Uhm, I am not sure of the specifics but I think that this kind of already exists. There is a certain amount of federal money for campaigns- remember that little box you can check when you file your returns. I believe to qualify for it, a party must get a certain percentage of the vote in a previous election. Pretty devious, huh? :twisted: Can't get money to get the votes until you get the votes. I am not sure of the particulars. I just remember last presidential election, the Green party's goal was to get 5% of the vote so they could qualify for the money.

Just food for thought.

The reason that we don't vote for 3rd party candidates isn't to "be on the winning team", it's to pick the lesser of two evils.

Let's say Bush, Gore and my Uncle Bob are running. I *know* Uncle Bob is the best candidate, but since he's unknown to 99.95 of the nation, he won't win. Let's also say I *hate* Gore... so now I'm forced to vote for Bush just to keep Gore out of office. This is indeed what happened to Gore in 2000... since most of the 3rd party candidates were fairly liberal, I bet a lot of those people in Florida that voted 3rd party are kicking themselves.

I completely understand that line of thinking. Trust me. It has waved my vote away from third party candidates before as well, and I regret it. But at some point we have to start taking responsibility as voters for not having a third party. If you have two candidates that stink, as I believe was the case was in 2000, why not cast a protest vote. A third party that receives a noticable amount of votes will be a bigger catalyst for change than picking the lesser of two evils regardless of your party affiliation.

You sure? Ross Perot didn't change anything, and he got lots of votes.

What we really need is two votes each. You can either vote for two candidates, or against two candidates, or one of each, etc.

That way, a staunch support can vote twice for their candidate, or an uber-anti type person can double vote against their enemy. Or I can vote third party w/o completely giving up my opposition to a particular person.

You have a point with the Perot thing. But remember, Perot was a one time thing. If parties thought that it might happen year after year, it could change. But how well is the status quo working for anyone? If something's broke shouldn't we try to fix it? I guess I am just tire of republicans and democrats alike complaining without changing the way they vote. Which is why I endorse voting third party when both candidates stink. It is an easy realistic action, though minute, one can take that doesn't feed into maintaining the sytem. I say put up or shut up.

I must say I like your two votes each scheme. Though, I prefer to think in the realm of reality. :)

I have no impressions that my ideas in this (and most other) threads could be implemented. The only way to really change our gov't is to either a) have a massive bloody revolution and overthrow the status quo, or b) educate the shit out of our children so we can get rid of the mindless fucking retards that live and thrive in this country in a generation or two.

Bottom line: The US is messed up because the people that live here let it get that way, and for the most part, as a nation of retards that would rather watch reality TV than participate in reality, we're too stupid to realize or care that our nation has gone to shit.

This thread still sucks. I'm gonna go drive fast somewhere now.

Yeah, every time I see there's a post in this thread, I get pissed off that I'm gonna have to read more whining about the election. Which makes my replies that much more vitriol. :x

Damn you guys are bitter and disillusioned.

Im moving to Mexico and living on a beach out of a mobile home just to avoid this post and posts like it... GOD BLESS CORRUPTION!!