<div dir="ltr">Yup, now it's the Democrats and the Republicans that are the problem.... Go figure.. History DOES repeat itself. <br><br><div class="gmail_quote">On Wed, Aug 20, 2008 at 8:42 AM, <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:dennisjperkins@comcast.net">dennisjperkins@comcast.net</a>></span> wrote:<br>
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="border-left: 1px solid rgb(204, 204, 204); margin: 0pt 0pt 0pt 0.8ex; padding-left: 1ex;"><div class="Ih2E3d"><br>
-------------- Original message ----------------------<br>
From: Nate Duehr <<a href="mailto:nate@natetech.com">nate@natetech.com</a>><br>
> David L. Willson wrote:<br>
> > I refuse to answer a top-post that follows a bottom-post, or vice-versa, but<br>
> if I didn't<br>
> > refuse, I'd agree with Angelo and Richard. A third candidate is a third<br>
> candidate.<br>
> > Saying that a third candidate is a spoiler... Well, isn't that a little like<br>
> saying that<br>
> > Linux is a spoiler?<br>
><br>
> I'm not so sure. There's been a lot of real mathematics to show that<br>
> the current voting system DOES have spoilers.<br>
><br>
</div><div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">> Various voting methods that WEIGHT the candidates have been proposed<br>
> (and used successfully for voting for other things, but not people in<br>
> U.S. political elections) that take into account the individual voter's<br>
> preferences in an ORDER -- so that if they want to vote for a 3rd party<br>
> candidate, but that candidate doesn't have enough votes to win, your<br>
> votes still "count" in some way for the winning candidate.<br>
><br>
> Plus add in that really it's the Electoral College that's voting and not<br>
> the popular vote (right or wrong, I'm not getting into that debate) that<br>
> decides who the President is... there's some math to be done there too,<br>
> obviously. In fact, the two major parties definitely know this and<br>
> campaign accordingly.<br>
><br>
> The more population moves away from the coasts and inland, the more<br>
> difficult it becomes to mess with elections via the Electoral College,<br>
> in my view. But, IANAM.*<br>
><br>
> I think there's PLENTY of reasons to believe the common-sense knowledge<br>
> that voting for a third-party candidate can screw the person you might<br>
> OTHERWISE want in office, out of the job.<br>
><br>
> Plus, "common-sense" is often very very right.<br>
><br>
> I have met very few people who can tell me that voting for a third-party<br>
> candidate feels right when they do a "gut-check" on whether or not it<br>
> will mess with the real winners.<br>
><br>
> And I don't think the country is (yet?) at a stage where a landslide for<br>
> a 3rd party will happen. (Someday, maybe? Not this election season,<br>
> though. Common sense also tells me that both McCain and Obama have<br>
> *enough* support that no landslide toward a 3d party is going to happen.)<br>
><br>
> So with all of the above... logically, voting for a 3rd party is almost<br>
> a guarantee to mess with the numbers for the only two possible winners<br>
> in a modern Presidential election.<br>
><br>
> (As far as local elections go, there are and have been 3rd party<br>
> candidates that CAN and HAVE won elections... but it's not happening for<br>
> President this go-around, and probably won't in my lifetime unless<br>
> conditions for the average person get so bad they vote for a 3rd party<br>
> out of total frustration.)<br>
><br>
> Nate<br>
><br>
> *I am not a Mathematician.<br>
> _______________________________________________<br>
<br>
</div></div>Weren't the Republicans originally spoilers? This country had the Democratic and Whig parties.<br>
<div><div></div><div class="Wj3C7c">_______________________________________________<br>
clue-talk mailing list<br>
<a href="mailto:clue-talk@cluedenver.org">clue-talk@cluedenver.org</a><br>
<a href="http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk" target="_blank">http://www.cluedenver.org/mailman/listinfo/clue-talk</a><br>
</div></div></blockquote></div><br></div>