PILOT SPIN
Spin Zone => Spin Zone => Topic started by: Little Joe on May 30, 2016, 04:55:20 AM
-
The Libertarian party has again selected Gary Johnson as their nominee.
With all the negatives of the current crop of nominees, does anyone think Johnson has an actual chance to win?
I for one would vote for him if I didn't see it as helping Hillary. But if enough Democrats are discouraged enough with Hillary to vote for Johnson, and if he actually has a chance, I would vote for him.
-
a little bit of the chicken and the egg syndrome?
I say vote for who you believe would be the best President.
Or, with this current crop of candidates, vote for the man who wouldn't be as bad as the others.
-
The vast majority of Americans have no idea who Gary Johnson is. No. He can't win. He'll get another participation ribbon from his party and a chicken dinner. If the Libertarians were serious, they would advertise their brand. This election is the greatest opportunity they have ever had, but if nobody has a clue who they are and they remain marginal how can they gain any traction?
Maybe they need to take a card out of Trump's playbook and just get in front of news cameras and start saying really stupid, outrageous things. Maybe challenge Trump to a debate or something.
Anyhow, I may vote for Gary, who else is there? My other choice is to write in Tyrian Lannister. ;)
-
Anyhow, I may vote for Gary, who else is there? My other choice is to write in Tyrian Lannister. ;)
Embrace SMOD!
-
A vote for Gary Johnson or not voting is a vote for Hillary and oppressive communism.
-
The vast majority of Americans have no idea who Gary Johnson is. No. He can't win. He'll get another participation ribbon from his party and a chicken dinner. If the Libertarians were serious, they would advertise their brand. This election is the greatest opportunity they have ever had, but if nobody has a clue who they are and they remain marginal how can they gain any traction?
Maybe they need to take a card out of Trump's playbook and just get in front of news cameras and start saying really stupid, outrageous things. Maybe challenge Trump to a debate or something.
Anyhow, I may vote for Gary, who else is there? My other choice is to write in Tyrian Lannister. ;)
Advertising is expensive. In most years, all the big donors line up behind the major party candidates. This year, not so much. There is even a rumor that the Koch Brothers may give Johnson a huge boost. Many other large donors have been holding back. If they decide to donate to Johnson and the libertarians, then Johnson and the libertarians CAN advertise. This could work.
If the polls ask me if I would vote for Johnson, I would say yes. But when it comes down to the election, I will vote however it takes to keep Hillary out.
Also, while I assumed that Gary Johnson would take more votes away from Trump than Hillary, I have read several things that suggest otherwise. This has been a very strange year. Here's hoping it gets even stranger and a 3rd party wins it!
-
A vote for Gary Johnson or not voting is a vote for Hillary and oppressive communism.
Only if Gary Johnson stands no chance on NOV 4. But "what if" on November 3rd, it looks like GJ can win it? Stranger things have happened, and this is certainly a strange election year.
-
A vote for Gary Johnson or not voting is a vote for Hillary and oppressive communism.
Still demonstrably false.
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson.
Not voting is not voting.
It's not complicated nor all that difficult to understand. Except it seems to be for some.
-
I don't think Gary Johnson has an actual chance to win but some polls suggest he could get up to 10% of the vote which would be huge for him. It is ab opportunity for the Libertarian party to get attention and inform people of who they are and what they stand for. It's up to them to take advantage of it though.
-
A vote for Gary Johnson or not voting is a vote for Hillary and oppressive communism.
You can say this in as many threads as you want, it doesn't make it any more true the more you say it.
-
What would have to happen for Johnson to be allowed to participate in any TV debate?
-
What would have to happen for Johnson to be allowed to participate in any TV debate?
I think he needs to have 15% in polling.
Here's the "official" word:
http://www.debates.org/index.php?mact=News,cntnt01,detail,0&cntnt01articleid=58&cntnt01origid=15&cntnt01detailtemplate=newspage&cntnt01returnid=80
The CPD's third criterion requires that the candidate have a level of support of at least 15% (fifteen percent) of the national electorate as determined by five national public opinion polling organizations selected by CPD, using the average of those organizations' most recent publicly-reported results at the time of the determination. CPD will rely on the advice of a recognized expert or experts in public opinion polling in determining the polls it will rely upon. The polls to be relied upon will be selected based on the quality of the methodology employed, the reputation of the polling organizations and the frequency of the polling conducted. CPD will identify the selected polling organizations well in advance of the time the criteria are applied.
-
A vote for Gary Johnson or not voting is a vote for Hillary and oppressive communism.
And this is why there are no third, or fourth, or fifth parties in America. This why we have a two party system. There is nothing in the constitution that says we must only have two parties, yet we always have pretty much. It's fear that the other guys might win that keep people from taking a chance on a different perspective.
-
In a word, no - Gary Johnson has no chance.
The Libertarians may poll better this cycle than in previous given the level of dislike that some in both parties have for their presumptive nominees but they will lose like always.
The Libertarians currently hold something like 140 elected positions in the entire nation, 39 'partisan' offices and 106 'non-partisan' offices, out of a little over 500,000 elective offices.
'Gimp
-
Still demonstrably false.
A vote for Gary Johnson is a vote for Gary Johnson.
Not voting is not voting.
It's not complicated nor all that difficult to understand. Except it seems to be for some.
At the most simplistic level, you are correct.
But if enough conservatives stay home because they don't like Trump, then Hillary wins.
On the other hand, if those disenchanted conservatives hold their nose and vote for Trump, Trump may win.
Anyone that doesn't see that correlation is a simpleton, or merely trying to assuage their conscience.
The only exception would be if someone like Gary Johnson were to take an equal number of votes away from both Hillary and Trump.
-
I don't think Gary Johnson has an actual chance to win but some polls suggest he could get up to 10% of the vote which would be huge for him. It is ab opportunity for the Libertarian party to get attention and inform people of who they are and what they stand for. It's up to them to take advantage of it though.
He may only have 10% of the vote now, but I'd wager less than 15% of the nation even knows who he is NOW.
Give him some campaign money, get him in a few debates, and that 10% will climb quickly. I really think he has a chance. I think he has a bigger chance now than I thought Trump had in the beginning of the primary season.
-
At the most simplistic level, you are correct.
But if enough conservatives stay home because they don't like Trump, then Hillary wins.
On the other hand, if those disenchanted conservatives hold their nose and vote for Trump, Trump may win.
Anyone that doesn't see that correlation is a simpleton, or merely trying to assuage their conscience.
The only exception would be if someone like Gary Johnson were to take an equal number of votes away from both Hillary and Trump.
It seems as if every thread deviates into discussion about this and it's getting old. Trying to tell people they're actually voting for Hillary if they don't vote for Trump isn't true on any level. It's Trump's job to convince me to vote for him, not my job to fall in line behind him. Trump has made some decent efforts lately to reach out to conservatives and I hope he continues. Someone who believes Gary Johnson best represents their views and beliefs is not wrong for voting for Gary Johnson, they're doing exactly as they should be doing. If Trump loses and the Republicans put up another bad candidate in 2020, it'll be the exact same thing over again: "You have to vote for X, you don't want Hilary to have four more years do you?"
I will vote my conscience and you should do the same.
-
He may only have 10% of the vote now, but I'd wager less than 15% of the nation even knows who he is NOW.
Give him some campaign money, get him in a few debates, and that 10% will climb quickly. I really think he has a chance. I think he has a bigger chance now than I thought Trump had in the beginning of the primary season.
It won't happen. There's a lot of reasons why, the money being one of them. It also doesn't help that the biggest thing people seem to know about Libertarians is that they want to legalize marijuana.
I don't think I could vote for the Libertarian candidate. There's a lot of aspects I like about libertarians but not enough.
-
It won't happen. There's a lot of reasons why, the money being one of them. It also doesn't help that the biggest thing people seem to know about Libertarians is that they want to legalize marijuana.
I don't think I could vote for the Libertarian candidate. There's a lot of aspects I like about libertarians but not enough.
So who do you think would be better? Trump or Hillary? Choose one. It is a binary question.
-
It seems as if every thread deviates into discussion about this and it's getting old. Trying to tell people they're actually voting for Hillary if they don't vote for Trump isn't true on any level. It's Trump's job to convince me to vote for him, not my job to fall in line behind him. Trump has made some decent efforts lately to reach out to conservatives and I hope he continues. Someone who believes Gary Johnson best represents their views and beliefs is not wrong for voting for Gary Johnson, they're doing exactly as they should be doing. If Trump loses and the Republicans put up another bad candidate in 2020, it'll be the exact same thing over again: "You have to vote for X, you don't want Hilary to have four more years do you?"
I will vote my conscience and you should do the same.
I think you should vote your conscience, as will I.
But even inaction is a choice. If enough people choose not to vote for a candidate, odds are the other candidate will win. I don't know how you can argue that.
And whether Trump earns your vote or not is irrelevant to that fact. If you so despise Trump that you are ok with Hillary winning, then not voting at all would be the best I could hope for.
But I still think Gary Johnson has a chance, slim though it may be.
-
So who do you think would be better? Trump or Hillary? Choose one. It is a binary question.
It's not a binary choice. Stop trying to box me and others into a binary option when it's not.
-
I think you should vote your conscience, as will I.
But even inaction is a choice. If enough people choose not to vote for a candidate, odds are the other candidate will win. I don't know how you can argue that.
I don't argue that. What I'm arguing is the fact that it'll somehow be my fault if I fail to vote for Trump.
And whether Trump earns your vote or not is irrelevant to that fact. If you so despise Trump that you are ok with Hillary winning, then not voting at all would be the best I could hope for.
Again, stop trying to box me into a binary choice when it's not. Not wanting to vote for Trump is not the same as wanting Hilary to win.
But I still think Gary Johnson has a chance, slim though it may be.
You just said it's a binary choice.
-
I don't argue that. What I'm arguing is the fact that it'll somehow be my fault if I fail to vote for Trump.
Again, stop trying to box me into a binary choice when it's not. Not wanting to vote for Trump is not the same as wanting Hilary to win.
You just said it's a binary choice.
My question, which you refused to answer, was a binary choice.
I didn't say the election was solely a binary choice.
-
My question, which you refused to answer, was a binary choice.
I didn't say the election was solely a binary choice.
You're right, because the question is flawed. It assumes that I want either or that I think one would be better than the other. I also think you'll then turn around and use my answer to show why I should vote for Trump and that I somehow proved your point.
I've said previously that I think Trump would be better than Hilary though I'm not sure by how much at this point.
-
So who do you think would be better? Trump or Hillary? Choose one. It is a binary question.
Trump would be better than the doormat.
However, I'm still hoping for a better choice than the donald vs the doormat.
-
Trump would be better than the doormat.
However, I'm still hoping for a better choice than the donald vs the doormat.
Have no fear, Bill Kristol has said he has a better third party alternative that will be introduced any day now.
Keep in mind his intent is for this candidate to split the vote and deny Trump a chance at winning, and of course deliver the victory to Hillary.
Yet Kristol can't figure out why so many are fed up with the RNC....
-
The Libertarian party has again selected Gary Johnson as their nominee.
With all the negatives of the current crop of nominees, does anyone think Johnson has an actual chance to win?
I for one would vote for him if I didn't see it as helping Hillary. But if enough Democrats are discouraged enough with Hillary to vote for Johnson, and if he actually has a chance, I would vote for him.
I saw a clip from the Libertarian debate this week where the moderator asked if it was wrong for us to get involved in WWI and WWII, and Johnson's answer was a simple "I don't know."
I take it with a grain of sand because I didn't see the debate, nor the rest of his answer, if any. But it did make him look foolish.
-
I saw a clip from the Libertarian debate this week where the moderator asked if it was wrong for us to get involved in WWI and WWII, and Johnson's answer was a simple "I don't know."
I take it with a grain of sand because I didn't see the debate, nor the rest of his answer, if any. But it did make him look foolish.
An argument could definitely be made with respect to US involvement in WWI. The war was grinding to an allied victory as it was, and the US entry at the end enabled the predatory terms of the Versailles treaty to be imposed upon Germany, which led inexorably to WW2.
-
I saw a clip from the Libertarian debate this week where the moderator asked if it was wrong for us to get involved in WWI and WWII, and Johnson's answer was a simple "I don't know."
I take it with a grain of sand because I didn't see the debate, nor the rest of his answer, if any. But it did make him look foolish.
For being honest? So you were looking for a preprogrammed poll tested answer?
-
It seems as if every thread deviates into discussion about this and it's getting old. Trying to tell people they're actually voting for Hillary if they don't vote for Trump isn't true on any level. It's Trump's job to convince me to vote for him, not my job to fall in line behind him. Trump has made some decent efforts lately to reach out to conservatives and I hope he continues. Someone who believes Gary Johnson best represents their views and beliefs is not wrong for voting for Gary Johnson, they're doing exactly as they should be doing. If Trump loses and the Republicans put up another bad candidate in 2020, it'll be the exact same thing over again: "You have to vote for X, you don't want Hilary to have four more years do you?"
I will vote my conscience and you should do the same.
It's interesting that in this angry protest, "burn this bitch down" presidential election cycle, conservatives are being told once again to eat a shit sandwich and hold your nose and vote for "our guy."
Same shit, different day.
-
It's interesting that in this angry protest, "burn this bitch down" presidential election cycle, conservatives are being told once again to eat a shit sandwich and hold your nose and vote for "our guy."
Same shit, different day.
How is that different than the "hold your nose and vote for the ideologue politician" that was also being served up shit sandwich style?
-
Most successful third party candidate in the modern era was Ross Perot. Didn't get near enough votes to be POTUS, but did manage to give us two terms worth of Bill Clinton.
-
For being honest? So you were looking for a preprogrammed poll tested answer?
No, I'm looking for someone who has at least some high-school level grasp of the most significant historical events of the 20th century.
He looked as disinterested and uninformed as Trump.
-
Most successful third party candidate in the modern era was Ross Perot. Didn't get near enough votes to be POTUS, but did manage to give us two terms worth of Bill Clinton.
Perot wasn't running against two major party candidates, both of whom have "Unfavourable" ratings north of 60%.
-
Most successful third party candidate in the modern era was Ross Perot. Didn't get near enough votes to be POTUS, but did manage to give us two terms worth of Bill Clinton.
The only way a third party candidate can win with respect to the electoral college is to have a fourth party in the game, sufficient to deny an electoral college majority for any one candidate.
Then the House of Representatives selects the president.
-
The only way a third party candidate can win with respect to the electoral college is to have a fourth party in the game, sufficient to deny an electoral college majority for any one candidate.
Then the House of Representatives selects the president.
Actually, you only need a third party to throw things into the House.
-
Actually, you only need a third party to throw things into the House.
If that were to happen, would a simple majority win or would it need more? And would the sitting Congress get to vote or would the newly elected Congress get the say? I would think the current Congress could get a simple majority of Rs.
-
So who do you think would be better? Trump or Hillary? Choose one. It is a binary question.
See, this is what I'm talking about. Everyone pisses and moans about a lack of choice and how there needs to be a third choice, but when it comes down to it, we're always supposed to make a binary choice. Again and again and again and again...
-
I saw a clip from the Libertarian debate this week where the moderator asked if it was wrong for us to get involved in WWI and WWII, and Johnson's answer was a simple "I don't know."
I take it with a grain of sand because I didn't see the debate, nor the rest of his answer, if any. But it did make him look foolish.
And yet Trump could answer exactly the same way, as he often does and a lot of people would find this answer perfectly reasonable.
-
If that were to happen, would a simple majority win or would it need more? And would the sitting Congress get to vote or would the newly elected Congress get the say? I would think the current Congress could get a simple majority of Rs.
No, it's more complicated than that.
The new Congress meets after they take over to count the Electoral College votes. There are 3 outcomes possible:
1. One person each wins a majority for President and Vice President
-Those people take office January 20
2. Two candidates receive the same number of votes
-There are 538 electors (1 for each Congresscritter [435], 1 for each Senator [100] and 3 for the District of Columbia)
-If each candidate receives 269, those two candidates go to Congress for selection among them
-The House votes for POTUS, the Senate for VPOTUS
3. No candidate receives a majority in a 3 way race
-Same, House votes for POTUS, Senate for VPOTUS
OK, the Senate is simple, they just vote as per normal, except they choose from among the top two votegetters from the EC. It is not clear whether the VP has a tie breaking vote because the rules say that only Senators vote.
The House is complex...
The House chooses from among the top 3 vote-getters (top 2 for the 269-269 tie scenario). Each state delegation gets one vote, and a candidate must receive a majority of states (26) to win. So, states like Montana and Wyoming are easy...one Congresscritter, one vote. However states like Texas (36) can be split (ie. 18-18 or 12-12-12 in a 3 way), in which case that state abstains from the ballot. I'm not sure what would happen with a non-even 3-way split like 13-12-11...note sure if the plurality casts a ballot or not, would take some research of House rules to be sure. The House keeps voting until someone gets 26+.
If the House has not reached a majority by January 20, the VP selected by the Senate (since they only have two choices, it's less likely they would completely deadlock) would become the Acting President until such time as the House got their shit together.
Also, there's no reason that POTUS and VPOTUS would come from the same ticket. In fact you could have a situation where the 3rd place finisher in the EC won the Presidency, while his/her VP running mate was not even an option for the Senate to select.
EDITTED TO ADD: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxii
12th Amendment, except as to dates where Amendment XX controls: https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution/amendmentxx
-
If that were to happen, would a simple majority win or would it need more? And would the sitting Congress get to vote or would the newly elected Congress get the say? I would think the current Congress could get a simple majority of Rs.
Maybe this is what Bill Kristol is trying to achieve? I don't see it happening and I've said at this point I think it's counter productive to try and have a third party run by a conservative. The GOP has Trump and has to deal with it now.
-
See, this is what I'm talking about. Everyone pisses and moans about a lack of choice and how there needs to be a third choice, but when it comes down to it, we're always supposed to make a binary choice. Again and again and again and again...
People said the same when the upstart Republican party supplanted the Whigs.
-
Maybe this is what Bill Kristol is trying to achieve? I don't see it happening and I've said at this point I think it's counter productive to try and have a third party run by a conservative. The GOP has Trump and has to deal with it now.
One thought I saw was interesting.
Run an independent with the purpose of denying a majority in the EC to any candidate. At the same time, a conservative candidate will help to drive conservative turnout for down-ballot races, helping to preserve the House/Senate. Even if Part 1 fails, Part 2 (downballot) will give a far higher chance of holding Congress.
-
The GOP has Trump and has to deal with it now.
Think of the Simpsons "Home the Great" episode when the Stonecutters' World Council decreed that as long as they were Stonecutters, they would have to be loyal to the Chosen One (Homer). Moe wisely asks "Well, what if we don't wanna be Stonecutters anymore?" And thus was born the Ancient and Mystic Society of NoHomers.
(http://vignette2.wikia.nocookie.net/simpsons/images/4/4a/No_Homers_Club.jpg/revision/latest/scale-to-width-down/202?cb=20130205212807)
-
See, this is what I'm talking about. Everyone pisses and moans about a lack of choice and how there needs to be a third choice, but when it comes down to it, we're always supposed to make a binary choice. Again and again and again and again...
Wrong.
The only reason I made it a binary choice is because when I offered up a 3rd choice, he rejected it, leaving only two currently viable choices. So I asked him which one of the two he preferred.
Closing your eyes to reality doesn't make it go away. It is not like being offered chocolate of vanilla ice cream and rejecting both and getting none. Somebody is going to win. It will either be the person you vote for, or someone else.
If someone honestly believes that Trump would be just as bad as Hillary, then don't vote. But if you don't vote for Trump because he was not your favorite Republican, and Hillary wins then you chose to support Hillary.
Personally, Trump was my 16th favorite out of the original 17 Rs. But he would still be better than Hillary, for the reasons I have stated several times.
-
One thought I saw was interesting.
Run an independent with the purpose of denying a majority in the EC to any candidate. At the same time, a conservative candidate will help to drive conservative turnout for down-ballot races, helping to preserve the House/Senate. Even if Part 1 fails, Part 2 (downballot) will give a far higher chance of holding Congress.
Even if the republicans manage to hold both houses of Congress and lose the White House they won't be able to stop Hilary from filling the SCOTUS vacancies. They may try at first but will either succumb to political pressure or will lose control during the mid-terms which results in Hilary still filling the seats.
I just don't see a third party being a viable option to take away enough votes to have this go to the House.
-
Wrong.
The only reason I made it a binary choice is because when I offered up a 3rd choice, he rejected it, leaving only two currently viable choices. So I asked him which one of the two he preferred.
I didn't reject anything, I just didn't answer.
If someone honestly believes that Trump would be just as bad as Hillary, then don't vote.
You have no right to ask that of anyone. How a person chooses to vote is their decision alone. You're trying to tell people to just not vote so you get the outcome you want.
But if you don't vote for Trump because he was not your favorite Republican, and Hillary wins then you chose to support Hillary.
Just stop. I don't support Hilary and you continuing to say it doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you say it.
-
However states like Texas (36) can be split (ie. 18-18 or 12-12-12 in a 3 way), in which case that state abstains from the ballot. I'm not sure what would happen with a non-even 3-way split like 13-12-11...note sure if the plurality casts a ballot or not, would take some research of House rules to be sure. The House keeps voting until someone gets 26+.
Found prior precedent, but the House would be free to change the rules if it wished:
In 1825, the House
decided that a majority of votes of Representatives in each state delegation was
required to cast the state vote for a particular candidate, or the state vote would
registered as “divided” and not credited to any candidate. These decisions reached
in 1825 would be precedential, but not binding, in future contingent elections.
http://congressionalresearch.com/RL32695/document.php?study=Election+of+the+President+and+Vice+President+by+Congress+Contingent+Election
-
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=924.0;attach=169;image)
(http://www.pilotspin.com/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=924.0;attach=171;image)
-
People said the same when the upstart Republican party supplanted the Whigs.
I don't know, I can't remember that far back.
-
I didn't reject anything, I just didn't answer.
Yes you did. You said you wouldn't vote for Gary Johnson, so I asked you who, of the two remaining candidates that you preferred.
You have no right to ask that of anyone. How a person chooses to vote is their decision alone. You're trying to tell people to just not vote so you get the outcome you want.
This is a political discussion board. You have no right to tell me to stop voicing my opinion.
My position has consistently been to argue with people that say they won't vote for anyone, as if that absolves them from any responsibility of the consequences. So I say if you don't like either of them, then don't vote and you get pissed off at me. So what answer could I give that would satisfy you? I can't say you have to choose who to vote for and now you say I can't say to not vote.
Just stop. I don't support Hilary and you continuing to say it doesn't make it true, no matter how many times you say it.
It doesn't matter how many times you reject it, but in a contest where one person will win and one will lose, your vote or non vote helps influence the result. It doesn't matter to me whether you like Hillary or not. But if you don't vote for Hillary's antagonist, then you are supporting (even if not actively voting) for Hillary.
A non vote may not be a vote for Hillary, but it helps accomplish the same thing.
-
I don't know, I can't remember that far back.
Brian Williams has a whole chapter about how he reported on it in his autobiography. :D
-
Yes you did. You said you wouldn't vote for Gary Johnson, so I asked you who, of the two remaining candidates that you preferred.
I can write someone in if I so choose.
This is a political discussion board. You have no right to tell me to stop voicing my opinion.
I didn't. I said to stop trying to tell me that I prefer Hilary because of my reluctance to vote for for Trump.
My position has consistently been to argue with people that say they won't vote for anyone, as if that absolves them from any responsibility of the consequences. So I say if you don't like either of them, then don't vote and you get pissed off at me. So what answer could I give that would satisfy you? I can't say you have to choose who to vote for and now you say I can't say to not vote.
I have not once said I would not vote for anyone. I've been fighting this silly notion that by either not voting or not voting for the candidate some here think I should vote for that it'll somehow be my fault if Trump loses. Me voting my conscience doesn't absolve me of anything, nor does it make me responsible for an outcome.
It doesn't matter how many times you reject it, but in a contest where one person will win and one will lose, your vote or non vote helps influence the result. It doesn't matter to me whether you like Hillary or not. But if you don't vote for Hillary's antagonist, then you are supporting (even if not actively voting) for Hillary.
Not voting for Trump may be more about not supporting a non-conservative than preferring Hilary. It's not as simple as you want to make it out to be.
A non vote may not be a vote for Hillary, but it helps accomplish the same thing.
I disagree with this.
-
Actually, you only need a third party to throw things into the House.
Not if one of the major parties gets the majority of the electoral vote.
Ross Perot got nearly 20 million votes and 19% of the popular vote, and won precisely zero electoral votes.
How do you figure it would go to the House if someone wins the majority of EVs?
-
Not if one of the major parties gets the majority of the electoral vote.
Ross Perot got nearly 20 million votes and 19% of the popular vote, and won precisely zero electoral votes.
How do you figure it would go to the House if someone wins the majority of EVs?
No,
I'm saying that all you need is three to remove a majority of the EV. You can have 10 parties, and if one gets 270 EVs, it doesn't go to the house. Technically, you can go to the House with 2 candidates on a 269-269 tie.
It's not just the raw number of votes a third party candidate gets, it's the distribution. Let's say that Ross Perot had run in 2000, but that he was only on the ballot in Wyoming. If he had received 147,948 votes, the election would have gone to the House with 268-266-3 EV.
-
If someone honestly believes that Trump would be just as bad as Hillary, then don't vote. But if you don't vote for Trump because he was not your favorite Republican, and Hillary wins then you chose to support Hillary.
Personally, Trump was my 16th favorite out of the original 17 Rs. But he would still be better than Hillary, for the reasons I have stated several times.
I liked Scott Walker, but I guess he wasn't exciting enough for most. I agree with your statement.
-
Addressing the original question - Gary Johnson does not have a chance. We are in the middle of the biggest revolution of true liberal thinking in the United States in decades and the Libertarian Party is on the sidelines. No, he doesn't have a chance.