First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
Post Reply Do you think the two party system will fail after this election? (U.S.A)
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/1/16 , edited 11/1/16
My personal opinion is that the two party system was designed to distract people from real issues and as false competitors. They're essentially controlled opposition.

For example, is the national debt and terrible economy a problem? Let's turn this into a who is screwing things up the worst insult-fest, so that no one actually focuses on policy to address these.

Basically, it's misdirection so very few people vote on policy these days.

Also, honestly, nothing will actually happen until we start voting someone else into office (absolutely ANY elected office), every term. It seems like, once someone is office they will continue to automatically get elected until they max out on terms, retire, die, or do something so terrible they have no choice but to resign.

Now what exactly does that have to do with the two party system? Basically, if we started always voting for someone new, it would be harder for the parties to not actually take any productive or different policy. They'd actually have to seek improvement for the US, if they ever hope to get reelected.

But, do I think the two party system will fail? Yes. But, it already has. Though it can be considered beneficial in many ways, it has been failing us for years, in terms of actually doing what is best for the US.

That's my opinion, anyway.
Posted 11/1/16

adairjoseph1973 wrote:


RaisedInACult wrote:

Need free energy before you could ever consider getting rid of money


That's already possible with hydrogen fuel cells (and electrolysis to create more hydrogen fuel from water by using a simple electric current to split water molecules into both oxygen and hydrogen, and which can be done in your own home) and solar cells and wind turbines and steam turbines. You wouldn't need money to purchase the materials if you could find someone willing to barter for them.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cqjn3mup1So

What's truly necessary to live without money is property without annual taxation (aka: paying government rent) and without government regulation on what you can do with your own property. Grow your own food, dig a well for your own clean water supply, use timber from your land to build your own home, barter with neighbors for other necessary resources... Without government regulation anything and everything is possible to opt out of this current system of government enforced slavery. Otherwise, you're just labeled a homeless bum who gets locked up for loitering or trespassing or begging.

And I see the Libertarian party making huge gains due to the Republican party moving further and further away from the spirit of liberty that our Founding Fathers were inspired to build this nation on. The further you get from liberty, the closer you get to a totalitarian type of government where the individual is just another faceless number that keeps the machine turning "for the greater good". It's nothing more than slavery, and both main parties are trending that way (one with a much greater head-start than the other).

People are feeling more and more restless and irritated with the growing intrusion into their lives by government and are starting to push back in an attempt to reclaim a little bit of this lost freedom by being drawn to a candidate who voices their frustrations (whether they're lies or not). The Tea Party was a precursor to this seemingly unexpected rise of Trump, where those who understood where government was leading us was down a path of deeper servitude and lesser freedom stood up and spoke out first.

The Libertarian Party is swelling its ranks with those who are jumping ship from the Republican Party who are waking up to what one of the posters here said a few posts prior, that both parties are just two sides of the same coin and nothing is going to change with either of them running the show.

Those who are behind Bernie are feeling the same restlessness and frustration as those new Libertarians, but they are leaning toward more government control because they view capitalism as being the root cause of inequality and them having to work pointless, nowhere jobs in order to scrape by a living. If the Democratic Party doesn't do something to include these individual's ideals to fit within their party's, then I see a split coming in the near future for their party as well.



yeah that's why my other statement on it focused on ubiquity thereof - hydrogen cells arent going to cut it. solar is making good gains but also cant cut it.

tesla's works were confiscated by the government and classified, some of it concerned free energy.

but since it couldnt be metered, people like edison and jp morgan wanted nothing to do with it, so tesla had to sell out for financing

but ultimately the good stuff was kept from people, because the people that own the banks want full control of the world, and wont be able to have it if they're not taxing the populace for every last little thing.

capitalism firstly requires honest capital, but when folks have legislatively granted themselves legal counterfeiting, its all over but the crying.

perversion of capital is the root of the whole mess, but to really pervert it you've got to have legislative help - that's why congressman can insider trade and leave office a millionaire - its the buyoff.

the tree of congress needs to be watered with fresh water, often, and term limits would help towards an honest legislature.

Obamacare is unconstitutional, I dont know how a small business, or any business, for that matter, would go about trying to comply with something that was completely farcical and unconstitutional like that.

Marbury vs madison, if it is odious to the constitution then it carries no weight of law.

Its just too bad people have been reeducated for so long to believe that things like the general welfare clause can be extrapolated to mean anything the government happens to think is good for the people and damn if its consistent with the constitution or not.
166 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
33 / M
Offline
Posted 11/1/16 , edited 11/1/16

RaisedInACult wrote:


adairjoseph1973 wrote:


RaisedInACult wrote:











yeah that's why my other statement on it focused on ubiquity thereof - hydrogen cells arent going to cut it. solar is making good gains but also cant cut it.


Hydrogen cells are the future of transportation energy when oil starts getting scarce in a few decades, barring any new advances in technology, and if those in control of energy (big oil) don't find an alternative to force on us to keep control of energy sources. Solar is now. Entire neighborhoods are being powered by it. All that's needed to eliminate our dependence on coal (or any other energy provided by the grid) is to incorporate wind turbines and its covered, with the exception of a personal steam turbine acting like a backup generator so batteries aren't needed.


tesla's works were confiscated by the government and classified, some of it concerned free energy.


“If you want to find the secrets of the universe, think in terms of energy, frequency and vibration." --Nikola Tesla

When you start talking about Tesla, you're speaking my language. Even Einstein recognized him as his intellectual superior. The guy was beyond genius, maybe even coined the phrase "Mad Scientist". Who knows? His ability to understand energy is still unparallelled to this day. The entire world suffers from his research being held secret by whomever raided his property after his death. Can you imagine what he could have accomplished in this era with all the advancements? But this era wouldn't be as advanced as it is without building on his work that came before. We'd likely still be pushing DC in our homes if not for Tesla.


but since it couldnt be metered, people like edison and jp morgan wanted nothing to do with it, so tesla had to sell out for financing


Westinghouse did finance his research up until the point he would have went bankrupt if he payed him everything he owed from royalties, but Tesla let him out of his contract and moved on. But you're right, the guys like Morgan and Westinghouse and Edison were only investing in his research in order to make money, not to advance technology, especially not technology that would have made their energy grid obsolete. Tesla was really all about seeing his work realized, and not pocketing insane amounts of cash. Really a man of honor.


but ultimately the good stuff was kept from people, because the people that own the banks want full control of the world, and wont be able to have it if they're not taxing the populace for every last little thing.


Completely agree, and this is where it begins to separate from simple greed and moves into a dangerous master/slave relationship where the families behind the banks coerce governments into handing full control of its nation's currency (wealth creation and ownership) and thus enslaving the people to them via currency, debt, and taxation.


capitalism firstly requires honest capital, but when folks have legislatively granted themselves legal counterfeiting, its all over but the crying.


Exactly. End the Fed. Return the Right of creating currency to the people, and eliminate any form of debt incurred thereof by its creation. Back the currency with real, precious collateral, not debt.


perversion of capital is the root of the whole mess, but to really pervert it you've got to have legislative help - that's why congressman can insider trade and leave office a millionaire - its the buyoff.


Exactly. Every slavemaster needs a whip and an arm to wield it. Without one, they would be impotent and trampled over during the first signs of resistance from waking up.


the tree of congress needs to be watered with fresh water, often, and term limits would help towards an honest legislature.


That reminds me of a quote by Jefferson, just less bloody.

"The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants." --Thomas Jefferson

And I completely agree. Three two-year term limits and no campaigning while congress is in session, and no taxpayer money used for travel or otherwise. You have to break up these crony deals that infest institutions of power when they stagnate.


Obamacare is unconstitutional, I dont know how a small business, or any business, for that matter, would go about trying to comply with something that was completely farcical and unconstitutional like that.


The Constitution (as much as I respect and uphold it) is nothing more than a sheet of paper. And it pains me to say that. But when it's all said and done, it only holds as much power as we the people hold, and we must hold our elected officials accountable to the law. But if the people are made powerless to hold anyone accountable, as we are made today, then the Constitution is nothing more than a symbol.


Marbury vs madison, if it is odious to the constitution then it carries no weight of law.


The problem with that lies in who determines and enforces the law. A corrupt institution will no more police itself than a criminal will in one night grow a conscience and reform his ways. I agree completely, though.


Its just too bad people have been reeducated for so long to believe that things like the general welfare clause can be extrapolated to mean anything the government happens to think is good for the people and damn if its consistent with the constitution or not.


And we finally arrive at the crux of the matter. We've given up power in exchange for security and comfort, bit by bit, over the course of many generations, so that each generation is raised in conditions of less freedom than the last, but they are conditioned to it from birth so that they don't know what they've lost and will never fully understand what it was like the generation before. There are those in this generation who have grown up being conditioned to believe that socialism and a powerful central government is a good thing and will provide equality and eradicate bigotry and afford a life of comfort for all and so on... They don't fully understand the selfishness of human nature and the corrupting influence of power and how those are the pitfalls of all government. They don't understand the horrible nature of the total control of law over every aspect of life because they've not lived through tyranny as our forefathers did. It's this way with every civilization, every government. The grass is always greener, and what they don't realize is that every step you take in the name of "progress" you take that same step that much further away from freedom, all the way until you're buried beneath the weight of corrupt laws that selfish men and women have legislated in the name of personal gain. But it's a disease, and like any other, it has to get worse before it can get better. The worse it gets the more frustrated people get and demand more change which results in more control and more frustration. The cycle must continue until it comes full circle, and then it begins again.
51379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 11/1/16 , edited 11/2/16
It has already failed the American public. Whether it'll cease to exist or not in the near future is difficult to predict, but it'll have to happen eventually. Every election cycle, the main party nominees keep getting worse than the previous ones.



It's rather scary how prophetic this is... Most people who are voting for one of the two "evils" we have now are only doing so to stop the other. There are 3 candidates on all 51 (50 states + D.C.) ballots and yet we're going to elect one of the 2 who are under investigation either for sexual assault and a university scam or for mishandling classified information (and attempting to burn the evidence). The bar couldn't possibly be any lower. What's it going to take for these people to actually vote for their own interests and reject the two-party system? I'm willing to bet $1000 that a major party candidate could eat living babies on television and still get over 40% of the vote as long as their main opponent also eats babies.

The mainstream media is also a huge part of the problem. Most voters only make their decisions based on what they see on television. News channels have far too much influence on the electorate. They keep shoving this two-way race narrative down our throats 24/7 and pretend that other parties don't exist, except when those third-parties are taking a significant amount of voters dissatisfied with two big clowns. In that case, Hillary just pays all the major news channels and dozens of journalists millions of dollars (even more than what all the third-parties raised combined) to slander third-party candidates, make them seem crazy, and scare voters into thinking their votes magically don't count if they vote for them. Seeing how support for third-parties drastically declined in mid-September the very week the paid trolls started writing nonstop hit pieces, it unfortunately seems to have worked. The Libertarians are the third largest party in the country and 2/3 of voters had never even heard of Gary Johnson by this Summer, and of those who have heard of him, even less knew what he stands for. Many of the people learning about the third-party candidates for the first time had the misfortune of having the Clinton-paid hit pieces be their first exposure.

The two-party system has become too powerful to fall apart even when they nominate the two most unpopular candidates in history, and their control over the media helps keep them on top. But thankfully there is one small glimmer of hope. This issue seems to be a generational issue. When you look at age demographics, support for the two major parties decreases as the ages go down. The overwhelming majority of Baby Boomers are too blinded by the two major parties and the "news" that's spoon fed to them by their t.v. screens. In 20 years or so, most of them won't be around and Millennials will be the largest voting block. This means we'll see an electorate that is more open to other choices and more willing to do their own research rather than vote for whoever Wolf Blitzer or Megyn Kelly tells them to vote for.

The racial and social makeup of the country will also be severely different than it is today. The GOP will either have to be more tolerant or they'll die as a party. The GOP as it is right now will never beat the democrats in future presidential elections except for maybe one or two anomalies. If the GOP becomes the party of Trump, we're going to see a lot of republicans jumping ship and joining the Libertarians within the next few election cycles. Especially if the Libertarians manage to win 5% of the vote next week and secure federal funding for the next election. There will also be democrats and independents drawn to the party's social platform and foreign policies. The democrats need to change too. They'll have an easier time beating republicans from now on, but the youngest generation won't be too excited. Obama won 2008 with an amazing lead among young voters. Hillary's lead among the same age group is laughable. Expect to see a lot of these people who don't lean right economically joining the Greens if the party officially becomes Her Majesty's special corporate club. This is the generation that has the least faith in the two-party system. We just need a little patience, assuming whoever wins this election doesn't burn the country to the ground.

I also heard that Maine might experiment with Ranked Choice Voting after this election, which should allow people to vote for whoever they actually like best and have a backup choice in case their first choice is far behind. This should eliminate the "spoiler effect" and "wasted vote" mentality, which would make it easier for third-parties to win if voters really are unsatisfied with the major parties and only voting for whoever they believe is the lesser of two evils. Since states are winner-takes-all, most people are reluctant to vote for someone they think is in last place, even if that's who they align with the most. If Maine is successful, I really hope other states adopt this change. I see the Libertarians and Green Party growing a lot in the next few decades. I just pray that it happens before some irreversible catastrophe occurs as a result of electing someone who would normally be in jail if they were any other citizen.
8386 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
24 / M / Under your skin.
Offline
Posted 11/1/16
no
37158 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/1/16 , edited 11/1/16
I don't think so. It's possible one or both parties could split. You could end up with a left-wing democratic socialist party, a centrist "Democrat" party, a centrist "Republican" party, and a far right conservative party. I think that would reflect the varying opinions of US citizens much better than the current two party system.

For one of the third parties, such as Green or Libertarian to rise up, they need a celebrity level candidate. Someone who can ride a wave of popularity into office and establish legitimacy for their party.
3376 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In a Yaoi Fanfic
Offline
Posted 11/1/16 , edited 11/1/16

HolyDrumstick wrote:

My personal opinion is that the two party system was designed to distract people from real issues and as false competitors. They're essentially controlled opposition.

For example, is the national debt and terrible economy a problem? Let's turn this into a who is screwing things up the worst insult-fest, so that no one actually focuses on policy to address these.

Basically, it's misdirection so very few people vote on policy these days.

Also, honestly, nothing will actually happen until we start voting someone else into office (absolutely ANY elected office), every term. It seems like, once someone is office they will continue to automatically get elected until they max out on terms, retire, die, or do something so terrible they have no choice but to resign.

Now what exactly does that have to do with the two party system? Basically, if we started always voting for someone new, it would be harder for the parties to not actually take any productive or different policy. They'd actually have to seek improvement for the US, if they ever hope to get reelected.

But, do I think the two party system will fail? Yes. But, it already has. Though it can be considered beneficial in many ways, it has been failing us for years, in terms of actually doing what is best for the US.

That's my opinion, anyway.


The two-party system wasn't designed, it just happened due to the winner take all voting system.

As for voting for a non-viable third party system, well let's say we had three candidates: Tronald Drump, Chillary Hilton, and Burning Sanders.

Now let's assume the United States population is 50% conservative leaning and 50% liberal leaning, and Tronald Drump is conservative while Chillary Hilton and Burning Sanders are liberal. Needless to say, Tronald Drump will, in a perfect world, get all of the conservative votes while Chillary Hilton might get say 35% of the votes and Burning Sanders gets 15%.

Because the liberal voting base is split into two sections despite being the other half of the population, it caused Chillary Hilton to lose 15% of the liberal vote and therefore lose the race, where Tronald Drump does not have any opponents who are similar in political views to them.

Now let's say instead of 3 candidates we had 5, and all were influential candidates and not a joke. Let's call these candidates A-E.

The election results come in, candidate A gets 24% of votes, B gets 21%, C gets 15%, D gets 20%, and candidate E gets 20%.

Next election rolls around, the same 5 candidates que up, but this time, the voters for candidate C know that C won't win, so instead of voting for C, they vote for candidate B because they're the only candidate they can stand, meaning that candidate B gets 36% of the votes and everyone else remains the same. This is called strategic voting, which is basically when people vote for a more popular candidate to prevent the undesired outcome of candidate A getting re-elected.

Now this applies to third parties in the U.S. election in that people know third parties won't win if they vote for them, so rather than vote for Chill Stein they vote for Chillary Hilton because she's the next closest to their preferred candidate's political views while being more popular. In this the votes that third parties would normally be getting if people didn't have to strategically vote are being allocated to a different candidate instead, which just perpetuates the two party system. Of course not all of the voters from say candidate C will allocate to a different candidate all at once, but the trend will happen, at least slowly. Voters are especially likely to switch to a similar candidate if a candidate gets crushed to the point they have no chance of winning the next election.

Once a party digs its hands into the back of the two-party system, it's very difficult for said party to let go without a public consensus on how unpopular the party is and how a certain other party is even more popular and should be voted for in their stead, and in this situation you're basically swapping out one of the two main parties for another.

Tay01 
27232 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/1/16
I have no clue if it will, but if a country only can get two parties in power I don't consider it a democracy. Of course if people were to get rid of, first past the post, hopefully it would disappear. This is something that I feel every country should do, as their are many better methods, though how politics are done may need to change.
8598 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
17 / F
Offline
Posted 11/1/16
I hope
14934 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
F / San Francisco
Offline
Posted 11/1/16
No, I think people are too lazy to abolish it. Too many smartphone games to play. The political system is only highlighted every four years or so, usually when the presidential election is going on. After November 8, no one will care, and we'll go back to talking about the Kardashians again.

Yay.
51379 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M
Offline
Posted 11/1/16

Dogempire wrote:

Now this applies to third parties in the U.S. election in that people know third parties won't win if they vote for them


That's backwards. The reason third-parties don't win is because people don't vote for them. It's counterproductive to have a democracy where everyone just votes for who they think will win rather than who they actually want. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can't count the amount of times I've seen people say they'd vote for someone else if that candidate had a chance. The reason that candidate doesn't have a chance is because voters refuse to give them a chance and then complain that their preferred candidate can't win and so they vote against that candidate instead. That's illogical and I'd even argue that anyone who realizes this but still does it anyways must be insane and should see psychiatrist. Until the majority of the voting population realizes this, we're going to get stuck with whoever most of them believe the lesser of two evils is and we'll keep doing it again and again and again no matter how terrible the candidates get each time.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/2/16

Dogempire wrote:


HolyDrumstick wrote:

My personal opinion is that the two party system was designed to distract people from real issues and as false competitors. They're essentially controlled opposition.

For example, is the national debt and terrible economy a problem? Let's turn this into a who is screwing things up the worst insult-fest, so that no one actually focuses on policy to address these.

Basically, it's misdirection so very few people vote on policy these days.

Also, honestly, nothing will actually happen until we start voting someone else into office (absolutely ANY elected office), every term. It seems like, once someone is office they will continue to automatically get elected until they max out on terms, retire, die, or do something so terrible they have no choice but to resign.

Now what exactly does that have to do with the two party system? Basically, if we started always voting for someone new, it would be harder for the parties to not actually take any productive or different policy. They'd actually have to seek improvement for the US, if they ever hope to get reelected.

But, do I think the two party system will fail? Yes. But, it already has. Though it can be considered beneficial in many ways, it has been failing us for years, in terms of actually doing what is best for the US.

That's my opinion, anyway.


The two-party system wasn't designed, it just happened due to the winner take all voting system.

As for voting for a non-viable third party system, well let's say we had three candidates: Tronald Drump, Chillary Hilton, and Burning Sanders.

Now let's assume the United States population is 50% conservative leaning and 50% liberal leaning, and Tronald Drump is conservative while Chillary Hilton and Burning Sanders are liberal. Needless to say, Tronald Drump will, in a perfect world, get all of the conservative votes while Chillary Hilton might get say 35% of the votes and Burning Sanders gets 15%.

Because the liberal voting base is split into two sections despite being the other half of the population, it caused Chillary Hilton to lose 15% of the liberal vote and therefore lose the race, where Tronald Drump does not have any opponents who are similar in political views to them.

Now let's say instead of 3 candidates we had 5, and all were influential candidates and not a joke. Let's call these candidates A-E.

The election results come in, candidate A gets 24% of votes, B gets 21%, C gets 15%, D gets 20%, and candidate E gets 20%.

Next election rolls around, the same 5 candidates que up, but this time, the voters for candidate C know that C won't win, so instead of voting for C, they vote for candidate B because they're the only candidate they can stand, meaning that candidate B gets 36% of the votes and everyone else remains the same. This is called strategic voting, which is basically when people vote for a more popular candidate to prevent the undesired outcome of candidate A getting re-elected.

Now this applies to third parties in the U.S. election in that people know third parties won't win if they vote for them, so rather than vote for Chill Stein they vote for Chillary Hilton because she's the next closest to their preferred candidate's political views while being more popular. In this the votes that third parties would normally be getting if people didn't have to strategically vote are being allocated to a different candidate instead, which just perpetuates the two party system. Of course not all of the voters from say candidate C will allocate to a different candidate all at once, but the trend will happen, at least slowly. Voters are especially likely to switch to a similar candidate if a candidate gets crushed to the point they have no chance of winning the next election.

Once a party digs its hands into the back of the two-party system, it's very difficult for said party to let go without a public consensus on how unpopular the party is and how a certain other party is even more popular and should be voted for in their stead, and in this situation you're basically swapping out one of the two main parties for another.



It's easy. People just need to not be stupid. There are at least two candidates who'd be a better bet than Hillary or Trump. The two party system WAS designed, actually. You have no fucking clue what you are talking about. There are nations that have many parties, which is just as hectic.

Simple, simple, simple. All people have to do is start voting for the Jill Steins, Gary Johnsons, and.... no, never mind, that Evan fellow look like he'd be better off managing a Walmart, based on what I know of him.
10263 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
Offline
Posted 11/2/16

PhantomGundam wrote:
That's backwards. The reason third-parties don't win is because people don't vote for them. It's counterproductive to have a democracy where everyone just votes for who they think will win rather than who they actually want. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.


Yep, and the two parties who're passing the ball back and forth deliberately manipulate the situation (primaries, media, debates), so that people truly believe they only have two choices.

Basically, if we'll all stop being dumbasses, we might get somewhere.
Posted 11/2/16

adairjoseph1973 wrote:


And we finally arrive at the crux of the matter. We've given up power in exchange for security and comfort, bit by bit, over the course of many generations, so that each generation is raised in conditions of less freedom than the last, but they are conditioned to it from birth so that they don't know what they've lost and will never fully understand what it was like the generation before. There are those in this generation who have grown up being conditioned to believe that socialism and a powerful central government is a good thing and will provide equality and eradicate bigotry and afford a life of comfort for all and so on... They don't fully understand the selfishness of human nature and the corrupting influence of power and how those are the pitfalls of all government. They don't understand the horrible nature of the total control of law over every aspect of life because they've not lived through tyranny as our forefathers did. It's this way with every civilization, every government. The grass is always greener, and what they don't realize is that every step you take in the name of "progress" you take that same step that much further away from freedom, all the way until you're buried beneath the weight of corrupt laws that selfish men and women have legislated in the name of personal gain. But it's a disease, and like any other, it has to get worse before it can get better. The worse it gets the more frustrated people get and demand more change which results in more control and more frustration. The cycle must continue until it comes full circle, and then it begins again.


thumbsup and good luck with your business, man. I dont quite fully agree about peak oil, that's just another excuse to scalp people. (that said I got solar on my house, I aint dumb hehe)
3376 cr points
Send Message: Send PM GB Post
20 / M / In a Yaoi Fanfic
Offline
Posted 11/2/16

PhantomGundam wrote:


Dogempire wrote:

Now this applies to third parties in the U.S. election in that people know third parties won't win if they vote for them


That's backwards. The reason third-parties don't win is because people don't vote for them. It's counterproductive to have a democracy where everyone just votes for who they think will win rather than who they actually want. It's a self-fulfilling prophecy.

I can't count the amount of times I've seen people say they'd vote for someone else if that candidate had a chance. The reason that candidate doesn't have a chance is because voters refuse to give them a chance and then complain that their preferred candidate can't win and so they vote against that candidate instead. That's illogical and I'd even argue that anyone who realizes this but still does it anyways must be insane and should see psychiatrist. Until the majority of the voting population realizes this, we're going to get stuck with whoever most of them believe the lesser of two evils is and we'll keep doing it again and again and again no matter how terrible the candidates get each time.


That's basically what I was trying to say, people vote against the candidate they won't like because the candidate they prefer isn't going to win. You only get one vote, so you try to make it count by choosing the lesser of two evils, and basically every potential third party voter does this.
First  Prev  1  2  3  4  Next  Last
You must be logged in to post.