ugh. I don't even know why I actually watch the debates. I already voted (absentee ballot) and I have been pretty decided for a long while now. I guess I like to be "politically informed," but really, I'm not learning a whole bunch from watching the debates. :/

Perhaps you have a surefire way that Americans can appropriately decide between the plutocrat in the blue shirt and the plutocrat in the red shirt...

It's stupid as fuck to blame the electorate when largely they don't get to even pick the candidates.
You started listening, apparently.

Americans can vote for whom they want. That they decide to give into social and media pressure to conform to the two major political parties is ultimately their fault.

If one wants to reform American politics, it starts with voting out the incumbents. All of them. I say it's "stupid as fuck" to not hold voters responsible at all. They have other choices outside of the D and R candidates. You just choose to ignore their existence, then you complain that you don't have more choices.

But you seem to know so much more about politics, since it's "stupid as fuck" to blame people for voting for the same politicians over and over again. Do tell me your solution.

Because write in candidates are a viable option: bullshit. If you believe that and espouse it, you're part of the problem.

If you want a solution that will work: convince everyone to stop voting. When voter turn out drops below 10% then we can finally admit that our system has failed and work on a good one. The real solution is to actually have everyone cast an empty ballot, but since that has even less likelihood of happening, I'll go with the second best option. We already have a joke of a voter turn out for the "free world" so we're already halfway there.

And despite what you think of either of my solutions, let me just point out, they are both more likely than a write in candidate ever winning the Presidency or even a seat in congress.

LOL okay. I'm always amused at the anger people have toward third party candidates. People who actually want to make a difference and step outside petty partisan loyalties get blamed for ____ candidate winning.

So in your world the only voters to blame are the ones who don't concede their personal values to fit into one of the major parties. But the people who vote robotically for Democrats or Republicans, no matter who the candidate is, are not to blame. Seems logical

Good luck getting a 10% voter turnout. Especially since the election process thrives on fear. "I don't like this guy, but I need to vote for him because the other guy is much worse."

You can project your anger on me all you want. Doesn't change the fact that American voters are stupid and keep electing the same politicians over and over again while hoping to themselves that the system can be improved in the future.
Your claim that a 10% voter turnout is more likely than a third party winning is a hollow one.

I can easily claim that if enough people are convinced to vote for a third party candidate and collectively do so, that candidate could win. See, my solution is more likely than yours!

Whatevs.

I have no anger towards third party candidates, they simply aren't a solution and almost never appear on the ballot. The last one to appear on the ballot for President, iirc, was H. Ross Perot, how many electoral college votes did he get again?

You're mocking the American voters who are the victims and claiming to be superior because you support an absolute non-solution. If I have anger towards anything, it's your false sense of superiority over the rest of the electorate.

Personal attacks make not a compelling argument.

That's funny, I don't feel superior and I'm not mocking anyone. I'm pointing out simple facts:

- there are more than two choices, contrary to what American voters are taught to think
- voting for the same politicians over and over hasn't worked out too well
- the logical solution is to vote for politicians more aligned with the goals most Americans have (better regulation of Wall Street, no more foreign wars, etc.)

That you say voters are victims is fallacious and untrue. You're putting all the blame on a system that is rotten to the core. But if voters know this and keep supporting politicians who are part of the system, I wouldn't classify them as victims. You're being defensive and emotional without looking at the simple logic.

As long as people carry the view that you have - that a third-party candidate will never be elected - then nothing will change. You say the third-party candidates aren't a solution, but your only reasoning is that they can't win. Well, if enough people abandoned the disdain for third-party candidates they get from the media, it would be possible for a third-party candidate to win.

But that'll never happen because people are afraid of change and prefer the status quo, even if it's to their loss.

Asking how many electoral votes Perot is irrelevant. You claim something is impossible simply because it hasn't happened before. I say it's possible if enough people vote that way. This is the same argument party-loyal voters use, bragging how third-parties have never won and can never win. They ignore the actual basis of the discussion, and what it would mean for voters to move away from the current two-party establishment.

Nothing says, "We want reform!" like voting for the same politicians over and over. :)

Popular vote doesn't mean shit.

You guys seem to be forgetting that there are a good number of voters who genuinely like the candidate they are voting for. After all the two main parties don't just throw anybody on the ticket, they go through the primary process where party voters look at a wish list of candidates and pick from there. So there is a good size chunk of voters who have the exact candidate they want.

Not me though, if I could have had a chance to pick my ideal candidate it certainly wouldn't have been anyone on this list. Although to be fair I would still have some minor issues with that ideal candidate because the only person that I agree with 100% on the issues is me. That being said I do have a list of criteria, background and experience as well as a list of issues that are important to me. At best I can get 14-16 out of 20 in a candidate and so far that "best of what's there" has always been either a Republican or Democrat and they get my vote. I'm certainly not going to vote for some one I see as less qualified, by my standards, just so I can vote a 3rd party candidate because I think there are problems with the electoral process.

To add my hat to orcishgamer and mondo84's debate:

First: third (and fourth and fifth, etc) parties do actually appear on some states' ballots. New York's ballot (which I just filled as an absentee voter) has a bunch of alternative parties listed (though only two did not endorse Obama/Biden or Romney/Ryan: Green and Libertarian). You could technically vote on party lines for an alternative party to the Dems or Repubs.

Second: In my mind, the way that social change is going to happen in the electoral system (in terms of there being a shift in views on third parties, their validity in national politics, and such) is through their increased presence in local elections. Something I was thinking about when filling out my ballot is that only Repubs and Dems have candidates for any local/state elections. Now, that is probably because of the cost of fielding more candidates, but I think that a focus on the symbolic nature of national elections is a lost cause for third parties. I think it is much more likely that a party that does not identify itself as Democrat or Republican could win local elections because of the much more groundwork, grassroots interactions that can occur in those situations. People can actually be talked to, convinced, and debated with, and this can actually inform voters.

I still don't hold out a huge amount of hope this will occur, but I think that this is both an effective way to engage more people in voting (because only a little over 50% of US citizens vote in national elections) and as a way to spread the idea of third parties as viable.

Hey, no sarcasm! :-) Just because I posted it doesn't mean I'm giving anyone my support. They both stink.

Did you read the article? The guy who runs the charity tries to avoid situations like this because he doesn't want to be seen as promoting politics.This was nothing more than a photo op. A couple parts maybe you missed:

"But according to the president of Mahoning County's St. Vincent De Paul Society, the faith-based charity that runs the soup kitchen, the campaign did not have permission and "ramrodded their way" into the facility."

"We are apolitical because the majority of our funding is from private donations," Brian Antal told the Washington Post. "It's strictly in our bylaws not to do it. They showed up there, and they did not have permission. They got one of the volunteers to open up the doors."

"During his 15-minute visit on Saturday morning, the vice presidential candidate donned a white apron and offered to wash some dishes that—as several bloggers and a pool reporter later pointed out—did not appear to be dirty."

Wow, 15 minutes. Dressing up and taking a few swipes at some dishes. That'll help a lot of people.

I'll admit 15 minutes isn't much... But I'm quite curious: How much have you volunteered at your local soup kitchen?

Precisely so. It goes back farther if one digs in the weeds a little bit, and it is absolute fact that both parties have had their hands in it, to one degree or another.

I'm just a bit baffled that A) the role of the current administration in something this crucial to the nation is being overshadowed by B) concern that Paul Ryan washes clean dishes after getting bad advice from someone on the campaign team.

"Holy crap - Paul Ryan barged in (he was allowed in) and washed clean dishes (maybe they were pre-rinsed)! No WAY I'm voting for that guy!" Or so says some random unemployed 2008 - 2011 graduate of an institute of higher learning. But hey, everyone gets to choose their priorities. ; )