Gallup Poll: 52% of Republicans Want Third Party

I think we need to do away with the electoral college and go to a total vote election.
The electoral college only serves to strip votes from individuals, in some states the votes being discounted are democrat, in others its the republicans.

As it stands....the electoral college is the best solution. Too many states would not be represented if it came to a total vote election. Candidates would just stick with the heavily populated states. States like Wy, Id, and the Dakota's would never be represented

That is a valid way of looking at it. There are more important issues to ponder.
Tell that to the people in low populated states. :cuckoo:
Not a good post by you PFT
 
Why should 1 person in Wyoming be better represented than 2 in New York?

Better represented? How about 1 person in Wy. be equally represented to 1 person in NY?
The needs of a person in Wy. are far different than the needs of a person in NY.
Someone slept through their Government class in Junior High.

Unless it was a public school, then it explains why he doesn't get it.

The Electoral College - Concerns

"For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of 493,782 and Texas has 32 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. By dividing the population by Electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has an "Elector" for every 165,000 people and Texas has an "Elector" for every 652,000 people. "

I agree this is junior high education type of stuff, let me know when you or Meister need help with your algebra homework.
 
Better represented? How about 1 person in Wy. be equally represented to 1 person in NY?
The needs of a person in Wy. are far different than the needs of a person in NY.
Someone slept through their Government class in Junior High.

Unless it was a public school, then it explains why he doesn't get it.

The Electoral College - Concerns

"For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of 493,782 and Texas has 32 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. By dividing the population by Electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has an "Elector" for every 165,000 people and Texas has an "Elector" for every 652,000 people. "

I agree this is junior high education type of stuff, let me know when you or Meister need help with your algebra homework.

Get rid of the electoral college and Wy. has ZERO representation at the ballot box. I guess the word "disfranchise" would be okay at that point in time, huh?

Like I said.....the needs of a person in Wy. is far different than the needs of a person in NY.
 
That would be a dream come true. I continue to have hope that it will happen one day, but one of the big problems is the Electoral College. Ross Perot, for example, got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and zero Electoral votes. That's just sad. And, of course, most Americans seem to be programmed to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' which makes America look stupid.


I think we need to do away with the electoral college and go to a total vote election.
The electoral college only serves to strip votes from individuals, in some states the votes being discounted are democrat, in others its the republicans.

As it stands....the electoral college is the best solution. Too many states would not be represented if it came to a total vote election. Candidates would just stick with the heavily populated states. States like Wy, Id, and the Dakota's would never be represented
The electoral college does exactly what it is supposed to do, in exactly the way it is supposed to do it. There's no sound reason to abolish it.
 
I think we need to do away with the electoral college and go to a total vote election.
The electoral college only serves to strip votes from individuals, in some states the votes being discounted are democrat, in others its the republicans.

As it stands....the electoral college is the best solution. Too many states would not be represented if it came to a total vote election. Candidates would just stick with the heavily populated states. States like Wy, Id, and the Dakota's would never be represented
Why should 1 person in Wyoming be better represented than 2 in New York?
In terms of electing the President?
No one is represented, and thus, everyone is represtented equally.
 
Someone slept through their Government class in Junior High.

Unless it was a public school, then it explains why he doesn't get it.

The Electoral College - Concerns

"For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of 493,782 and Texas has 32 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. By dividing the population by Electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has an "Elector" for every 165,000 people and Texas has an "Elector" for every 652,000 people. "

I agree this is junior high education type of stuff, let me know when you or Meister need help with your algebra homework.

Get rid of the electoral college and Wy. has ZERO representation at the ballot box. I guess the word "disfranchise" would be okay at that point in time, huh?

Like I said.....the needs of a person in Wy. is far different than the needs of a person in NY.

As long as we're in agreement that a person in Wyoming is better represented than 2 New Yorkers than all is well, that was my whole original point.
 
The Electoral College - Concerns

"For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of 493,782 and Texas has 32 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. By dividing the population by Electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has an "Elector" for every 165,000 people and Texas has an "Elector" for every 652,000 people. "

I agree this is junior high education type of stuff, let me know when you or Meister need help with your algebra homework.

Get rid of the electoral college and Wy. has ZERO representation at the ballot box. I guess the word "disfranchise" would be okay at that point in time, huh?

Like I said.....the needs of a person in Wy. is far different than the needs of a person in NY.

As long as we're in agreement that a person in Wyoming is better represented than 2 New Yorkers than all is well, that was my whole original point.

I never said it was perfect....but it is better than a popular vote method. At least, every state has some representation. Wy. has 3, Ca. has 55, and NY has 31. Yes it seems very fair to me.
 
The Electoral College - Concerns

"For instance, each individual vote in Wyoming counts nearly four times as much in the Electoral College as each individual vote in Texas. This is because Wyoming has 3 Electoral votes for a population of 493,782 and Texas has 32 Electoral votes for a population of over 20 million people. By dividing the population by Electoral votes, we can see that Wyoming has an "Elector" for every 165,000 people and Texas has an "Elector" for every 652,000 people. "

I agree this is junior high education type of stuff, let me know when you or Meister need help with your algebra homework.

Get rid of the electoral college and Wy. has ZERO representation at the ballot box. I guess the word "disfranchise" would be okay at that point in time, huh?

Like I said.....the needs of a person in Wy. is far different than the needs of a person in NY.

As long as we're in agreement that a person in Wyoming is better represented than 2 New Yorkers than all is well, that was my whole original point.
We're not. The person in WY is protected from the more populous states by the electoral college so power doesn't congregate in the five biggest and the rest of us are just along for the ride.

You can play semantics all you want, but it is a check and balance on the runaway power of populism. That is why a direct vote total is not a good idea and why our founding fathers were smart enough to include it. A landslide in one state does not obfuscate the votes of a less populous state where that person barely lost.
 
Last edited:
As it stands....the electoral college is the best solution. Too many states would not be represented if it came to a total vote election. Candidates would just stick with the heavily populated states. States like Wy, Id, and the Dakota's would never be represented

That is a valid way of looking at it. There are more important issues to ponder.
Tell that to the people in low populated states. :cuckoo:
Not a good post by you PFT

I don't see the electoral college as a problem. There are valid arguments in its favor.

I see the corporate media as one of the major problems. They pimp the Republicrats throwing in some meaningless wedge issues like gay marriage to make people believe they have a choice. On the important issues the Repubs and the Dems are virtually identical. I would consider major party candidate like Paul and Kucinich third party because they are outside the box.

All third party candidates are ignored or slimed be the corporate media. The important issues are never brought to front.
 
More than half of Republicans – 52 percent – say there should be a third political party, a new Gallup Poll says. The poll, released Monday, also found that 33 percent of Democrats want a third party. Gallup said it’s the first time its polls have found a significantly larger number of Republicans than Democrats favoring a third party.

Gallup Poll: 52% of Republicans Want Third Party

I hate to break it to people, but we've had more than 2 parties for a looooooong time. The issue you run into is that those 52% of Repubs and the 33% of Dems can't agree on what kind of party they would want to form. There is already a whole variety to pick from and no one seems to be running to them.
 
More than half of Republicans – 52 percent – say there should be a third political party, a new Gallup Poll says. The poll, released Monday, also found that 33 percent of Democrats want a third party. Gallup said it’s the first time its polls have found a significantly larger number of Republicans than Democrats favoring a third party.

Gallup Poll: 52% of Republicans Want Third Party

I hate to break it to people, but we've had more than 2 parties for a looooooong time. The issue you run into is that those 52% of Repubs and the 33% of Dems can't agree on what kind of party they would want to form. There is already a whole variety to pick from and no one seems to be running to them.
The last time more than 2 parties were VIABLE for the presidency was 1860.
 
That is a valid way of looking at it. There are more important issues to ponder.
Tell that to the people in low populated states. :cuckoo:
Not a good post by you PFT

I don't see the electoral college as a problem. There are valid arguments in its favor.

I see the corporate media as one of the major problems. They pimp the Republicrats throwing in some meaningless wedge issues like gay marriage to make people believe they have a choice. On the important issues the Repubs and the Dems are virtually identical. I would consider major party candidate like Paul and Kucinich third party because they are outside the box.

All third party candidates are ignored or slimed be the corporate media. The important issues are never brought to front.
And the whining from special interest groups like the teachers, and medicare/aid pimps aren't doing the same thing with 527 and union money?

Puhleese!
 
More than half of Republicans – 52 percent – say there should be a third political party, a new Gallup Poll says. The poll, released Monday, also found that 33 percent of Democrats want a third party. Gallup said it’s the first time its polls have found a significantly larger number of Republicans than Democrats favoring a third party.

Gallup Poll: 52% of Republicans Want Third Party

I hate to break it to people, but we've had more than 2 parties for a looooooong time. The issue you run into is that those 52% of Repubs and the 33% of Dems can't agree on what kind of party they would want to form. There is already a whole variety to pick from and no one seems to be running to them.
The last time more than 2 parties were VIABLE for the presidency was 1860.

Well, we weren't talking viability. We were talking about the desire for a third party and there are many to already choose from.
 
Tell that to the people in low populated states. :cuckoo:
Not a good post by you PFT

I don't see the electoral college as a problem. There are valid arguments in its favor.

I see the corporate media as one of the major problems. They pimp the Republicrats throwing in some meaningless wedge issues like gay marriage to make people believe they have a choice. On the important issues the Repubs and the Dems are virtually identical. I would consider major party candidate like Paul and Kucinich third party because they are outside the box.

All third party candidates are ignored or slimed be the corporate media. The important issues are never brought to front.
And the whining from special interest groups like the teachers, and medicare/aid pimps aren't doing the same thing with 527 and union money?

Puhleese!

Drop in the bucket compared to corporate money. Also, the corporate media determines who gets all the face time in the news. No amount of money can buy that amount of face time.
 
I don't see the electoral college as a problem. There are valid arguments in its favor.

I see the corporate media as one of the major problems. They pimp the Republicrats throwing in some meaningless wedge issues like gay marriage to make people believe they have a choice. On the important issues the Repubs and the Dems are virtually identical. I would consider major party candidate like Paul and Kucinich third party because they are outside the box.

All third party candidates are ignored or slimed be the corporate media. The important issues are never brought to front.
And the whining from special interest groups like the teachers, and medicare/aid pimps aren't doing the same thing with 527 and union money?

Puhleese!

Drop in the bucket compared to corporate money. Also, the corporate media determines who gets all the face time in the news. No amount of money can buy that amount of face time.

I watched one debate last election and that was all I needed. It was the republican debate on CNN with McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul. Romney and McCain got double the coverage and questions that the other 2 got as they were the "chosen ones."

I also did see a clip of Fox News post-coverage of their debate and all they did was mock and downplay their very own poll. Why? Because the results said Ron Paul won the debate, not one of their chosen ones.
 
Last edited:
More than half of Republicans – 52 percent – say there should be a third political party, a new Gallup Poll says. The poll, released Monday, also found that 33 percent of Democrats want a third party. Gallup said it’s the first time its polls have found a significantly larger number of Republicans than Democrats favoring a third party.

Gallup Poll: 52% of Republicans Want Third Party

That would be a dream come true. I continue to have hope that it will happen one day, but one of the big problems is the Electoral College. Ross Perot, for example, got 19% of the popular vote in 1992 and zero Electoral votes. That's just sad. And, of course, most Americans seem to be programmed to vote for the 'lesser of two evils' which makes America look stupid.
like wonky pundint, the political noob
 
And the whining from special interest groups like the teachers, and medicare/aid pimps aren't doing the same thing with 527 and union money?

Puhleese!

Drop in the bucket compared to corporate money. Also, the corporate media determines who gets all the face time in the news. No amount of money can buy that amount of face time.

I watched one debate last election and that was all I needed. It was the republican debate on CNN with McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul. Romney and McCain got double the coverange and questions that the other 2 got as they were the "chosen ones."

I also did see a clip of Fox News post-coverage of their debate and all they did was mock and downplay their very own poll. Why? Because the results said Ron Paul won the debate, not one of their chosen ones.

There was a poll in the Atlanta newspaper that favored McKinney. That disappeared in a hurry.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2DGfXA8DlE]YouTube - ABC News Censors Dennis Kucinich[/ame]
 
And the whining from special interest groups like the teachers, and medicare/aid pimps aren't doing the same thing with 527 and union money?

Puhleese!

Drop in the bucket compared to corporate money. Also, the corporate media determines who gets all the face time in the news. No amount of money can buy that amount of face time.

I watched one debate last election and that was all I needed. It was the republican debate on CNN with McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul. Romney and McCain got double the coverage and questions that the other 2 got as they were the "chosen ones."

I also did see a clip of Fox News post-coverage of their debate and all they did was mock and downplay their very own poll. Why? Because the results said Ron Paul won the debate, not one of their chosen ones.
So if that much corporate cash was already in campaigns, why the hue and cry over Citizens United? it was already happening.

Whoopsie! stepped in it again, didn't we?
 
Drop in the bucket compared to corporate money. Also, the corporate media determines who gets all the face time in the news. No amount of money can buy that amount of face time.

I watched one debate last election and that was all I needed. It was the republican debate on CNN with McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul. Romney and McCain got double the coverange and questions that the other 2 got as they were the "chosen ones."

I also did see a clip of Fox News post-coverage of their debate and all they did was mock and downplay their very own poll. Why? Because the results said Ron Paul won the debate, not one of their chosen ones.

There was a poll in the Atlanta newspaper that favored McKinney. That disappeared in a hurry.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=L2DGfXA8DlE]YouTube - ABC News Censors Dennis Kucinich[/ame]

Lol absolutely amazing, all you can do is laugh.
 
Drop in the bucket compared to corporate money. Also, the corporate media determines who gets all the face time in the news. No amount of money can buy that amount of face time.

I watched one debate last election and that was all I needed. It was the republican debate on CNN with McCain, Romney, Huckabee and Paul. Romney and McCain got double the coverage and questions that the other 2 got as they were the "chosen ones."

I also did see a clip of Fox News post-coverage of their debate and all they did was mock and downplay their very own poll. Why? Because the results said Ron Paul won the debate, not one of their chosen ones.
So if that much corporate cash was already in campaigns, why the hue and cry over Citizens United? it was already happening.

Whoopsie! stepped in it again, didn't we?

Who cried over Citizens United?

This isn't a partisan thing as Tinmore illustrated, both sides have their chosen ones and all media will push those particular candidates.

Government wants politicians who are bought off and will play ball to continue the status quo.
 

Forum List

Back
Top