Quote:
Originally Posted by joeydb
Are you kidding?
You are correct of course about the electoral vote, but obviously the vote that did not go to which candidate has a chance to win that is still more favorable to the third-party voter than the Democrat does have an impact.
Count the votes on the top of this page. If the Johnson votes went to Romney instead, doesn't the result become clearer? It is much more likely that the third-party voter will lose the election for Romney than win it for Johnson - astronomically so.
So again - in 2012 - with the polls where they are - even plus or minus 10% for Obama or Romney - a vote for Johnson is equivalent to a vote for Obama.
That is the math of it, and all the motivation, justification, and hand-wringing before and after casting the vote is meaningless. The MATH is all that MATTERS as that is what drives the RESULT.
|
Unless the Supreme Court is going to hand another election to the candidate that got the fewest popular votes like they did in 2000, the electoral college is the only thing that matters, which means that only 8 states matter, and all 8 states right now are clearly for or leaning Obama.
It's a shame that states that are predictably red or blue don't get visits or advertising from the candidates. For example, Kentucky is a democratic-majority registered state. Our largest population centers are clearly democratic. But we have McConnell and Rand Paul. The only candidate advertising here is Tea Party and aggressive republican, hardly any democratic candidate.
I'm wishing it would go to popular vote, I think, and do away with electoral college. Make each candidate have to win every state, every vote they can. Have to think on it a little more.
10-09-2012, 01:28 PM
Hybrid Mode
