Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
So? Trump doesn't have the support to win and he is leading one of the two major parties. Should people only run if they know they will win? That seems like a rigged system where candidates are chosen rather than elected.
And it is even more rigged if Trump is throwing the election for Clinton, a longtime ally and even friend after winning the nomination?
The fact is for the most part the options aren't given time on the major outlets. This year is a bit better, but it is still an after thought to the Trump headlines or the outcry on Hillary's lack of charges with her e-mails.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pknopp
We need more choices, not fewer.
I want this but it isn't realistic. It is rare for three parties to last. The only election to my knowledge with four major candidates was 1860 largely due to the split in the Democrat party fearing Lincoln. In reality this split the vote and possibly could have forced a House decision. If anything third parties have turned into spoilers with George Wallace's racist states rights platform in 1968 being the last non R/D candidate to win electoral states.
And I barely have Clinton. Where do I go? What is worse voting against the lesser of two evils or not voting at all? I believe you said not voting is a wasted vote earlier in the thread...
Voting for the lesser of two evils is like trying to decide if it is better to kill a baby in a microwave or stove. They are both bad options. People who think they have only two choices clearly don't understand that that isn't true.
Voting for the lesser of two evils is like trying to decide if it is better to kill a baby in a microwave or stove. They are both bad options. People who think they have only two choices clearly don't understand that that isn't true.
Then I vote for no-one and it's a waste like you stated earlier. Your words, not mine...
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cliftonpdx
So no, I don't consider any vote to be wasted unless you are voting for someone you don't like just to vote for the main two parties.
Then I vote for no-one and it's a waste like you stated earlier. Your words, not mine...
You pick, vote the lesser of two evils or no-one.
Yep, it is a waste of a vote, though does it matter if you think there are only two people to vote between? The point I was making is that there are several different candidates to vote for besides Trump or Hillary.
Even Gary Johnson would be a better choice than those two. People need to educate themselves that there is more to vote for than the lesser of two evils.
Also, elections are more than just who to vote for when it comes to the president. If you don't vote, then you aren't voting for all the other elections and ballot measures. That is why I called not voting a waste of a vote.
Yep, it is a waste of a vote, though does it matter if you think there are only two people to vote between? The point I was making is that there are several different candidates to vote for besides Trump or Hillary.
Even Gary Johnson would be a better choice than those two. People need to educate themselves that there is more to vote for than the lesser of two evils.
Also, elections are more than just who to vote for when it comes to the president. If you don't vote, then you aren't voting for all the other elections and ballot measures. That is why I called not voting a waste of a vote.
About the bold, I have covered Johnson time and time and time and time again in this and other threads about third parties over the past two months. Besides the Fair Tax which to me is a non-starter as it is a tax increase on everyone but the rich who don't need to spend as much, I largely agree with him and this is after seeing both of his CNN town halls. If his running mate Gov. Weld was the nominee was running, I'd vote him. I can't vote Johnson knowing that he wants the Fair Tax to be his ideal taxation option. The Fair Tax is the LAST THING we need as a nation that needs to rebuild economically and create tax revenue to offset our "crushing national debt." I may not agree that it wouldn't exactly be revenue neutral (it is on paper) it is more that it is tax cuts on those that can choose not to spend vs. those that have to spend every penny of their paychecks.
About the bold, I have covered Johnson time and time and time and time again in this and other threads about third parties over the past two months. Besides the Fair Tax which to me is a non-starter as it is a tax increase on everyone but the rich who don't need to spend as much, I largely agree with him and this is after seeing both of his CNN town halls. If his running mate Gov. Weld was the nominee was running, I'd vote him. I can't vote Johnson knowing that he wants the Fair Tax to be his ideal taxation option. The Fair Tax is the LAST THING we need as a nation that needs to rebuild economically and create tax revenue to offset our "crushing national debt." I may not agree that it wouldn't exactly be revenue neutral (it is on paper) it is more that it is tax cuts on those that can choose not to spend vs. those that have to spend every penny of their paychecks.
Then vote for whomever you want, just don't tell me who I should and shouldn't vote for.
Yep, it is a waste of a vote, though does it matter if you think there are only two people to vote between? The point I was making is that there are several different candidates to vote for besides Trump or Hillary.
Even Gary Johnson would be a better choice than those two. People need to educate themselves that there is more to vote for than the lesser of two evils.
Also, elections are more than just who to vote for when it comes to the president. If you don't vote, then you aren't voting for all the other elections and ballot measures. That is why I called not voting a waste of a vote.
Well, that is only if you agree with Gary Johnson. His 'Fair Tax' would be a disaster unless you are very wealthy.
I respect your opinion but not everyone is going to agree.
Same with Stein - who is pretty far out there herself. Certainly not going to appeal to most people who are, indeed, Centrists of either the right or left.
Well, that is only if you agree with Gary Johnson. His 'Fair Tax' would be a disaster unless you are very wealthy.
I respect your opinion but not everyone is going to agree.
Same with Stein - who is pretty far out there herself. Certainly not going to appeal to most people who are, indeed, Centrists of either the right or left.
Vote for whomever you want, just don't act like you don't know why people don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump.
Vote for whomever you want, just don't act like you don't know why people don't want to vote for Clinton or Trump.
Right back atcha with regard to why people won't be voting for Johnson or Stein.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Your words, not mine... 
