A vote for a third party candidate is a vote for the party you dissagree with most.

[The T]

Both parties are and have been spreading their versions of welfare to the detriment of the country and now we're broke. Screw 'em.

Yep. The people have been loading the Republicans up with Tea Party folks to get them back on track toward the Founders.

 

[Againsheila]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

The dems and the reps are the two most corrupt parties in the history of our nation. A vote for either one of them is a vote the the continued decline and imminent destruction of our nation.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Sheila until a viable 3rd party platform is put together to function year round, rather than last minute candidates thats what we got.

 

[Avorysuds]

Don't tell us our candidates (the people we like) are fucking crazys then try and blame us when we don't support your big Government big spending candidates Gramps. Just because Mitt/Perry have a weak base to support them it's not our fault, you helped run everyone off that wanted a candidate with a history/record of being conservative when you made it all about beating Obama rather than leading the country.

 

[Avorysuds]

Both parties are and have been spreading their versions of welfare to the detriment of the country and now we're broke. Screw 'em.

Yep. The people have been loading the Republicans up with Tea Party folks to get them back on track toward the Founders.

I donlt think Perry or Mitt fit the Tea Party/ Founders ideals.

 

[Bern80]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

What an absolute load of horsehit. I am so fucking tired of this idiotic notion that your vote is wasted if you don't vote for the candidate of one of the two established parties. I would much rather live with myself knowing I adhered to my principles rather than voted for what only amounts to voting for the candidate I dislike the least. Voting for someone because he isn't the other guy is about as stupid a vote as someone can make. Maybe you ought to consider whether the fact that that is what most people do anyway is really part of the problem.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Don't tell us our candidates (the people we like) are fucking crazys then try and blame us when we don't support your big Government big spending candidates Gramps. Just because Mitt/Perry have a weak base to support them it's not our fault, you helped run everyone off that wanted a candidate with a history/record of being conservative when you made it all about beating Obama rather than leading the country.

Is this supposed to be your deep thought? Your analytical skills at work? You know the very thing you constantly accuse me of lacking?

Ron Paul is flailing in the polls so it must be my fault? lol

GET REAL

ps. I havent formed a decision on who I support yet. Cain is leading the pack for me right now. But since you say he is a big spender I guess I may lose support for him..........

 

[JWBooth]

I have seen the light! I SHALL reward one of the two major parties with my mindlessly cast ballot. I SHALL eat the shit sandwich one more time because it has been handed to my by an evil of two lessers who promises to screw me economically just not as badly as other guys, and I WILL like it. I SHALL believe yet another lying asshole and hand over my integrity and my vote as he promises to take the scenic route to hell as opposed to his opponent who I am assured will take the freeway.

BULLSHIT!

1. Just because some empty suit has a R or D behind my name doesn't mean that myself or anyone else is obligated to hand over our franchise.
2. Even the most elementary level of knowledge as to how presidential elections work casts light on this fallacy. The Electoral College chooses the potus, not the popular vote. All studies, left, right, by both parties, and objective, have shown that the little hand grenade with ears did not hand the election over to Bill Clinton. George Bush lost that election and nothing could have saved him.
3. Any vote cast for any candidate who does not win is by definition a loser.

Now fuck off you silly assed knuckle dragging little know nothings that know less about how this shit works than an Arabian camel herder. One of these fucksticks is going to have to EARN my vote. I have no obligation to hand it over to anyone at anytime. If that doesn't fit into your equation, tough shit.
If your parties candidate cannot convince enough voters to cast ballots for him, that's his problem and yours for putting a loser up as your man.

As if there is a nickles bit of difference between the majors anyway.

​

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

What an absolute load of horsehit. I am so fucking tired of this idiotic notion that your vote is wasted if you don't vote for the candidate of one of the two established parties. I would much rather live with myself knowing I adhered to my principles rather than voted for what only amounts to voting for the candidate I dislike the least. Voting for someone because he isn't the other guy is about as stupid a vote as someone can make. Maybe you ought to consider whether the fact that that is what most people do anyway is really part of the problem.

I see validity in your argument. I dont however see any validity in a 3rd party candidate winning. I voted 3rd party once

You have no base with which you can mount an effective challenge to the other two parties. Until then I BELIEVE its a waste

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

I have seen the light! I SHALL reward one of the two major parties with my mindlessly cast ballot. I SHALL eat the shit sandwich one more time because it has been handed to my by an evil of two lessers who promises to screw me economically just not as badly as other guys, and I WILL like it. I SHALL believe yet another lying asshole and hand over my integrity and my vote as he promises to take the scenic route to hell as opposed to his opponent who I am assured will take the freeway.

BULLSHIT!

1. Just because some empty suit has a R or D behind my name doesn't mean that myself or anyone else is obligated to hand over our franchise.
2. Even the most elementary level of knowledge as to how presidential elections work casts light on this fallacy. The Electoral College chooses the potus, not the popular vote. All studies, left, right, by both parties, and objective, have shown that the little hand grenade with ears did not hand the election over to Bill Clinton. George Bush lost that election and nothing could have saved him.

Now fuck off you silly assed knuckle dragging little know nothings that know less about how this shit works than an Arabian camel herder. One of these fucksticks is going to have to EARN my vote. I have no obligation to hand it over to anyone at anytime. If that doesn't fit into your equation, tough shit.
If your parties candidate cannot convince enough voters to cast ballots for him, that's his problem and yours for putting a loser up as your man.

As if there is a nickles bit of difference between the majors anyway.

​

You have no money, no platform, no mic, no base, minimal support, hell you dont even have a candidate, yet everyone else out there RIGHT NOW is sucking up all the money and support, YOU DO HAVE NO CHANCE

You do however have, obnoxiously large print that screams "GIVE ME ATTENTION NOW!"

 

[WatertheTree]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

Hey Libby, I thought I would just let Ron Paul respond to this one.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ_Z_XG0L2c&feature=player_detailpage]Ron Paul---Actual Republican - YouTube[/ame]

Ron Paul has more electability in his pinky finger then the rest of the parties combined.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Ross Perot was the last viable candidate to run as a third party candidate. Prior to temporarily dropping out of the race he held a lead over Bush and Clinton. Some speculate that had he not dropped out for those 4 months he could have maintained his lead and he may have won the presidency. He finished with 19% of the vote.

The point is he had a lead nationally. The last person to command that kind of following was Roosevelt in 1912. No current candidate is even close to those kinds of numbers.

While your passion for your 3rd party candidate may be admirable, admiration does not elect a president nor does it have an effect on policy. I have heard many of you state that Ron Paul has had an impact on the national debate about our economic situation by being in the race. I beg to differ........... The debate is focused where it is because the last two presidents spent us into oblivion and we are now reaping the rewards of such foolish spending. In other words when your broke you dont need your banker to point out the obvious. Did Ron Paul predict it? Sure, but so did every other sane person that was informed economically. Including Perot in 1992.

Now to our current situation....
We have two parties with two different ideas about our current situation. Then we have what will innevitably be, several 3rd party entries that will try to maximize their chances by playing on the Americans general displeasure with the current crop of choices.

Voting 3rd party used to be considered the protest vote. Well now the stakes are so high that, that idea is more idiotic than what either party is proposing to do. THE 3RD PARTY CAN NOT WIN THE PRESIDENCY. Therefore you are simply throwing your vote to whichever party happens to have the least in common with the 3rd party candidate. So lets say Paul gets in, your essentially voting for Obama. Or if someone close to democratic principles gets in, your voting for the GOP. All you accomplish is a devided vote for the party who has the most in common with your beliefs. Its counter productive to your desires and needs as a politically involved individual.

All change in our system starts at the bottom and grows. It doesnt suddenly appear in the form of a 3rd party candidicy. If you want change you have to get involved. Goto town halls, email leaders, volunteer for the party that has the closest values to yours. Change actually starts on the congressional level not the presidential. As proven by Obama and his promises for change. Nothing has changed, we are still deadlocked over ideals, full of partisanship and our economy is as bad or worse off now than it was. The people voted for change with Obama and when he didnt deliver they voted for change in the midterms.

Political leaders want to keep their jobs. If you hold them to account then you can make a difference. If everyone that WASTED their vote on a candidate that couldnt win actually got involved with their elected leaders who currently represent them, they would have a much better chance at having their voice heard and acted upon. The Tea Party is proof of this, regardless if you agree or not, they are the voices of the people they represent. Your voice cant be heard if the one your voting for holds no office with the power to effect change.

No one party can hold all of your beliefs. You all cry for and demand comprimise yet you dont display that very ability when you vote saying, "well they stand for this one or two ideals so I cant support them". Where is the comprimise in that?

LEFT OR RIGHT LEANING, DONT BE A FOOL AND VOTE FOR SOMEONE WHO HAS NO CHANCE TO SUPPORT YOUR IDEALS WITH ACTUAL ACTIONS THAT HAVE AN IMPACT BECAUSE THEY CANT WIN........

Hey Libby, I thought I would just let Ron Paul respond to this one.
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pZ_Z_XG0L2c&feature=player_detailpage]Ron Paul---Actual Republican - YouTube[/ame]

Ron Paul has more electability in his pinky finger then the rest of the parties combined.

I was under the impression Paul was running as a republican and not a 3rd party candidate. Did I miss something? Or did you just go way off topic for the hell of it?

 

[Avorysuds]

Don't tell us our candidates (the people we like) are fucking crazys then try and blame us when we don't support your big Government big spending candidates Gramps. Just because Mitt/Perry have a weak base to support them it's not our fault, you helped run everyone off that wanted a candidate with a history/record of being conservative when you made it all about beating Obama rather than leading the country.

Is this supposed to be your deep thought? Your analytical skills at work? You know the very thing you constantly accuse me of lacking?

Ron Paul is flailing in the polls so it must be my fault? lol

GET REAL

ps. I havent formed a decision on who I support yet. Cain is leading the pack for me right now. But since you say he is a big spender I guess I may lose support for him..........

Like I said, you attack people that won't vote R due the GOP putting up a crap candidates, maybe you/GOP shouldn't attack the candidates people like, it pushes them away.

LOL, Cain............ LOOOOOLOLOLz. What's his foreign policy again? HC policy? Or will he get back to us after he reads the latest poll on what conservatives want to hear.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Don't tell us our candidates (the people we like) are fucking crazys then try and blame us when we don't support your big Government big spending candidates Gramps. Just because Mitt/Perry have a weak base to support them it's not our fault, you helped run everyone off that wanted a candidate with a history/record of being conservative when you made it all about beating Obama rather than leading the country.

Is this supposed to be your deep thought? Your analytical skills at work? You know the very thing you constantly accuse me of lacking?

Ron Paul is flailing in the polls so it must be my fault? lol

GET REAL

ps. I havent formed a decision on who I support yet. Cain is leading the pack for me right now. But since you say he is a big spender I guess I may lose support for him..........

Like I said, you attack people that won't vote R due the GOP putting up a crap candidates, maybe you/GOP shouldn't attack the candidates people like, it pushes them away.

LOL, Cain............ LOOOOOLOLOLz. What's his foreign policy again? HC policy? Or will he get back to us after he reads the latest poll on what conservatives want to hear.

I havent attacked anyone. I gave an opinion that you dont like pure and simple.
You got nothing but personal attacks. Your a shallow fake.

Cain has been criticized for several positions including 9-9-9, Perry's racist rock, his comments about surrounding himself with advisors that can help him in areas he is lacking, his stance on being gay is a choice, his stance on blacks being brainwashed. ALONG WITH MANY OTHER ISSUES AND GUESS WHAT?
His finger didnt go up to see which way the wind was blowing. Hardly the low moral value flip flopper you describe.

Like I said you have no substance, just shit you make up on the fly. Crawl back under your bridge troll.

 

[Inthemiddle]

You fools? I dont get it........ Your as big a player in the nomination process as everyone else.

Here's the problem with your entire hypothesis. Your arguments, in support of the Dem/Repub false dichotomy, presume there is some kind of necessity for people to accept that dichotomy in the first place, by being part of one or the other party. Nomination is done by the parties and their registered members. Those of us who are independents, or who are members of other parties, cannot partake in the nomination process of the GOP or Democrats. You're making a circular argument.

 

[Inthemiddle]

I see validity in your argument. I dont however see any validity in a 3rd party candidate winning. I voted 3rd party once

You have no base with which you can mount an effective challenge to the other two parties. Until then I BELIEVE its a waste

Sounds to me like the real problem, then, is the fact that any third party or independent option is hopelessly held back from a real shot because they're up against mega money machines with which to fuel comparatively dominating campaigns. I dunno, maybe the solution is massive campaign finance reforms that are effective in taking the money out of politics.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

You fools? I dont get it........ Your as big a player in the nomination process as everyone else.

Here's the problem with your entire hypothesis. Your arguments, in support of the Dem/Repub false dichotomy, presume there is some kind of necessity for people to accept that dichotomy in the first place, by being part of one or the other party. Nomination is done by the parties and their registered members. Those of us who are independents, or who are members of other parties, cannot partake in the nomination process of the GOP or Democrats. You're making a circular argument.

That quote is taken out of context. You left out everything else to support it.

If your state prohibits you from participating in the primaries then you have an issue to take up with your local leaders. Every state has its own set of rules regarding elections and who is allowed to participate. Many states do not have such restrictions and those that do you could easily circumvent by registering prior to the primaries.

 

[Harry Dresden]

Sheila until a viable 3rd party platform is put together to function year round, rather than last minute candidates thats what we got.

and as long as people have this attitude that they dont matter......we are never going to get them there....

 

[Inthemiddle]

That quote is taken out of context. You left out everything else to support it.

If your state prohibits you from participating in the primaries then you have an issue to take up with your local leaders. Every state has its own set of rules regarding elections and who is allowed to participate. Many states do not have such restrictions and those that do you could easily circumvent by registering prior to the primaries.

What do you mean out of context? This reply makes me wonder if you even have any idea what you're talking about in the first place. EVERY STATE requires that you belong to a party in order to participate in its primary. THAT'S WHAT A PRIMARY IS! It's the party selecting its candidate.

And your suggestion that people should register for a party just to be part of the primaries is nothing more than repeating the flaw of your entire argument. Your hypothesis demands that people choose to belong to one or the other party, which would BY NECESSITY make your conclusion true BECAUSE IT'S THE SAME AS YOUR PREMISE.

 

[Meister]

Sheila until a viable 3rd party platform is put together to function year round, rather than last minute candidates thats what we got.

and as long as people have this attitude that they dont matter......we are never going to get them there....

What is, is, Harry. When was the last time a third party took the presidency? It's not going to change. 15-20% max is what what a third party will get realistcally. That's just enough to get the other party elected.
I may not like it, but that's the way it is, I'll go with one of the two big parties that has the ideology closest to mine.