If you were or are a Murican, how would you vote in the 2016 election?

[Thumpalumpacus]

Indulge your fantasy for a moment and say some 3d party candidate wins.  What is his power base in the Congress?  

That depends.  How many other people had the willingness to vote outside the presented options? And what office are they in? A President needs support in Congress; a Congressman needs to be able to work with other legislators; a mayor  must convince a city's voters to back him with or against a council -- and so on. 

There are other levels besides Presidential which wield large amounts of power. Simply saying it can't be done may or may not be true, but accepting that as advice guarantees it will never be done. 

You might be willing to surrender; I'm not. 

---

I hate to piss on the parade of the 3'd Party Fanciers but you all need to read this article to see what you are up against.

http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/Politi...erica.html

To UNDERSTAND the significance of a third party vote, one must first recognize how difficult an act it is to undertake. A host of barriers, disadvantages, and strategies block the path of would-be third party supporters. So formidable are these hurdles that third party voting occurs only under the most extreme conditions... third parties will never be on equal footing with the two major parties and help explain why a third party vote signifies something very different from a vote for either the Democrats or Republicans.

I'm under no illusions. But I'm not willing to give up without a fight -- nor do I think naysayers worth hearing. 

If you don't like the current system, but are doing nothing but aspersing attempts to change it, you are part of it: you are its first line of defense.

Funny, I had always thought you to be a fighter, not a quitter.

[Polaris]

I won't get broken by voting for people who can't be elected. Need to change the system first. Then vote for third party candidates when it is possible to elect them.

And how would you propose to get changes to the system pushed through by people who are beholden to the system?

Vote third party.  You don't get a cookie for picking the winner ... but when the numbers start to move away from the duopoly, change becomes more likely.

In California, that was happening, so they essentially banned TPO candidates from entering certain elections.

[Minimalist]

Funny, I had always thought you to be a fighter, not a quitter.

Any attempts at "reform" will be co-opted by the propertied classes and things would simply get worse.

You need to get a handle on the apathy which grips America, first.  I see no signs of that happening.

Defending the Alamo to the last man sounds great to the people who weren't there.

[Chad32]

I wish I had the money to just go to a different country. Somewhere secular, with universal healthcare, and they speak English.

[Thumpalumpacus]

Funny, I had always thought you to be a fighter, not a quitter.

Any attempts at "reform" will be co-opted by the propertied classes and things would simply get worse.

You need to get a handle on the apathy which grips America, first.  I see no signs of that happening.

Defending the Alamo to the last man sounds great to the people who weren't there.

I get what you're saying.  But the answer to apathy is not more disengagement.

Trying may or may not fail. Not trying will almost certainly fail. If you're not up to the fight, that's okay, but to potshot from the sidelines at those who are doing so only serves one interest .... and it ain't a better future.  You've got a hell of a voice, Minimalist, and at least here, quite the following. Preaching inaction plays into the interests of the status quo.  The more you convince that the cause is lost, the more that the cause loses.

Even in a losing cause, I'll fight the honorable fight. Christ, there's no sense kowtowing to those who will gladly plough you under.  You know that.

[Anomalocaris]

It's not an honorable fight, much less a good fight, if by fighting, the fighter greatly increases the probability of a worse outcome befalling those who did not chose to fight than they would otherwise have suffered, while affording only a very marginal probability, if that, of improving the lot of either the fighters or the bystander.

Far from an honorable or a good fight, such a fight is nothing more than the self-indulgent but impotent scream at the unfairness, with the added problem of the damage it inflicts upon others, rather than coolly calculated manipulation of the odds to maximize the chance for the good.

[Whateverist]

It would be great if we could just clean the whole system out, and start over. I just don't think we can do that without starting another covil war, or something.

At the risk of being negative, I feel that no radical change is possible regardless of who wins a presidential election.  "Balance of power" is code for "status quo forever".  Unlike the  Brittish system, winning the presidency doesn't concentrate enough power in anyone's hands to hold them accountable for what they do.  What newly elected presidents attempt to do will always be a compromise between what is seen as the best course of action and what is deemed possible.  

Also, there is no such thing as 'the loyal opposition" on this side of the Atlantic.  There is almost no impetus to accountably do 'the peoples business' when one's party loses.  Acts of congress are much like a sporting contest where all that really matters is being perceived to have bested the other side.  As pathetic as that sounds, no one will call their own party out on this.  In my opinion, this is more true of the republicans than the democrats, but the dems aren't above reproach either.

[Minimalist]

P/T

He who knows when he can fight and when he cannot will be victorious.

--Sun Tzu

Americans have been sold a bill of red, white and blue bullshit.  Until they are ready to realize how badly they are being fucked over there will be no changes for the better and you may very well make things worse.

I've often heard people say "we need another constitutional convention."  Can you imagine the shit which would emerge from that?  

[Whateverist]

Perhaps nation states are just too large a political unit? While the Parliamentarian system is superior on the face of it, there may well be intractable flaws in it too. I don't agree with Libertarians that less government is the solution. So long as the broader social/economic system is as avaricious and corruptible as it is, we need to at least attempt to hold excesses in check. Revolution is a painful and messy solution, which won't change people's nature.

Think I'll just put my head back in the sand, opt for even minuscule political improvement when the opportunity arises, and go on making a life as best I can to suit myself.

[Jericho]

I am an Independent, and will therefore vote on who I think will best represent our country. So far the only person I undoubtedly don't want to win is Hilary Clinton. That is just my opinion though.