Quote:
|
Originally Posted by sperry
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.
