241–250 of 267 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
How many people in the UK chose Theresa May as Prime Minister?
How many people have chosen any Prime Minister of the UK? Its just their constituents that vote for them, so ~50000 people at most.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't actually have to vote for the least worst one... I recommend looking to third party candidates. The libertarian party has two pretty solid lineup and polls third at the moment (like 11% or something this election cycle). That being said, you can also protest vote by putting in "Edward Snowden" or something. Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least worst option". You're esse…
To the sibling who said that voting for a third party accomplishes nothing, that is incorrect. If a third party receives 5% of the overall vote, that party's next presidential candidate becomes eligible to receive about $90M in federal funding for the following election cycle under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml Also, why can't I reply to siblings of this post?
https://www.teepublic.com/show/496947-i-already-hate-our-nex...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
To the sibling who said that voting for a third party accomplishes nothing, that is incorrect. If a third party receives 5% of the overall vote, that party's next presidential candidate becomes eligible to receive about $90M in federal funding for the following election cycle under the Presidential Election Campaign Fund. http://www.fec.gov/press/bkgnd/fund.shtml Also, why can't I reply to siblings of this post?
The PECF doesn't just blindly give out $90 million dollars; it matches up to $90 million dollars of donations, dollar-for-dollar. The third-party candidate still needs to bring in donations to receive money from the PECF.
PARTY CONVENTION AND GENERAL ELECTION GRANTS The presidential nominee of each major party may become eligible for a public grant of $20,000,000 plus COLA (over 1974). For 2012, the grant was approximately $91,241,400 for each major party nominee. However, the two major party presidential nominees in 2012 opted out of the public financing program in the general election. Candidates themselves may not raise any other funds to be used for campaigning during the general election period. The general election limit for publicly funded candidates for 2016 is $96,140,600.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You don't actually have to vote for the least worst one... I recommend looking to third party candidates. The libertarian party has two pretty solid lineup and polls third at the moment (like 11% or something this election cycle). That being said, you can also protest vote by putting in "Edward Snowden" or something. Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least worst option". You're esse…
> Honestly, I find it horrifying people feel the need to vote for the "least worst option". I find it disconcerting that one could use such hyperbolic language when voting for the "least worst" option is clearly the rational thing to do when there are direct, personal stakes from the *outcome. The ramifications to minorities by electing a very conservative Republican, or a pretend-Conservative who is a not-pretend ra…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I said it elsewhere so I am going to repost it: > But we all know that a third-party candidate is not going to win the election. A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1]. This would also pretty much destroy both parties - they will have to compromise and come closer to the middle. Basically, if a thi…
> A third party doesn't actually don't need to win. If a candidate does not receive a majority in the electoral college I believe the house / congress decides[1]. (1) a third party is unlikely, in failing to win, to get even a single electoral vote, much less be instrumental in denying the leading major-party candidate a majority. (2) If no candidate gets an electoral majority for the Presidency, the House elects a P…
You're also ignoring all the changes made to election rules since Perot (all made to prevent such a strong showing again)?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 1) There is a clear value to voting Green in terms of building the party. The more people vote Green, the more visible the success of the party, the better they do in future elections. Not all of what happens in an election need be about winning the current contest. That makes sense in the abstract. In concrete reality, Trump is going to do his best to persecute hundreds of thousands of Americans, notably Hispanics…
This is exactly the same thing we hear every election. You can't climb a hill if you don't ever try to go up. Of course I don't believe in elections so this whole debate is academic to me. In a world with ALEC and WPP, elections have nothing to do with governance.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Vote libertarian?
I rather thought of: - Clinton - Trump - None (give me someone else) In case 3rd option gets most votes parties have to re-pick candidates in a week.
How about not having the parties choose one and only one candidate? Maybe let it be a competition between the top three?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I rather thought of: - Clinton - Trump - None (give me someone else) In case 3rd option gets most votes parties have to re-pick candidates in a week.
>In case 3rd option gets most votes parties have to re-pick candidates in a week. How about not having the parties choose one and only one candidate? Maybe let it be a competition between the top three?