mitt, mitt, mitt

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

If enough people feared capital punishment, there would be no premeditated murder.

The polls are close - 47% each, or 46% to 45% - how is that remaining 9% going to go third party and win?

what part of 'if enough people did it' do you not understand?

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

what part of 'if enough people did it' do you not understand?

Why not just generalize to:

If (an impossibility) happens, then (some result never seen before) will occur.

What are the odds that the 6% to 9% who neither preferred Romney nor Obama will grow to the 34% minimum you need to win?

Astronomical. A hell of a lot closer to an impossibility than an attainable feat.

[Danzig]

Originally Posted by joeydb

Why not just generalize to:

If (an impossibility) happens, then (some result never seen before) will occur.

What are the odds that the 6% to 9% who neither preferred Romney nor Obama will grow to the 34% minimum you need to win?

Astronomical. A hell of a lot closer to an impossibility than an attainable feat.

i didn't say it would happen this election. it's why i encourage people when the discussion comes up to break away from the one or the other mindset. it's not either/or.

[joeydb]

Originally Posted by Danzig

i didn't say it would happen this election. it's why i encourage people when the discussion comes up to break away from the one or the other mindset. it's not either/or.

I respectfully disagree.

Elections are discrete events. There is no continuum to be found in between those events. So I don't think that you will grow a populace who will consistently vote when that vote is ineffective - a significant percentage will instead stay home and say things like "they are all the same". Unfortunately at that point, the actions of those objecting to the party system and the voting process are indisguishable from those who don't give a sh*t or are just too drunk or stoned to make it to the polls that day.

You're not going to get the progression to a 40% plurality win. You'll get single digits, over and over again - a true exercise in futility.

In theory - I do agree that I'd like a broader spectrum of choices than "for or against" either party, where "Anti-Democrat = Republican" and vice versa. But the math will not work out in our current voting system.

As others have suggested, if there was a ranked system instead of a single choice - your third party would have a good shot. I would rank mine: "1. Republican 2. Libertarian and 3. (or zero) Democrat." A liberal might do the opposite, with Libertarian being #2 for him as well.

Or 3 points for top choice, 2 points for second choice, 1 point for last choice.