Because I’m just hearing the same stuff from the same two people.
Wow…I haven’t heard of EITHER of them!
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 …
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?
Since this is a matter of opinion, let’s move this over to IMHO.
General Questions Moderator
I wasn’t sure if it was GQ or elections, I flipped a coin.
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.
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.
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.
There’s a second candidate?
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.
Oops, I meant runoff voting.
And it’s time we heard something different from a third person, exactly like we do every four years.
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?)
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 :smack: ) 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?
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.
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.