The fact of the matter is that third partys are a distraction from the reality. The Republitraitors have been stealing elections since the 2000 election at the very least (this used to be the speciality of the dems, but with the defection of the dixiecrats the mafia looks to have followed soon after). They will continue to steal elections for the forseeable future, brining in laws to deny citizens their votes on income, gender and race grounds. They will look to make the system return them permanently.

That's where the dems are failing.

(December 10, 2016 at 1:03 am)Opoponax Wrote: And if third party voters actually, truly, honestly gave half a fuck about their chosen third party, which they don't [...]

I don't know who you think you are, and I don't know you from my neighbor's bowling ball, so I really think you should stick to speaking for yourself and quit being so presumptuous that you know why others voted the way they did.

You'll look a lot less like an asshole at that point, capice?

---

(December 10, 2016 at 1:03 am)Opoponax Wrote: Third party voters can rationalize this horse-shit all they want, just like they're still doing about Nader, but the fact is there are hundreds of thousands of dead people and several trillion dollars worth of debt because they decided to vote for a third party nothing-fuck who had no chance of doing anything except getting the worst person elected. 

That's the reality. So maybe in 2020 you can make that massive sacrifice and not cast a vote that amount to a vote for Trump.

I'd suggest you read up on the Electoral College -- and get off my fucking leg while you're at it. Ain't no way my single vote was going to cancel out Trump's 700,000 vote lead here in Texas, so accusing me of helping Trump's victory along is nonsense.

This is sour grapes from a Hillary fan whose candidate missed the coronation. Nothing about how the Dems should examine why their candidate should be unable to beat the dogshit out of a candidate with the negatives of Donald Trump. No introspection. No willingness to search for mistakes in their process. Just finger-pointing at the others who dared to say "no thanks" to both.

Listen, you buy into the two-party game, I get it. But I think it has to change, and I put my money where my mouth is. You don't like my vote? Earn my vote. Don't take me for granted. And that's exactly what the Democrats did this election, and fucked the country in so doing.

Why is it that Hillary supporters just assume all these third party votes worked against her as if all of them had been forced to vote for one of the big two they'd have chosen Clinton? Did they completely forget that an unprecedented number of Republicans refused to vote for their candidate?

People seem to forget that Libertarian voters tend to lean more towards Republican than Democrat. So even if you can come up with a convincing argument that all Jill Stein supporters would vote Democrat, you'd somehow have to prevent all the Johnson supporters voting Republican.

(December 10, 2016 at 12:36 pm)Thumpalumpacus Wrote: Listen, you buy into the two-party game, I get it. But I think it has to change, and I put my money where my mouth is. You don't like my vote? Earn my vote. Don't take me for granted. And that's exactly what the Democrats did this election, and fucked the country in so doing.

The only way to get rid of a two party system is to bring in some form of PR, as FPTP just gives all the spoils to the top dog. If all of California's congress seats were given based on a proportion of a single statewide vote it'd allow smaller parties to run with the expectation of having a chance. So say for example the vote went Dems 52%; Reps 31%; Libs 11%; Socs 6%, the Dems would pick up 27 seats, the Reps 16, the Libs 6 and the Socs 3 (assuming I'm right in thinking California is allocated 52 seats in Congress).

Now this system causes two problems for the US, what to do with the small problem states and what to do with the senate. For the first, I think the best way is to amalgamate them for congress elections so that you've a number of states running as a single constituency, and for the second, I think the senate should be abolished as all it is is an unneccessary brake on legislation, it gives too many options to kill, weaken or add pork barrels to needed laws. This is especially so in the US where the head of government (and his cabinet) is not part of, nor directly answerable to parliament.

(December 9, 2016 at 12:13 am)Chad32 Wrote: Yeah, we all know Trump is horrible. Hillary is too, but that's the one the DNC wanted to push, and they failed us. And they didn't seem to learn their lesson afterwards, either.

They failed to do what we wanted them to do, but they knew what they were doing. Given the political climate, to put a woman up as candidate, you have to be either totally blind to that climate or devious as hell. I may be wrong but I think it was the later, especially when Clinton was the first to tell us to give Trump a chance. A chance to do what?

(December 11, 2016 at 7:11 am)Rhondazvous Wrote:

(December 9, 2016 at 12:13 am)Chad32 Wrote: Yeah, we all know Trump is horrible. Hillary is too, but that's the one the DNC wanted to push, and they failed us. And they didn't seem to learn their lesson afterwards, either.

They failed to do what we wanted them to do, but they knew what they were doing. Given the political climate, to put a woman up as candidate, you have to be either totally blind to that climate or devious as hell. I may be wrong but I think it was the later, especially when Clinton was the first to tell us to give Trump a chance.  A chance to do what?

Yes, they're obviously very disconnected from what the people want.