up again.

Braineack

iTrader: (62)

I'm not that well versed in what happened in FL, but I was pointing out it's not the first time it's happened, the elections I posted shows how the electoral college can disappoint and can prevent mob rule--exactly what it was designed to do. We don't live in a democracy.

also I was wrong yesterday, where I realize we were talking about RP write ins, not him running as a third party guy. I just like to argue and get carried away. Write in RP all you want.

mgeoffriau

iTrader: (7)

Yes, yes, yes, the electoral college works exactly as it was designed -- to prevent major urban population centers on the coasts from dictating policy to the rest of the country. The popular vote is irrelevant.

On that note...I'm curious how many people who either (1) won't vote for Ron Paul because they think they are throwing away their vote, or (2) are telling others that a vote for Ron Paul is a wasted vote, are actually in swing states.

For example, it doesn't matter if I vote for Obama, Ron Paul, Mickey Mouse, or Kim Jong Il in the general election -- Mississippi's electoral votes will go to the GOP candidate.

Scrappy Jack

iTrader: (2)

I'm a registered Republican in Florida, which is a swing state and I am seriously considering not voting in the (closed) primary and undecided on whether I will vote in the presidential election.

gearhead_318

iTrader: (1)

blaen99

iTrader: (6)

Did you just admit to trollin' politics, Brainy?