So who's Presidential Candidate #3?

[Gary_T]

@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]

@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]

@Shalmanese

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

@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]

@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]

@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, post:22, topic:628995”]

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, post:22, topic:628995”]

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]

@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.