Quote:
|
Originally Posted by Beer Goddess
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.