no
no
luv2run wrote:
no
Op needs to learn how the electoral college works. Does OP know the u.s. Is a republic?
I will be voting for David Stockman and I urge you all to do the same.
It will not happen this year although I will likely vote Green Party.
However, I very much believe its possible for 3rd party progressives ( Ralph Nader) and Libertarians to someday compromise around one platform and candidate. Contrary to what the major parties want you to believe, there is actually a lot of common ground between progressives and libertarians. More so, than either has with the major parties. If and when that happens than a 3rd party could win the Presidency.
But historically, a major party co-opts the platform of a 3rd party before it ever grows. We'll see. In recent years The Democrat party has been more hell bent on blaming their failures on Ralph Nader and instead co-opting the Republican Party platform.
Johnson actually seems to be gaining as many or more disaffected Berners as Stein is due to his stances on social issues and the fact that he has far more governing experience. Combine that with a rumored (though probably not likely) Jeb Bush and/or Mitt Romney endorsement and you would officially have the strangest coalition ever assembled.
Runningart2004 wrote:
If Johnson can poll 15% he gets in the debates. New-ish rule to prevent another Ross Perot.
If he does that and somehow wins his state and somehow the electorate is close and prevents HRC or Trump from getting 270 it then goes to the senate.
Alan
No. If no Presidential candidate receives at least 270 Electoral votes, the House of Representatives, voting state delegation by state delegation, chooses the President (i.e., under the scenario, choosing between Clinton, Trump, or Johnson. That is, the House would not be a liberty to choose someone other than one of those three). The Senate chooses the Vice President.
No
There are some rumors that Jeb Bush might endorse Gary Johnson. That would create some media buzz that might tip the polls enough in his favor to get placed in debates with Hillary and Trump.
I don't know about that although Johnson probably is getting some Sanders voters. A lot of Johnson's voters are probably Rand Paul and Huckabee supporters. But also, I think voters have become impressed by the organization and persistence of the Libertarian Party over many election cycles. They are always on the ballot. They always got a good 2% of the vote. So now they figure why not give the Libertarian Party a chance. Progressive 3rd parties have been more split and unorganized over the years. Also I can attest to the Democratic Party putting the hammer down on Ralph Nader trying to get on ballots in 04' and 08'.
FitzyXC wrote:
Johnson actually seems to be gaining as many or more disaffected Berners as Stein is due to his stances on social issues and the fact that he has far more governing experience. Combine that with a rumored (though probably not likely) Jeb Bush and/or Mitt Romney endorsement and you would officially have the strangest coalition ever assembled.
Framer wrote:
Runningart2004 wrote:If Johnson can poll 15% he gets in the debates. New-ish rule to prevent another Ross Perot.
If he does that and somehow wins his state and somehow the electorate is close and prevents HRC or Trump from getting 270 it then goes to the senate.
Alan
No. If no Presidential candidate receives at least 270 Electoral votes, the House of Representatives, voting state delegation by state delegation, chooses the President (i.e., under the scenario, choosing between Clinton, Trump, or Johnson. That is, the House would not be a liberty to choose someone other than one of those three). The Senate chooses the Vice President.
Gotcha. I didn't bother to look it up but knew the Senate/House got in it if 270 isn't met.
Would be interesting. Let's say no one gets to 270. Trump is obviously not a very popular choice amongst rank and file Republicans. Would they choose a slightly conservative Libertarian?
Alan
just my take wrote:
There are some rumors that Jeb Bush might endorse Gary Johnson. That would create some media buzz that might tip the polls enough in his favor to get placed in debates with Hillary and Trump.
It would only split the Trump vote. Not like it will matter for the clown.
The mechanics of the electoral college make third parties almost impossible. The goal was to forbid a many party system because of the problems of running a government that way, as well as their instability are clear.
"The goal was to reduce a many party system" What are you talking about? Whose goal was that? If you are talking about the original intent of the founding fathers their goal was to have NO political parties. This notion that we have a "two party system" is utter nonsense. Incidentally, there really needs to be a law that the Democratic Party and Republican Party have to reimburse the taxpayers for bearing the cost of holding closed primaries. You shouldn't be able to hold an election in which most of the taxpayers cannot participate.
pop_pop!_v2.2.1 wrote:
just my take wrote:There are some rumors that Jeb Bush might endorse Gary Johnson. That would create some media buzz that might tip the polls enough in his favor to get placed in debates with Hillary and Trump.
It would only split the Trump vote. Not like it will matter for the clown.
The mechanics of the electoral college make third parties almost impossible. The goal was to forbid a many party system because of the problems of running a government that way, as well as their instability are clear.
Runningart2004 wrote:
If Johnson can poll 15% he gets in the debates. New-ish rule to prevent another Ross Perot.
If he does that and somehow wins his state and somehow the electorate is close and prevents HRC or Trump from getting 270 it then goes to the senate.
Alan
I think it goes to the House of Representatives actually.
LJTR wrote:
I'm voting for Stein and will be happy to see any 3rd party get all the votes they can. Even if it's not the Greens. There are larger battles to fight than Hillary vs Trump. They're the same product in different packaging. Don't care who wins, just want to see all third parties do well.
Jill Stein ~ rank choice voting
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=H6cuyWQsaN0ryan foreman wrote:
A lot of Johnson's voters are probably Rand Paul and Huckabee supporters.
Huh? Huckabee's calling card is being a social conservative. Johnson is not even close to that. Kasich is a lot closer to Johnson (though he won't endorse probably to save himself for 2020 a la Cruz)
A bunch of what ifs...
What if Johnson gets into the debates and somehow wins his home state?
Then what if Clinton has the Electoral College lead but it's under 270?
Then what if Trump leads in the popular vote?
What is the House to do?
How about we get rid of the party system. Or better yet....the losing duo gets a job in the winners administration. Hell, get rid of the VP picks and make it so the loser becomes the VP. Obviously close to half the nation supports the losing candidate. Force these guys to work together.
Alan
Runningart2004 wrote:
A bunch of what ifs...
What if Johnson gets into the debates and somehow wins his home state?
Then what if Clinton has the Electoral College lead but it's under 270?
Then what if Trump leads in the popular vote?
What is the House to do?
How about we get rid of the party system. Or better yet....the losing duo gets a job in the winners administration. Hell, get rid of the VP picks and make it so the loser becomes the VP. Obviously close to half the nation supports the losing candidate. Force these guys to work together.
Alan
1. How would you propose that "we get rid of the party system." As you no doubt know, the "two-party system" is not established (or even mentioned) in the Constitution. The division of persons with differing political interests and ambitions into party factions occurred almost immediately upon adoption of the Constitution, but did so organically. It's how people chose to organize themselves.
2. What "job" would you have the "losing duo" get, exactly? There's nothing, of course, preventing the newly-elected President from offering a position to his or her defeated opponent? Are you proposing that that be mandated?
3. You do realize, don't you, that prior to Amendment XII, the "losing candidate" (i.e., the one who received the second most Electoral votes) did become Vice President? That's what the Constitution originally provided for, but problems with such a system arose almost immediately.
ryan foreman wrote:
I don't know about that although Johnson probably is getting some Sanders voters. A lot of Johnson's voters are probably Rand Paul and Huckabee supporters.
But also, I think voters have become impressed by the organization and persistence of the Libertarian Party over many election cycles. They are always on the ballot. They always got a good 2% of the vote. So now they figure why not give the Libertarian Party a chance. Progressive 3rd parties have been more split and unorganized over the years. Also I can attest to the Democratic Party putting the hammer down on Ralph Nader trying to get on ballots in 04' and 08'.
Unless something drastic happens, I'll be voting for Johnson.
Johnson is another right winger like Trump.
He's for renewables, but wants the corporations to own all of them.
Another right winter wrote:
Johnson is another right winger like Trump.
He's for renewables, but wants the corporations to own all of them.
Johnson is nothing like Trump, and Trump is not a typical Right Winger. Trump is a moderate. Where did Johnson say he wants corporations to own all renewables, and what is wrong with that?