Cecilie1200
Diamond Member
A lot of you are too vested in "winning" to care about other ballot choices. So you might falsely believe in the "wasted vote" theory or just not understand the NEED for more ballot choice. If what you define as "winning" is encouraging and rewarding the bad choices the DEM/REP present -- then YOU and Charlie Sheen have the same definition of "winning"..
So can all that 3rd party noise. What about a "NONE OF THE ABOVE" as your 3rd choice? If NOTA wins enough electoral votes to throw it into the House --- or win outright --- then the Parties have to present a 2nd choice of candidates and have a National do-over. Might have to move up the Nov. election, might have to change some laws, might have to do a LOT of things to get this as an option. But nobody is speaking the obvious plain truth in America yet. We have a National Crisis -- because of blind allegiance to "party" and "winning".
Would you like to have the choice to reject ALL the choices on the ballot?
Sounds kind of . . . like something that would never happen. What happens in the meantime, Obama remains POTUS? Yikes.
Well, your plan would let the morons in the House of Representatives decide, so . . .
That's a possibility in THIS election. If 3rd parties get even 29 electoral votes, then ClinTrump has to win by 30 or it goes to the House. Want me list 29 possible electoral votes for Johnson/Weld?
And your comment about leaving Obama in office while it's sorted is not possible. It's a date certain for resolving the transition. The General just has to be moved up. Primaries shouldn't take 3 months anyway..
"Shouldn't"? Why "shouldn't" they? Because you think political candidates need LESS vetting? Because choosing a President isn't deserving of our time and attention, and should be done on the fly?
You must be one of those people who think that the current level of media coverage and the reality shows now known as "debates" are informative. You can do more in 1 hour than the media can do FOR you in months.
Find some candidates that ACTUALLY ANSWER QUESTIONS. Will take a lot less time..
Blah blah yada yada "You don't agree with me, so you OBVIOUSLY think THIS!"
You must be one of those people who think the media still has a stranglehold on the supply of information in this country.
Welcome to the Internet Age.
Meanwhile, absolutely nothing you've said has anything to do with my criticism of your asinine "Let's make elections longer, more complicated, and less informed" suggestion. Big surprise. Primaries and general elections take as long as they do to give people - whoever they are - time to research the candidates, and also gives the voters time to see them and get to know them through a variety of settings and against the backdrop of a variety of current events, and also to observe how they handle themselves under prolonged stress and pressure. The last thing we need is to shorten the procedure simply because you're bored and want instant gratification of some sort.