Give us a few weeks, we'll be sure to disappoint somehow by Christmas or so.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo&feature=plcp

This video demonstrates that pretty decently.

(Hope this isn't a double post, first one didn't go through)

If this involves GTFOing from the Middle East and telling Israel to fight her own wars from now on, then I am all for this!

Yeah they preferred Nader over Gore, but they probably preferred Gore over Bush. Nader didn't have a chance to win, Gore did. They helped Bush and hurt Gore due to this. If they were smart they would've voted Gore so that Bush wouldn't get in. It's better to choose the lesser of two evils than to choose someone that is irrelevant. Sure, you gain a moral victory, but what good does that do for you when Bush attacks Iraq for very bad reasons. I greatly support third party candidates, but not at the cost of a win for someone who matters.

Yeah, that was almost the same video I talked about earlier, when I said you could win the presidential election with only 28% of the popular vote.

I specifically meant this video, but it turns out I was wrong: You only need 22%.

But honestly all the videos of CGPGrey on that topic are phenominal and should be watched by everyone.

You're not from Europe. :-)

FWIW I hope it was clear that I had no intention of being condescending by asking that question. I often interact with Europeans/Canadians/etc. online and there's a lot of venom about the EC, so I'm just curious to see where you're coming from.

Also FWIW, I am a history teacher by trade. So let's call it a draw as far as the knowledge base is concerned?

You obviously reject the federalist tendencies of Americans, but my question is this: how do you propose to destroy the electoral college? The smaller states have no reason to agree to any Constitutional amendment.

If you attempt to do this without a Constitutional amendment, how are you not undermining the entire basis for the Constitutional compact?

It's new to me too. However, G.W. Bush has been a joke here ever since he took office. Scratch that, ever since he started campaigning for the presidency.

That's the opposite of supporting third party candidates.

Hurting mainstream candidates is one of the few ways disenfranchised voters are able to make their voices heard. The more we fuck over the primary parties the more third party interests have to be genuinely considered and the more pressure we'll have to get rid of our first past the post election system.

Choosing someone who's irrelevant may be the most important choice someone can make, for many it'll be the last choice they make a few elections before they simply quit going to the polls and our voter turn out plunges even lower, and people saying precisely the shit you're saying will simply help speed many on their way to complete disenfranchisement and apathy.

Do you want to know who the majority of the country voted for in this election cycle? It wasn't Obama and it wasn't Romney, it was no one.

Let people vote for whomever they want. Bush didn't start murdering people with drones, that was Obama, you have no idea if we'd be at war with Iraq had Gore been elected, both parties spend a lot of time kissing lobbyist ass.

Certainly the best possible outcome, even if Obama is a bit too corporate and centrist for me.

Republicans really need to regroup and appeal more to women, minorities and secular voters if they want to come back anywhere but the House.

Also Puerto Rico will probably be a state now, which is cool.

Please understand that the US Constitution is generally viewed by Europeans as an outdated document that is holding you back, but which you for some weird reason cling to and will fight tooth and nail to preserve exactly as it is, regardless of whether it makes sense or not.

Oh, like we even follow that old thing anymore! ;)

Sure, everyone picks one or two pet Amendments to tout, but then try to subvert the rest. At least it seems that way to me at times. For myself, I'll pick the 10th and the 2nd as my pet Amendments. I'll get started on subverting the 19th and 1st immediately!

/sarcasm
Which was pretty much my point with the above sarcasm. ;)

Yeah, so that's sort of a problem here. I mean, maybe we're right, or maybe you're right, but either way, it's like we're speaking a different language.

For all the ignorant American stereotypes that exist, this is one example of the ignorant European. We have a framework for the way we understand our government, and we're not going to change it because you appeal to some framework that's alien to us. We aren't you and you aren't us.

The interesting thing is, I think if it was just about economical issues, the Republicans would crush the Democrats probably. But because they still adhere to their outdated beliefs in social issues, they won't get more popular soon.