One quarter of voters dislike both candidates.

[DudleySmith]

The 'Super delegates' decide who gets what in the Democratic Part; none of you whining left wing faggots have any say, another reason nobody should take your demented raving sociopaths seriously. Just make sure you get your allotted 50 mail in ballots each filled out and sent in on time as usual.

 

[dblack]

25% actually seems like a low estimate to me

That's what I was thinking. I'd like to see the questions they asked.

 

[kyzr]

The 'Super delegates' decide who gets what in the Democratic Part; none of you whining left wing faggots have any say, another reason nobody should take your demented raving sociopaths seriously. Just make sure you get your allotted 50 mail in ballots each filled out and sent in on time as usual.

Super-delegates!!!!!!! A realistic translation is "smart, wealthy white folks"

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

What?

Seemed pretty clear and straightforward.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Okay. Why allow voters to vote in the primary?

So the demicrat party can gauge who has the best chances. Almost always, the winner of the primaries is the candidate.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Add me to this growing club.

Will do.

 

[dblack]

Add me to this growing club.

The only way they'll change their tune is if we refuse to give them our votes.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

The only way they'll change their tune is if we refuse to give them our votes.

So, 60% participation instead of 61%. Not sure that's going to cut it.

 

[dblack]

So, 60% participation instead of 61%. Not sure that's going to cut it.

Oh, well, you know. You can go and fuck yourself with the insinuation that people who won't vote for your moron aren't "participating". We're participating. We're telling your precious parties to fuck off. If you want our votes, nominate a better candidate. Or shut the fuck up. All the begging and hysterical fear mongering is just embarrassing. You candidate sucks. Try harder.

 

[pknopp]

So, 60% participation instead of 61%. Not sure that's going to cut it.

Funny how those who lose tend to blame those who voted third party as opposed to themselves.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Oh, well, you know. You can go and fuck yourself with the insinuation that people who won't vote for your moron aren't "participating".

Goddamn son, do you need some vaginal sand remover? Calm down.

Yes, not liking the candidates is exactly why a lot of voters don't participate.

And if you think the major parties distinguish between 40% not participating and some libertarian freak getting 5%, you're delusional. That's all the same, to them .

The major parties look at that 5% and think, "Well, we do t have to care what they think!", just as they do with people who stay home.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Funny how those who lose tend to blame those who voted third party as opposed to themselves.

I didn't state or imply such a thing, and I don't think it.

So we can put aside this useless strawman.

The problem is now systemic.

For example, if we had RCV during the primaries, we would still have the same two candidates.

 

[pknopp]

I didn't state or imply such a thing, and I don't think it.

So we can put aside this useless strawman.

Good but there is NO question Perot was blamed for Bush losing and those who supported Sanders causing Hillary to lose.

Whether you believe it or not it happened.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Good but there is NO question Perot was blamed for Bush losing and those who supported Sanders causing Hillary to lose.

And who won as a result?

Bush's opponent. Is that the result you think Perot voters preferred?

Hillary's opponent. Is that the result you think Sanders's supporters preferred?

You're making my points for me.

 

[frigidweirdo]

Seemed pretty clear and straightforward.

Then, you killed the conversation before it has even started.

 

[pknopp]

And who won as a result?

Bush's opponent. Is that the result you think Perot voters preferred?

No, they preferred Perot.

Hillary's opponent. Is that the result you think Sanders's supporters preferred?

You're making my points for me.

You aren't. I voted Sanders in the primaries. Jill Stein in November.

It doesn't bother me Hillary lost.

In 2016 I didn't want Trump to win but I really wanted Hillary to lose.

In 2020 I didn't want Biden to win but I really wanted Trump to lose.

Here in 2024 I'd love to see them both lose. IMO the country loses no matter which one wins.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

Then, you killed the conversation before it has even started.

By suggesting ways to reform the system to allow for viable 3rd party candidates?

Seems to me that's the BEGINNING of the discussion.

Or we can all sit around and whine, I guess.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

It would be great if they would actually vote and not for either of the two main candidates.

That’s exactly the problem, right there.

If a third-party candidate for president received 25% of the popular vote, despite not winning the election, it would send a pretty strong message.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

No, they preferred Perot.




You aren't. I voted Sanders in the primaries. Jill Stein in November.

It doesn't bother me Hillary lost.

In 2016 I didn't want Trump to win but I really wanted Hillary to lose.

In 2020 I didn't want Biden to win but I really wanted Trump to lose.

Here in 2024 I'd love to see them both lose. IMO the country loses no matter which one wins.

Your personal anecdotes aren't a valid rebuttal, sorry.

It's pretty clear Sanders supporters would have preferred Clinnton over Trump in the issues, in general.

If you can't admit a baseline of facts, the discussion isn't going anywhere.

 

[Fort Fun Indiana]

That’s exactly the problem, right there.

If a third-party candidate for president received 25% of the popular vote, despite not winning the election, it would send a pretty strong message.

That's right. The message?

Donors and supporters would regret giving money to the 3rd party candidate, when the major candidate they least prefer wins because of their votes and donations.

That's the message that was received, after Perot ran.

What we did NOT see was a Clinton Administration that suddenly felt compelled to pander to Perot voters. Oh no. Precisely the opposite.

So the conservative perot voters got 8 years of a liberal president for their efforts.

And that ended the idea of viable 3rd candidates for good, in the current system.