So who's Presidential Candidate #3?

[Unintentionally Blank]

Because I'm just hearing the same stuff from the same two people.

[Larry Borgia]

Gary Johnson

Jill Stein

three and four.

[Unintentionally Blank]

Wow...I haven't heard of EITHER of them!

[t-bonham@scc.net]

Originally Posted by Unintentionally Blank

Because I'm just hearing the same stuff from the same two people.

Tough! Those are your choices.

If you want your vote to matter, that is. If you just want to satisfy your ego by 'making a point', feel free to throw your vote away on one of the other meaningless candidates.

If you can't see significant differences between the 2 major candidates, then ...

[Unintentionally Blank]

How about I want a bigger group of people to choose from? We have Coke, and Pepsi. I want RC Cola and Sprite. You have two parties that spend HUNDREDS OF MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to win. That means, each year, the stakes get higher, and the stupid amounts of money spent get higher, and the pre-selection is still two candidates.

How bout I take that wonderful 'if you want your vote to matter' crap and turn it on it's head. The folks that DON'T vote for the top two are saying 'we're tired of only having two options.'

Because, hey, if I just vote for obama, I'm offset by two midwest conservative Fox News watchers and what's the point of that?

[Colibri]

Since this is a matter of opinion, let's move this over to IMHO.

Colibri
General Questions Moderator

[Unintentionally Blank]

I wasn't sure if it was GQ or elections, I flipped a coin.

[foolsguinea]

Yeah, when we get rid of the Electoral College, we should go to Instant Runoff as well. And have a national standard for counting, none of this no-paper-trail stuff. Then you can rank your choices, and third parties don't have to be discarded for tactical reasons.

[septimus]

The U.S. has a Presidential system.

Assuming, for simplicity, that political views are one-dimensional and that the median voter is at 5, which makes more sense: to have a 4 and a 6 as the two finalists, or a 1 and a 9? (Hint: would it be effective for the U.S. to oscillate between 1 and 9 every four years?)

The idea of choosing between two candidates who are both near the center makes sense in a Presidential system and has worked well for America. Despite the shrill rhetoric, even Obama and Romney may not be too dissimilar in the policies that would result. Consider for example that Obamacare is based on Romneycare.

Now, you may feel that the median political view I'm calling "5" is a bad view. I might agree. But you don't address that in a general Presidential election -- you address that at an earlier lower level, e.g. by supporting OWS or Tea Party.

[madmonk28]

Are you sure that the two candidates are saying the same thing? Can you give some examples, because the choice seems pretty stark to me.

[Taomist]

There's a second candidate?

[Shalmanese]

First past the post systems are only at a stable equilibrium with two candidates. Any 3rd party candidate will split the vote with the candidate they are closest to in position, resulting in a counter-productive loss. If you want a choice of more than 2 candidates, advocate for a form of proportional representation.

[Lord Feldon]

Originally Posted by Shalmanese

First past the post systems are only at a stable equilibrium with two candidates. Any 3rd party candidate will split the vote with the candidate they are closest to in position, resulting in a counter-productive loss. If you want a choice of more than 2 candidates, advocate for a form of proportional representation.

It's impossible for the president to be elected proportionally unless King Solomon is involved.

[Shalmanese]

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

It's impossible for the president to be elected proportionally unless King Solomon is involved.

Oops, I meant runoff voting.

[Smapti]

Originally Posted by Unintentionally Blank

Because I'm just hearing the same stuff from the same two people.

And it's time we heard something different from a third person, exactly like we do every four years.

Right?

[Ca3799]

Well, Romney hasn't been nominated as the official candidate yet, so you may still get another choice.

[Unintentionally Blank]

Originally Posted by Ca3799

Well, Romney hasn't been nominated as the official candidate yet, so you may still get another choice.

Is that likely?

And by two candidates saying the same thing, I mean the Democrats are saying democrat things, and the Republicans are saying Republican things. There's no Ross Perot or Independent, or Green, or Pirate Party...the questions being: Is the third runner so under funded as to be rendered mute, and is society so dumbed down that all they can handle is choosing Chicken or Beef?

Independents HAVE won local elections (Hulk Hogan?), that indicates it's _possible_ for an electorate to vote a third choice if they don't like the first two.

Lets not even get into philosophy drift, Aren't todays liberals closer in ideology than Republicans of 60 or 70 years ago? (I'd post a cite, but honestly, have you EVER tried to google a political concept on google?)

[septimus]

Originally Posted by Unintentionally Blank

...the questions being: Is the third runner so under funded as to be rendered mute, and is society so dumbed down that all they can handle is choosing Chicken or Beef?

Independents HAVE won local elections (Hulk Hogan?), that indicates it's _possible_ for an electorate to vote a third choice if they don't like the first two....

Do you want a third choice because you think he might win, or just for a "feel good" vote? In the former case I'm not sure what to say besides asking if you know that the Presidential election is not a "local election." In the latter case I would remind you, as someone did upthread, that voting for a third candidate will help the candidate you like least, as in 2000 when Green Nader (who wasn't even as "Green" as Gore ) got Bush elected.

As I suggested earlier, there are mechanisms for the disaffected, but Presidential general elections aren't one of them. Do you participate in OWS?

[Electric Warrior]

Originally Posted by t-bonham@scc.net

Tough! Those are your choices.

If you want your vote to matter, that is. If you just want to satisfy your ego by 'making a point', feel free to throw your vote away on one of the other meaningless candidates.

If you can't see significant differences between the 2 major candidates, then ...

Voting for a third candidate isn't just satisfying someone's ego. If enough people place a dissenting vote it shows general dissatisfaction with the system and status quo and makes the people in power more likely to listen up.

In 100% of cases I would prefer an American citizen to vote for a third party candidate than not to vote at all. You can vote for Mickey Mouse for all I care but stop wasting your rights.

[CyclopticXander]

I find that the people complaining that they only have two choices are the same ones who didn't participate in the very long very thorough nominating process which included everything from time consuming advocacy to simply voting in the primary. You had a large diverse slate in who those choices would be. Then for the general election there are those third party choices you didn't even bother to look up.

In the end you are just one person of millions so you may not get your way if you don't have a whole lot of people to agree with you, but you had a say every step along the way. Most people just wake up in time for the general election though and whine about it.

[Gary T]

Originally Posted by Electric Warrior

Voting for a third candidate isn't just satisfying someone's ego. If enough people place a dissenting vote it shows general dissatisfaction with the system and status quo and makes the people in power more likely to listen up.

Practically speaking, that is one of the biggest IFs existent. Blather all you will about how wonderful it would be, the fact is it won't be.

As the old saying goes, "If pigs could fly..."

[Unintentionally Blank]

1. Republicans: Look at the AWFUL economy you have under Obama (ignore how it got that way)
2. Democrats: IF you like what you've seen in Obama, vote him back in.

Really, IMHO, that's the only choice I've got.

I spent a week with my Mother-in-Law who is a staunch party-line Republican, I tried VERY hard not to discuss politics with her, because I knew how it would go....but it's absolutely obvious our views are 180 degrees opposite of each other.

The advertising Romney's been showing has pre-election footage of Clinton because it spins Obama in a negative light. They mention Obamacare, and ignore that 33 attempts to change the legislation have failed. at least they were able to cut themselves off from the worst of the tea party nutjobs.

Election night will tell the tale, but this seems like a one-person election to me....which is why I'd like a third person to choose. Honestly, what if I WANT Pro-Choice, Less Government intervention, less militarization, and fewer 3rd party contractors in Government?

I can't vote for that.

[Gary T]

Originally Posted by Unintentionally Blank

Honestly, what if I WANT Pro-Choice, Less Government intervention, less militarization, and fewer 3rd party contractors in Government?

Then you, like me, are not going to get what you want.

[Der Trihs]

Originally Posted by Shalmanese

If you want a choice of more than 2 candidates, advocate for a form of proportional representation.

Originally Posted by Lord Feldon

It's impossible for the president to be elected proportionally unless King Solomon is involved.

That might be more popular than you would think...

[Peremensoe]

Originally Posted by Shalmanese

First past the post systems are only at a stable equilibrium with two candidates. Any 3rd party candidate will split the vote with the candidate they are closest to in position, resulting in a counter-productive loss.

This may be true when the three candidates' positions can be described as points roughly along the same line. What if a triangular map is more accurate--if voters may be deciding according to multiple axes of agreement?

[Shalmanese]

Originally Posted by Peremensoe

This may be true when the three candidates' positions can be described as points roughly along the same line. What if a triangular map is more accurate--if voters may be deciding according to multiple axes of agreement?

It doesn't matter. All that matters is the similarity metric between pairwise candidates. A three party system is simply not equilibrium stable under first past the post, as soon as one party weakens, it'll be swallowed up by the two remaining parties.

[denquixote]

[quote=Unintentionally Blank;15301009]1. Republicans: Look at the AWFUL economy you have under Obama (ignore how it got that way)
2. Democrats: IF you like what you've seen in Obama, vote him back in.

Really, IMHO, that's the only choice I've got.

Is that an insufficient basis for you to make a decision? If you are so wealthy that the economy itself is irrelevant to you then you might consider the well being of the 15.7 % of the population that is projected to be living in poverty this year or the 41.4% of Americans whose wealth is the equivalent of that possessed by the 6 Walton children.
If you still are undecided, you might remember that the 5 justices voting in favor of Citizens United were all appointed either by Ronald Reagan or by George Bush. Do you agree with Romney that corporations are people? If so and if the next president gets to appoint any justices and you are pro-choice you will be even more unhappy than you are now if it is a Republican because your corporation will probably soon lose the right to terminate a pregnancy.
If you think Obamacare will give rise to death panels or put your healthcare in the hands of the government then you are falling victim to Republican lies.

In any case the answer is Michael Bloomberg.

[denquixote]

[quote=Unintentionally Blank;15301009]1. Republicans: Look at the AWFUL economy you have under Obama (ignore how it got that way)
2. Democrats: IF you like what you've seen in Obama, vote him back in.

Really, IMHO, that's the only choice I've got. "

Is that an insufficient basis for you to make a decision? If you are so wealthy that the economy itself is irrelevant to you then you might consider the well being of the 15.7 % of the population that is projected to be living in poverty this year or the 41.4% of Americans whose wealth is the equivalent of that possessed by the 6 Walton children.
If you still are undecided, you might remember that the 5 justices voting in favor of Citizens United were all appointed either by Ronald Reagan or by George Bush. Do you agree with Romney that corporations are people? If so and if the next president gets to appoint any justices and you are pro-choice you will be even more unhappy than you are now if it is a Republican because your corporation will probably soon lose the right to terminate a pregnancy.
If you think Obamacare will give rise to death panels or put your healthcare in the hands of the government then you are falling victim to Republican lies.

In any case the answer is Michael Bloomberg.

[puddleglum]

Originally Posted by Unintentionally Blank

Election night will tell the tale, but this seems like a one-person election to me....which is why I'd like a third person to choose. Honestly, what if I WANT Pro-Choice, Less Government intervention, less militarization, and fewer 3rd party contractors in Government?

I believe Gary Johnson, the libertarian candidate, is for less government intervention, more abortions, less militarization and I don't know about contractors in government. He may be your best choice if you feel you must vote.