Top 15 Democrat Candidates for President in 2020

But you leave out that any movement takes time to build. That ballot access is only gained by either getting enough signatures for every single election in every single state or in most states by getting a minimum threshold of votes in the last election (which makes the next election much less laborious if you can get it done).

Click to expand...

chanson78 said:

What do you guys think about ranked choice to help make things a little less extreme? Getting a 3rd party to be truly viable seems a long way off. But if we had ranked choice and people were able to vote for their third party candidate without feeling as it was wasted, could that increase third party participation as well as keep us from the monkey-fornicating with a football president we currently have?

Click to expand...

crimsonaudio said:

It would, almost overnight, guarantee at least one third-party would rise to challenge the main two parties - which is why you'll never see it happen.

Click to expand...

jthomas666 said:

If you are serious about getting a 3rd party off the ground, you have to start at the local level, where national money won't have as big a presence. Establish a presence and build from there, understanding that you are probably looking at a generational task.

Unless you've got someone at the level of Soros or the Koch brothers bankrolling you, of course.

Click to expand...

NationalTitles17 said:

True. The L's seem to understand this, but they aren't giving up the national stage.

Click to expand...

chanson78 said:

We need someone to run on like three things. Everything else is negotiable:

1. Overturn Citizens United
2. Compactness Optimized Redistricting
3. Ranked choice voting

Click to expand...

NationalTitles17 said:

You start out well enough. We do have a 2 party system. You see this bug as a feature. I don't.

But then you continue with the same tropes of tripe that are regurgitated over and over.

Chaos? Look no further than our current president. His modus operandi is chaos, yet you accuse 3rd party voters of stirring up chaos! You have a glaring blind spot.

Then you state reasonably that a 3rd party is unlikely to win the presidency before declaring that they are "stealing" votes from the major parties. I think your statement here says all that needs to be said on that.

You assume that I care whether I vote for the winner. More than half the people who voted in the last election did not vote for the winner. Most elections it is only a very small margin that makes the majority who do vote for the winner, so nearly half of voters vote for the loser in every election. Had Trump lost you would also be a protest voter, I guess. Or maybe enough "protest votes" actually got this bombastic outsider elected.

But you leave out that any movement takes time to build. That ballot access is only gained by either getting enough signatures for every single election in every single state or in most states by getting a minimum threshold of votes in the last election (which makes the next election much less laborious if you can get it done).

Of course I am passionate about the issue. It only makes sense in this hyper-partisan chaotic morass created by the 2 party system and those that enable it that someone with half a brain might at least consider voting for and thereby advancing the cause of a 3rd party. It only makes sense that someone who believes in freedom refuses to be forced into the red or blue box. That no one owns my vote but me and therefore it can only be given and never "stolen". That your warped interpretation of what it really means is meaningless other than the fact far too many people have bought that lie.

I wish you were wrong about the chances for a 3rd party. I can only hope that younger generations, of which 71% want to see the end of the current duopoly, will not become so cynical that they lose hope and give up when their numbers show that they could make it finally happen, thereby relegating people such as yourself into the category of "irrelevant relic protest vote". Millennials may just end up being the generation to save this country from its own apathy and pathetic stupidity.

Yeah, I'm passionate. If everyone were as passionate about voting for something instead of voting against something we'd have a much better government and nation. Maybe we should just embrace the "protest" label like R's embraced "deplorable" or D's embraced "nasty woman". Maybe we can use it as marketing. Want to protest both parties? Dump them both. You have a 50/50 shot of voting for the loser and being a protest voter anyway so make it count.

Just a load of self-serving destructively arrogant malarkey.

Click to expand...

crimsonaudio said:

It would, almost overnight, guarantee at least one third-party would rise to challenge the main two parties - which is why you'll never see it happen.

Click to expand...

CrimsonForce said:

I think you might be overthinking the protest vote idea. If you vote for one of the two major parties that person has a chance to win, therefore, even if you the person you voted for loses it wouldn't be considered a protest vote. Voting third party is considered a protest vote by many because that person has no chance of winning. Completely understand your point about third party needing to build up support so voting third party, even though they will lose the current election, can certainly build some momentum or whatnot for future elections but for the current election it's viewed as a protest vote for the reasons I stated..

Click to expand...

CajunCrimson said:

A 3rd party takes time to build?

I mean it's only been 228 years....right? And we are no closer to having a 3rd party then we were 20-30-50 years ago.....

You don't have to accept the reality of the situation. That's fine.... But reality is, is that it's not going to happen, at least not in the near future.

But please, add 10 more paragraphs of your opinion. But, it doesn't change the reality of the moment, or the fact that nothing is going to change this year, in 2020, or at any time after that before we are all worm food.

Click to expand...

NationalTitles17 said:

1. No. CU was a good decision. https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/09pdf/08-205.pdf
2. Whatever is decided is fine.
3. I could go for that.

Click to expand...

CajunCrimson said:

Wow, I'm not sure but I think you may be trying to call me something.....slightly veiled, but nonetheless, I'm sensing you are trying to imply something (or is it "infer"?).... which, I'm sure cannot possibly be true....

Why is it that someone that disagrees with you is being "dishonest"?

Why is it that the simple act of not agreeing with you causes you such stress, pain, frustration, etc?

And finally, why is it that it leads you to a place where you are on the edge of labeling someone you don't know?

Click to expand...

NationalTitles17 said:

I called the argument dishonest, not the one arguing. A small yet important distinction.

As far as implying something by my list of things that were supposed to be impossible but obviously weren't in hindsight...the only implication is what I just stated - they were things that were supposed to be impossible.

And no, I am not trying to call you something or I would call you that thing. I am also not implying anything and am at a loss at to what that would be.

I am not stressed by this. My frustration stems from the obvious - this is how people like me a marginalized.

But I noticed that you are still here as well. Why is that? So that you can project your feelings onto me?

I'm not labeling you, but this all started when you basically labeled me inappropriately as purely a protest voter despite having no real evidence then vigorously defended that when challenged. I go back to projection.

Click to expand...

jthomas666 said:

If you want a viable 3rd party, doing something about CU is a necessary step.

Click to expand...

GrayTide said:

I knew you were going to say that.

Click to expand...