Vote 3rd party or you're an idiot!Chris Matthews can suck it. (1 Viewer)

[Maurile Tremblay]

I would consider some other things:

- Don't put the party of the candidate next to their name. Know who the hell you're voting for before you go in.

Given how political tribalism commonly makes otherwise intelligent people so stupid, I think there's a very strong argument for doing away with political parties altogether. No more "our team against your team." No more teams. Just individuals.

That's not realistic, of course. Even if we formally did away with the two-party system, I'd expect the masses to spontaneously divide themselves into two major competing groups anyway, with all the tribalism that attends such a division. But if we could somehow prevent it, perhaps by waving a magic wand, it might make democracy a bit less terrible (thus extending the distance between it and every other form of government that's been tried).

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected

I would consider some other things:

- Don't put the party of the candidate next to their name. Know who the hell you're voting for before you go in.

- Allow a 'none of the above' choice.

- Get rid of registration fees for running for office. This would encourage more people to run and almost always ensure people a choice at the ballot box.

D. Cancel voting and install a benevolent dictator.

Yeah we're gonna have to have a vote on that...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

I would consider some other things:

- Don't put the party of the candidate next to their name. Know who the hell you're voting for before you go in.

Given how political tribalism commonly makes otherwise intelligent people so stupid, I think there's a very strong argument for doing away with political parties altogether. No more "our team against your team." No more teams. Just individuals.

That's not realistic, of course. Even if we formally did away with the two-party system, I'd expect the masses to spontaneously divide themselves into two major competing groups anyway, with all the tribalism that attends such a division. But if we could somehow prevent it, perhaps by using a magic wand, it might make democracy a bit less terrible (thus extending the distance between it and every other form of government that's been tried).

Freedom to associate is a big deal IMO.

I think our problem is politicization; so much in society takes on an ideological hue these days, people wear their ideology like a badge. Which of course is not freedom at all.

 

[IvanKaramazov]

I think it's more true now than it used to be.

The argument in the past for voting for 3rd parties was that while they could never win, if they garnered enough votes to gain attention, then one of the two main parties would eventually absorb many of their ideas. Historically, there has been merit to this: in the 1930's, the Democratic party absorbed many of the ideas of the Socialist party, which had decent showings in the late 1920s. Similarly, the relative success of a few Libertarian candidates in the 1970s had an impact on the agenda of Ronald's Reagan's presidency, which was decidedly more libertarian in economic views than his Republican predecessors.

However, that's all in the past. Today, the money given to the Democratic and Republican parties make them much less resistant to change, and any change that DOES come will emerge from creative people within the parties rather than without. Therefore, the old argument about outside absorption doesn't apply. So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.

This is true, but it's also true of everybody who votes unless you happen to be the guy who decides a one-vote-margin-of-victory race. If you vote for Republicans or Democrats, you'd do just as well to stay home and watch tv. Voting for a major party is a foolish gesture.

For me personally, I enjoyed flipping everybody the bird by voting for the half-dozen Libertarian candidates who are running against Republicans (no Dems on the ballot in these races).

 

[rockaction]

I think it's more true now than it used to be.

The argument in the past for voting for 3rd parties was that while they could never win, if they garnered enough votes to gain attention, then one of the two main parties would eventually absorb many of their ideas. Historically, there has been merit to this: in the 1930's, the Democratic party absorbed many of the ideas of the Socialist party, which had decent showings in the late 1920s. Similarly, the relative success of a few Libertarian candidates in the 1970s had an impact on the agenda of Ronald's Reagan's presidency, which was decidedly more libertarian in economic views than his Republican predecessors.

However, that's all in the past. Today, the money given to the Democratic and Republican parties make them much less resistant to change, and any change that DOES come will emerge from creative people within the parties rather than without. Therefore, the old argument about outside absorption doesn't apply. So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.

I think Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Justin Amash's subsequent successes counsel against making such a broad statement such as this. I think libertarianism and the LP still have roles in shaping both Republican and Democratic political platforms. I'm thinking Wyden, Udall, Paul, and Amash especially.

I think your declarative in this instance is the worst side of wishful thinking. Tea Party challenges -- granted, while technically within the party -- are fundamentally transforming the Republican party. I know that timschochet the internet commenter hates this, but it seems undeniable at this point.

So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.

This is true. But it's just as true if you vote for one of the major-party candidates. No matter whom you vote for, you're not changing any national electoral outcome. I don't know whether you voted for Romney or Obama (I don't keep a notebook), but Obama was going to win either way. You, personally, have no influence. Your vote doesn't matter. A vote for Hillary is exactly the same as a vote for a third-party candidate as far as practical consequences are concerned.

Therefore, don't worry about practical consequences. Think of voting as a form of entertainment. Vote for the candidate you admire most -- no matter which party she or he belongs to -- not because your vote is going to influence the election, but because it makes you feel better about democracy and your role in it. There's much to be said in favor of feeling better about things.

I think that is a great way to look at it, and something to aspire to.

 

[Fennis]

I think it's more true now than it used to be.

The argument in the past for voting for 3rd parties was that while they could never win, if they garnered enough votes to gain attention, then one of the two main parties would eventually absorb many of their ideas. Historically, there has been merit to this: in the 1930's, the Democratic party absorbed many of the ideas of the Socialist party, which had decent showings in the late 1920s. Similarly, the relative success of a few Libertarian candidates in the 1970s had an impact on the agenda of Ronald's Reagan's presidency, which was decidedly more libertarian in economic views than his Republican predecessors.

However, that's all in the past. Today, the money given to the Democratic and Republican parties make them much less resistant to change, and any change that DOES come will emerge from creative people within the parties rather than without. Therefore, the old argument about outside absorption doesn't apply. So in effect, if you are voting for a 3rd party, you're not influencing anything, you're not changing any outcome. You may as well not vote. While I wouldn't say you're an idiot. you're basically making a foolish and meaningless gesture.

I think Ron Paul, Rand Paul, and Justin Amash's subsequent successes counsel against making such a broad statement such as this. I think libertarianism and the LP still have roles in shaping both Republican and Democratic political platforms. I'm thinking Wyden, Udall, Paul, and Amash especially.

I think your declarative in this instance is the worst side of wishful thinking. Tea Party challenges -- granted, while technically within the party -- are fundamentally transforming the Republican party. I know that timschochet the internet commenter hates this, but it seems undeniable at this point.

You cant get more of a win for establishment Republicans than this year. Should be called "The Establishment Wave".

 

[tom22406]

I was told to my face by a Warner supporter that I was throwing away my vote by voting for Sarvis here in the Virginia primaries at the polling place.My reply was I would rather throw it away over voting for either Warner or Gillespie and walked away.

I really hate politics sometimes.

 

[Leroy Hoard]

I was told to my face by a Warner supporter that I was throwing away my vote by voting for Sarvis here in the Virginia primaries at the polling place.My reply was I would rather throw it away over voting for either Warner or Gillespie and walked away.

See posts #46 & #50.

 

[roadkill1292]

Tim's love for the two party system is just

It's certainly not a popular view to take in this forum. But for all it's flaws, I think it's the best political system ever created. It runs rings around parliamentary Democracy- if you doubt this, I would urge you to study the Knesset and see the chaos.

The Knesset is a spectacularly stupid example. It's like saying SEC football sucks because of Vanderbilt. Let's just ignore the many parliaments around the world working just fine.

You know, when you post as much as you do, one consequence is that you don't leave yourself enough time to give your ideas a more thorough vetting and stuff like this comes out on the screen.

 

[parasaurolophus]

Would be great if they got rid of the party on the ballots and just listed names.

 

[Ditka Butkus]

I feel as if voting for a worthless/ crooked, Dem. or Rep. is throwing your vote away...See Florida Governor race.

 

[FlapJacks]

There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected

It does not necessarily have to be two votes. Instant runoff voting (where you rank the candidates, and votes are transferred as the lowest vote-getter is eliminated by round until someone gets a majority) is used elsewhere in the world, and in certain local contests in the U.S.

this would work even better...

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

An article for my alternative candidate friends.

 

[roadkill1292]

An article for my alternative candidate friends.

Interesting piece. I think the system favors the entrenched, though, and it will be harder than he thinks to root out the current Big Two with their inherent advantages. But he's right about the Millenials. That bunch is different and has a different perspective about everything. They believe that things should work because we know how to make things work here and they're not excusing government not working because of systemic inefficiencies. You know all those arguments about what the founders envisioned and how we need to be protected from government because of the abuses of 18th century monarchies? They think those are crap. They expect government to be efficient in delivering the services they want and to otherwise stay out of the way.

 

[rockaction]

An article for my alternative candidate friends.

Interesting piece. I think the system favors the entrenched, though, and it will be harder than he thinks to root out the current Big Two with their inherent advantages. But he's right about the Millenials. That bunch is different and has a different perspective about everything. They believe that things should work because we know how to make things work here and they're not excusing government not working because of systemic inefficiencies. You know all those arguments about what the founders envisioned and how we need to be protected from government because of the abuses of 18th century monarchies? They think those are crap. They expect government to be efficient in delivering the services they want and to otherwise stay out of the way.

And they are going to have to grow up jaded like every other generation if that's the case. By that, and without malice, I mean if they expect city governments to start functioning without graft and kickbacks and everything that becomes part of it, they are in for a long, long wait. I don't see efficiency being delivered without serious curtailments to other liberty or public property and public organization concerns.

eta* to add "public property and public organization"

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

An article for my alternative candidate friends.

Interesting piece. I think the system favors the entrenched, though, and it will be harder than he thinks to root out the current Big Two with their inherent advantages. But he's right about the Millenials. That bunch is different and has a different perspective about everything. They believe that things should work because we know how to make things work here and they're not excusing government not working because of systemic inefficiencies. You know all those arguments about what the founders envisioned and how we need to be protected from government because of the abuses of 18th century monarchies? They think those are crap. They expect government to be efficient in delivering the services they want and to otherwise stay out of the way.

Oh, I'm not "all in" in agreement - at least in the near future, but I still found it interesting.

 

[roadkill1292]

An article for my alternative candidate friends.

Interesting piece. I think the system favors the entrenched, though, and it will be harder than he thinks to root out the current Big Two with their inherent advantages. But he's right about the Millenials. That bunch is different and has a different perspective about everything. They believe that things should work because we know how to make things work here and they're not excusing government not working because of systemic inefficiencies. You know all those arguments about what the founders envisioned and how we need to be protected from government because of the abuses of 18th century monarchies? They think those are crap. They expect government to be efficient in delivering the services they want and to otherwise stay out of the way.

And they are going to have to grow up jaded like every other generation if that's the case. By that, and without malice, I mean if they expect city governments to start functioning without graft and kickbacks and everything that becomes part of it, they are in for a long, long wait. I don't see efficiency being delivered without serious curtailments to other liberty concerns.

They're not gonna wait. They're gonna be running things. Or, maybe more accurately, they're gonna be doing what they want regardless of what government says or does. The whole point of the article is that the dynamics of everything are decentralizing. I've already mentioned how colleges will change in another thread; that's just one of many institutions that we take for granted but are gonna be destroyed by the new technological dynamics. The churchies can legislate against weed legalization all they want, the Millennials will just laugh and grab the latest app for finding a reputable dealer in the neighborhood.

 

[rockaction]

An article for my alternative candidate friends.

Interesting piece. I think the system favors the entrenched, though, and it will be harder than he thinks to root out the current Big Two with their inherent advantages. But he's right about the Millenials. That bunch is different and has a different perspective about everything. They believe that things should work because we know how to make things work here and they're not excusing government not working because of systemic inefficiencies. You know all those arguments about what the founders envisioned and how we need to be protected from government because of the abuses of 18th century monarchies? They think those are crap. They expect government to be efficient in delivering the services they want and to otherwise stay out of the way.

And they are going to have to grow up jaded like every other generation if that's the case. By that, and without malice, I mean if they expect city governments to start functioning without graft and kickbacks and everything that becomes part of it, they are in for a long, long wait. I don't see efficiency being delivered without serious curtailments to other liberty concerns.

They're not gonna wait. They're gonna be running things. Or, maybe more accurately, they're gonna be doing what they want regardless of what government says or does. The whole point of the article is that the dynamics of everything are decentralizing. I've already mentioned how colleges will change in another thread; that's just one of many institutions that we take for granted but are gonna be destroyed by the new technological dynamics. The churchies can legislate against weed legalization all they want, the Millennials will just laugh and grab the latest app for finding a reputable dealer in the neighborhood.

No, I know. I've been reading Mr. Gillespie on the Millennials for months now (I read reason.com regularly). I'm also familiar with his position on the decentralization of everything. I'm just not sure those Millennial ideals won't get ground to dust once the reality of politics and age hit them. That's all.

FWIW, I'm a third-party supporter. I'm just not as optimistic and sanguine as he is about the whole thing.

 

[Tecumseh]

There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected

I would consider some other things:

- Don't put the party of the candidate next to their name. Know who the hell you're voting for before you go in.

- Allow a 'none of the above' choice.

- Get rid of registration fees for running for office. This would encourage more people to run and almost always ensure people a choice at the ballot box.

I submitted this a week or or so ago:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/opinion/readers-write/nhtrg/

 

[Leroy Hoard]

There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected

I would consider some other things:

- Don't put the party of the candidate next to their name. Know who the hell you're voting for before you go in.

- Allow a 'none of the above' choice.

- Get rid of registration fees for running for office. This would encourage more people to run and almost always ensure people a choice at the ballot box.

I submitted this a week or or so ago:

http://www.ajc.com/news/news/opinion/readers-write/nhtrg/

x2

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

An article for my alternative candidate friends.

Interesting piece. I think the system favors the entrenched, though, and it will be harder than he thinks to root out the current Big Two with their inherent advantages. But he's right about the Millenials. That bunch is different and has a different perspective about everything. They believe that things should work because we know how to make things work here and they're not excusing government not working because of systemic inefficiencies. You know all those arguments about what the founders envisioned and how we need to be protected from government because of the abuses of 18th century monarchies? They think those are crap. They expect government to be efficient in delivering the services they want and to otherwise stay out of the way.

As soon as a third party or movement picks up enough votes to matter one or both of the existing parties coopt the platform.

IOW, the two parties aren't going anywhere. But current party policies can be influenced.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Politics is just a more refined way of settling differences and managing a society than killing each other in the streets. (Major Upgrade!)

So of course politics is tribal -- it's a human system designed for containing and/or resolving conflict and, as humans, we have different ideas about how to allocate resources and run our affairs.

Wishing the the tribalism away sort of misses the point of a political system in the first place.

 

[roadkill1292]

An article for my alternative candidate friends.

Interesting piece. I think the system favors the entrenched, though, and it will be harder than he thinks to root out the current Big Two with their inherent advantages. But he's right about the Millenials. That bunch is different and has a different perspective about everything. They believe that things should work because we know how to make things work here and they're not excusing government not working because of systemic inefficiencies. You know all those arguments about what the founders envisioned and how we need to be protected from government because of the abuses of 18th century monarchies? They think those are crap. They expect government to be efficient in delivering the services they want and to otherwise stay out of the way.

As soon as a third party or movement picks up enough votes to matter one or both of the existing parties coopt the platform.

IOW, the two parties aren't going anywhere. But current party policies can be influenced.

Things change. Black people and women couldn't become president very long ago.

We should be ridiculing all the Dems and Repulicans on this board for their conventionality.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

If you continue to focus and measure the success of a potential third party against the elections for President, Senate and House, and ignore completely (which is what almost all of you are doing) local races up to the Governor's mansion in each respective state then you are missing a rather crucial and frankly more important aspect of voting and the system we have. The instant gratification or its exact opposite of arguing over the fact that a third party can't get a President that has a real shot is self defeating.

The real power in this country on a daily basis is in local,county and state legislatures. Get the towns and you will get the counties. Get the counties and you will get the state. Get the state and you will be a force on the national stage.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Things change. Black people and women couldn't become president very long ago.

You're missing the point. As soon as someone champions a cause that's popular enough to win some votes, one of the major parties will adopt those same causes and drain the life out of the movement.

The best a 3rd party can do is influence policy direction for the two big ones. Barring a root and branch revolution, the two parties will never go anywhere.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

If you continue to focus and measure the success of a potential third party against the elections for President, Senate and House, and ignore completely (which is what almost all of you are doing) local races up to the Governor's mansion in each respective state then you are missing a rather crucial and frankly more important aspect of voting and the system we have. The instant gratification or its exact opposite of arguing over the fact that a third party can't get a President that has a real shot is self defeating.

The real power in this country on a daily basis is in local,county and state legislatures. Get the towns and you will get the counties. Get the counties and you will get the state. Get the state and you will be a force on the national stage.

Totally agree with this. I'm speaking at the state and national level only. If a local-oriented movement is successful and wins elections you can bet that the big parties will notice and one of them will see an opening to adopt the policy that's winning.

The two party system is a moderating feature of our democracy. It makes change slow and provides institutional checks on radicalism. But new ideas can (and do) get through eventually -- once they're proven vote winners.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If you continue to focus and measure the success of a potential third party against the elections for President, Senate and House, and ignore completely (which is what almost all of you are doing) local races up to the Governor's mansion in each respective state then you are missing a rather crucial and frankly more important aspect of voting and the system we have. The instant gratification or its exact opposite of arguing over the fact that a third party can't get a President that has a real shot is self defeating.

The real power in this country on a daily basis is in local,county and state legislatures. Get the towns and you will get the counties. Get the counties and you will get the state. Get the state and you will be a force on the national stage.

So true!!!

People are so obsessed with national politics yet can hardly tell what's going on their local council and judicial races and in their local legislatures. Totally agree with this, and by the way when issues get local watch conservatives turn liberal and liberals turn conservative.

 

[roadkill1292]

Things change. Black people and women couldn't become president very long ago.

You're missing the point. As soon as someone champions a cause that's popular enough to win some votes, one of the major parties will adopt those same causes and drain the life out of the movement.

The best a 3rd party can do is influence policy direction for the two big ones. Barring a root and branch revolution, the two parties will never go anywhere.

I get your point. I don't agree with your predicted inevitable conclusion. "Causes" and "issues" may not be driving forces to future voters.

 

[Bottomfeeder Sports]

If you continue to focus and measure the success of a potential third party against the elections for President, Senate and House, and ignore completely (which is what almost all of you are doing) local races up to the Governor's mansion in each respective state then you are missing a rather crucial and frankly more important aspect of voting and the system we have. The instant gratification or its exact opposite of arguing over the fact that a third party can't get a President that has a real shot is self defeating.

The real power in this country on a daily basis is in local,county and state legislatures. Get the towns and you will get the counties. Get the counties and you will get the state. Get the state and you will be a force on the national stage.

I'm not sure if you are dead on or have it backwards. The problem isn't that we are measuring third parties only at the national level and ignoring the local level, but that with a few exceptions that just prove the rule the third parties are ignoring the grass roots races that would build the structure to truly give them relevance.

I think the smart move is to think that is what you were saying all along and it was me not getting it.

 

[Ditkaless Wonders]

I voted for third party candidates again, nearly exclusively.

 

[CurlyNight]

I just love how the republicans say they won in a landslide when 2/3 of the people who could vote, didn't. All of them are ####ed up and only look after themselves so in essence, all of our votes are wasted...

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey who are the 3rd party choices for president in 2016, any ideas?

 

[matuski]

Hey who are the 3rd party choices for president in 2016, any ideas?

Trump

 

[tom22406]

There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected

I would consider some other things:

- Don't put the party of the candidate next to their name. Know who the hell you're voting for before you go in.

That would require voters to actually do some homework instead of just voting strictly down party lines which many do.

 

[tom22406]

Hey who are the 3rd party choices for president in 2016, any ideas?

Found this list

http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/?other=other

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey who are the 3rd party choices for president in 2016, any ideas?

Trump

Ha, ok, besides The Hairpiece.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Hey who are the 3rd party choices for president in 2016, any ideas?

Found this list

http://2016.presidential-candidates.org/?other=other

Thank you.

I see several Green Party, Reform Party, Constitution Party and Libertarian candidates. Gary Johnson is in there and he's well known, so is Cynthia McKinney.

I'm guessing there are Socialists and Communists running as well.

 

[NCCommish]

There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected

I would consider some other things:

- Don't put the party of the candidate next to their name. Know who the hell you're voting for before you go in.

- Allow a 'none of the above' choice.

- Get rid of registration fees for running for office. This would encourage more people to run and almost always ensure people a choice at the ballot box.

D. Cancel voting and install a benevolent dictator.

I'm available

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Here's the old Jon Huntsman thread.

Turns out we might need it:

Jon Huntsman on the risks the GOP is courtingWASHINGTON -- Former Utah governor Jon Huntsman, who unsuccessfully sought the GOP presidential nomination in 2012, says he's getting "a lot" of encouragement to launch another White House bid from Republicans concerned about the prospect of Donald Trump as the 2016 GOP nominee.

This time, to run as an independent.

"I always want to help my country where I can, but you don't want to embark on a suicide mission," he told Capital Download. "I'm not ready for a third-party run until we have a complete collapse of the Republican Party that I can still believe in."

That said, unease about Trump and fractures over the GOP's direction are a warning sign for the party, he says. A split in Republican ranks that prompted any significant third-party candidate almost certainly would rebound to the benefit of the Democratic nominee.

Huntsman, 55, is now co-chair with former Connecticut senator Joe Lieberman of No Labels, a non-profit advocacy group that tries to foster bipartisan cooperation on big issues, and chair of the Atlantic Council, a think tank focused on foreign affairs. The presidential bid by the former two-term governor never gained much traction in a turbulent election year -- though the heat of the 2016 campaign makes that previous race look restrained.

"People really are hungry for change," he said on USA TODAY's weekly video newsmaker series. "They were last time, but it hadn't reached the 212-degree boiling point. This time it has. That's why I think Donald Trump -- despite sometimes the over-the-top rhetoric that would have done in any other candidate in earlier election cycles -- probably has some real legs."

Huntsman calls Trump the favorite to win the nomination, given his strength in states that hold early contests: "Once you capture that winning narrative after three or four or a half-dozen wins, then you're off. And there's very little that can stop what I refer to as the physics of politics, that momentum."

Several of the establishment favorites -- including former Florida governor Jeb Bush, New Jersey Gov. Chris Christie and Gov. John Kasich -- are focused on the primary in New Hampshire in hopes of breaking through, echoing Huntsman's strategy four years ago. After he finished third in the Granite State, he folded his campaign.

"For the so-called establishment or traditional Republicans, a first or a second is about it," he says. "After that, you're probably toast."

While he says Trump could well win the Republican nomination, Huntsman isn't convinced the billionaire businessman could carry a general election. "Given current rhetoric in the political marketplace, the answer is no," he says. He calls Trump's rhetoric "white-hot and really playing on the emotions of fear."

"If he's able to transform that into being a problem-solver ... then who knows?" he adds. "Maybe he could build a coalition that is a winning coalition."

For the moment, though, even Huntsman didn't sound certain whom he would support in a contest between Trump and Democrat Hillary Clinton.

"I'll have to wait and see where Donald Trump finds himself as he gets toward the general election if in fact he wins the nomination," he said. So he's undecided? "Well, I've vote the Republican. It's too early to see who's going to win the nomination."

Huntsman left the door open to another presidential campaign for himself down the road. "Health and family permitting, at some point that may be something that we'll take a look at."

http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2015/12/21/jon-huntsman-risks-gop-courting/77493886/

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Looking at the idea of third-party challenge to TrumpThis weekend, veteran political journalist Jeff Greenfield said that some GOP insiders are theorizing about a third-party candidate to oppose Donald Trump, if he wins the Republican nomination. By any means, that scenario is complicated but with some precedent.

Greenfield has covered politics for three TV networks and written 13 books. Writing for Politico magazine, Greenfield talked about his discussions with GOP operatives about how some party leaders would react to a potential Trump nomination in Cleveland this summer, which would potentially deeply divide the Republican Party.

“It would be a fissure so deep that, if the operatives I talked with are right, a Donald Trump running as a Republican could well face a third-party run—from the Republicans themselves,” Greenfield writes.

Greenfield quotes Dan Schnur, a veteran strategist from the Ronald Reagan and George H.W. Bush presidential campaigns, as saying, “a Trump nomination would virtually guarantee a third-party campaign from a more traditional Republican candidate.” He also spoke with two other veteran strategists would believe a third-party candidate, friendly to conservatives, would function as “a safe harbor for disaffected GOP voters, and to help other Republican candidates.”

In this scenario, current GOP leaders dissatisfied with Trump would hope that the third-party candidate would allow Republican senators up for re-election such as Kelly Ayotte, Ron Johnson, Pat Toomey and Mark Kirk to have better chances to win – and keep the Senate in Republican hands, while openly opposing Hillary Clinton.

...

http://news.yahoo.com/looking-idea-third-party-challenge-trump-115611627.html

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

There should be two votes

1) vote for your top choice

2) runoff of the top two vote-getters

This way you can vote your conscience and not have to worry about inadvertently helping some other ####### get elected

I would consider some other things:

- Don't put the party of the candidate next to their name. Know who the hell you're voting for before you go in.

- Allow a 'none of the above' choice.

- Get rid of registration fees for running for office. This would encourage more people to run and almost always ensure people a choice at the ballot box.

D. Cancel voting and install a benevolent dictator.

This may be on the table soon.

 

[The Commish]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

 

[Cjw_55106]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

"This party" essentially hands Hillary the win.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

"This party" essentially hands Hillary the win.

As for the Huntsman / moderate GOP candidate idea, this is how the GOP got started after all.

And it depends on the candidate, but I'm not so sure. Actually I'm starting to think the GOP was dead wrong in allowing Trump to stay in. But at any rate, so what. Lose the election, save the soul.

As for winnability, you really don't think that a moderate GOP candidate with some name recognition and experience who is joined by a decent VP wouldn't stand a chance against Trump and Hillary while they sling insanity at each other? Let's wait and see, I really don't care at this point, I just want someone I can vote for on election day and not retch.

 

[timschochet]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

For the same reason that the French President pulled his party candidates in order to defeat Le Pen- because the only way to beat a populist demagogue like Trump is to unite behind one candidate.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

For the same reason that the French President pulled his party candidates in order to defeat Le Pen- because the only way to beat a populist demagogue like Trump is to unite behind one candidate.

That would imply that Hillary could lose in this scenario. Most would say a 3rd party run like this would cinch it for Hillary.

 

[Steve Tasker]

Here's the old Jon Huntsman thread.

Turns out we might need it:

Wish he was running now....he's the only R candidate I'd consider voting for. It's a shame he's too moderate for the rest of the loonies.

 

[timschochet]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

For the same reason that the French President pulled his party candidates in order to defeat Le Pen- because the only way to beat a populist demagogue like Trump is to unite behind one candidate.

That would imply that Hillary could lose in this scenario. Most would say a 3rd party run like this would cinch it for Hillary.

Most would. But I don't think they're looking at this clearly. They're using the paradigm of a traditional election. Populism throws it out of whack. The key here is that even if Trump still wins the nomination he is still the independent candidate.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

For the same reason that the French President pulled his party candidates in order to defeat Le Pen- because the only way to beat a populist demagogue like Trump is to unite behind one candidate.

That would imply that Hillary could lose in this scenario. Most would say a 3rd party run like this would cinch it for Hillary.

Most would. But I don't think they're looking at this clearly. They're using the paradigm of a traditional election. Populism throws it out of whack.The key here is that even if Trump still wins the nomination he is still the independent candidate.

It's a tough one to figure out or even speculate on, I'll grant you that. New territory, at least in the modern era.

 

[The Commish]

If this end up between trump and Hillary how can one NOT vote this party?

"This party" essentially hands Hillary the win.

should have read third party.