Support NeoGAF

[Erevador]

A Libertarian selecting a supreme court justice sounds terrible.

Bill Weld said this about Obama's choice of Merrick Garland...

WELD: A Massachusetts guy. Merrick Garland, I think, would have been a very good pick, and he's nominated by Obama. Everyone sort of agrees on that. It's just the two party hysteria that says, "Just as you can have far-right congressmen in the Republican Party and far-left congressmen, congresswomen in the Democratic Party, therefore the same is true for the Supreme Court." The opposite is the case. You want people who are tranquil of mind and can analyze the issues and come to a conclusion that makes sense, rooted in the jurisprudence of our country going back hundreds of years.

 

[Sotha_Sil]

Johnson was nearly gaffed out of the nomination when he dared to argue that people should have driver's licenses to drive cars.

Libertarians are nuttier than squirrel shit. Take the craziest "Supply Side Jesus, the Market is the One True God" Republican, and then realize that Libertarians think that such a Republican is too much of a federalist to govern. These people don't care about anyone but themselves. (Edit: and weed, of course. Can't forget the weed).

Gary Johnson isn't really a libertarian. He's only there because he couldn't make it in the Republican presidential debates. His stances on gay marriage, abortion, and the war on drugs made him a non-starter from the get-go (plus his horrible stage presence) with that crowd. He was a good Republican governor for a really poor Democrat state with a record that falls all over the place. He isn't going to fit anywhere.

 

[Abinash117]

I wonder if the GOP brand is really dead, and if the Libertarian party could absorb large chunks of it.

At this point, women, LGBT people, African Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, moderates, and college educated whites are turned off by the party. There is polling that shows people actually believe the party itself is racist, and that was before the whole Trump fiasco. If they want to be a national party, how do you rehabilitate that? I feel like you just have to turn into the same thing with a different label.

The GOP brand isn't dead and won't be anytime soon I believe. The worse thing for the GOP is if they become a regional party with their strength lying in mostly some southern states and mid-western states.

If the libertarian party absorbs Republican members then they would be Republicans with the difference is replacing God with 'Liberty' .

I'm not sure about how the Libertarian Party would legislate because it is more or less a board identity. You have laissez-faire capitalist, ones that prefer state rights, conservative libertarians, fairly left-libertarians, corporationists, libertarian-lites, or moderates that are similar to establishment Republicans. I would be wary to think that the Libertarian's would be any better from some Republicans. Some might make it their mission to give more corporations more power than they deserve and/or more states power. I wouldn't put past some of them for trying to limit the powers of the federal government that benefits certain groups or certain actions.

I would actually would find liberals and progressives to very opposed to libertarians as a whole especially about economic matters.

 

[Biske]

I don't want him to make the debates because he has no real chance of winning, and having an extra person there would allow Trump to pull the same bullshit he pulled during the primary debates. I want him one on one and destroyed lol.

I dunno I think it would be a nightmare for Trump. Can you imagine how dismissive and insulting he would be?

 

[prag16]

Third parties have won states before. In the unlikely event he wins a state, it'll be a footnote.


It'd force one of the parties to pivot to cover their flank.

Keep an eye on Utah and New Mexico. If it was to happen for Johnson, it'd be there.

 

[iamblades]

I can see the Libertarian Party overtaking the GOP as the conservative side of our two party system as the Baby Boomers and Silent Generation die off. While they generally are socially liberal and many self-described Libertarians are actually Rockefeller Republicans, the party line on economic issues and the role of government is naive, selfish, and dangerous to the health of the nation.

Bill Weld said this about Obama's choice of Merrick Garland...

I mean Bill Weld was a Republican governor of fucking Massachusetts, re-elected by the largest ever margin, and his opponent was a Roosevelt.

The fact that our political system has become so ideologically polarized that it is basically impossible for someone like him to exist these days in really either major party is pretty terrifying to me.

 

[KRod-57]

It would be a states rights and gun nuts wet dream.

How so, wasn't Johnson's position back in 2012 that states prohibiting same sex marriage were in violation of the equal rights protection clause of the 14th amendment?

look, here he is in 2012 criticizing Obama for leaving same sex marriage to the states http://independentpoliticalreport.c...bama-for-throwing-gay-marriage-to-the-states/

I actually think when it comes to supreme court picks, the Libertarians would be excellent

 

[Amibguous Cad]

I see. Thanks.





If someone who leans libertarian feels more strongly about the social issue aspect of libertarianism, while also wanting to put support behind an actual candidate that has a decent shot of winning while also shaking up the status quo, then libertarian support of Bernie doesn't seem so far fetched. There are a lot of variables.

It's not just the social parts. Any dove that's dismayed that the party has somehow nominated someone that was in favor of the Iraq war, participated in the in the Obama administration's shredding of civil liberties, disastrous war in Libya, and found Bernie's willingness to hear out putative enemies of the united states refreshing have a lot to like in Johnson.

They differ significantly on domestic policy, of course, but the president has limited power over that sphere, while almost unlimited power over foreign policy.

 

[Joni]

Is there any survey that analyzes how many Johnson voters would otherwise vote for Hillary and how many would otherwise vote for Trump? As per social policy, Johnson is almost the same as Bernie. No other candidate is as free market as Johnson, though.

A Johnson voter that would vote for Bernie doesn't understand what Bernie or Johnson stands for.

If someone who leans libertarian feels more strongly about the social issue aspect of libertarianism, while also wanting to put support behind an actual candidate that has a decent shot of winning while also shaking up the status quo, then libertarian support of Bernie doesn't seem so far fetched. There are a lot of variables.

Reminder: Johnson's party is for NSA (see his VP), against welfare programs (the rich will help them from the goodness of their hearts), against protections for minorities, against Roe vs Wade (basically setting back any Republican state to pro-life). In what universe would Johnson and Bernie be comparable on the social issues. Bernie is basically big government will solve everything like it does in Europe, while the Libertarians are everything will work itself out, no need to do anything. The Bernie voter that thinks Johnson is better than CLinton and closer to Bernie is solely looking at one body part that Bernie/Johnson have and Clinton doesn't.

 

[Fitts]

Still, if he ends up with 7 percent of the vote — as we’d expect based upon history and the current polls — the Libertarian Party will qualify for federal campaign funding in 2020

I didn't know this until now. I live in NY so of course Hillary is winning, but it looks like I can make my vote count for something after all. This presidential race has shown above all else how terrible the two party system is and voters need/deserve more viable choices on election day.

 

[beato_angelico]

sweet summer childs who thinks a multi party system is the answer to something

 

[Maledict]

I didn't know this until now. I live in NY so of course Hillary is winning, but it looks like I can make my vote count for something after all. This presidential race has shown above all else how terrible the two party system is and voters need/deserve more viable choices on election day.

I know I sound a bit like a broken record at this point, but just to reiterate: you will never have more than two viable choices for a president under your current system. It's not a matter of funding, or communications - a first past the post, majority winner required system like the USA uses for presidents means that mathematically you will only ever have two valid choices for president.

If you want to have more choices at the presidential level, voting for a third party candidate is the worse way to achieve it. It does nothing. You need to get involved in politics at a local level, and get electoral reform in the manifesto of parties.

A third party vote at the presidential level cannot result in viable third party candidates. At the most all it can do is let the republican house pick the president.

 

[Fitts]

I know I sound a bit like a broken record at this point, but just to reiterate: you will never have more than two viable choices for a president under your current system. It's not a matter of funding, or communications - a first past the post, majority winner required system like the USA uses for presidents means that mathematically you will only ever have two valid choices for president.

If you want to have more choices at the presidential level, voting for a third party candidate is the worse way to achieve it. It does nothing. You need to get involved in politics at a local level, and get electoral reform in the manifesto of parties.

A third party vote at the presidential level cannot result in viable third party candidates. At the most all it can do is let the republican house pick the president.

That's kind of a nihilistic view. More funding equals more exposure. Change won't happen swiftly, but with older generations fading old ideals are weakening. As I see it, a vote for a third party speaks louder than sitting home on election day at this point.

Edit: and after a primary season of "Trump can't win the nomination" I think we're done with thinking about politics in terms of definites.

 

[jon bones]

He will be irrelevant come election day.

Come election date this won't hold

I sure hope so.

 

[reggieandTFE]

During Blago's 2nd election victory in Illinois, the Green Part candidate, Rich Whitney, pulled 10% of the vote as neither of the candidates were well liked.

 

[Maledict]

That's kind of a nihilistic view. More funding equals more exposure. Change won't happen swiftly, but with older generations fading old ideals are weakening. As I see it, a vote for a third party speaks louder than sitting home on election day at this point.

Edit: and after a primary season of "Trump can't win the nomination" I think we're done with thinking about politics in terms of definites.

Sorry, I'm possibly not being clear.

It's been mathematically shown that you can't get more than two viable parties under your system. It's the way it's set up. If a third party gets larger than one of the existing parties, it will replace them. Voting third party at the presidential level doesn't do anything other than help the party you hate the most.

It's not about the candidate, or their message, or funding - it's a system thing. Without a change to the actual voting system, nothing you can do at the presidential level will result in a viable third party. You are better off joining one of the two main parties and working to shift their agendas and party platforms.

 

[Par Score]

That's kind of a nihilistic view. More funding equals more exposure. Change won't happen swiftly, but with older generations fading old ideals are weakening. As I see it, a vote for a third party speaks louder than sitting home on election day at this point.

Edit: and after a primary season of "Trump can't win the nomination" I think we're done with thinking about politics in terms of definites.

No, you don't understand.

It's not that a Libertarian couldn't become one of two potentially viable Presidential candidates, it's that there would still only be two viable candidates.

The way the electoral college and the rules surrounding it works makes it impossible to have a three way race for the presidency, because if no one candidate gets a majority, then the House decides who gets to be President. You need to fix that system if you want more than two parties to vote for.

 

[exmachina64]

I don't like Johnson or Stein at all, and Hillary is better than both in my opinion, but if a third party actually wins a state this year, would this potentially open any kind of floodgate for third parties to be in future elections?

No.

This is all that matters to me -- getting Johnson enough votes to further legitimize third parties in 2020. Though honestly, if Perot didn't do it with his 20%, probably no one can.

Third parties need to do more than win the presidency, they need to win local, state and Congressional elections. Without also reforming our electoral system, third parties can establish no foothold.

Edit:

Sorry, I'm possibly not being clear.

It's been mathematically shown that you can't get more than two viable parties under your system. It's the way it's set up. If a third party gets larger than one of the existing parties, it will replace them. Voting third party at the presidential level doesn't do anything other than help the party you hate the most.

It's not about the candidate, or their message, or funding - it's a system thing. Without a change to the actual voting system, nothing you can do at the presidential level will result in a viable third party. You are better off joining one of the two main parties and working to shift their agendas and party platforms.

For anyone interested, it's known as Duverger's law.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

How so, wasn't Johnson's position back in 2012 that states prohibiting same sex marriage were in violation of the equal rights protection clause of the 14th amendment?

look, here he is in 2012 criticizing Obama for leaving same sex marriage to the states http://independentpoliticalreport.c...bama-for-throwing-gay-marriage-to-the-states/

I actually think when it comes to supreme court picks, the Libertarians would be excellent

Gun Control? Taxes? Education? Social Security? Environmental issues? Health Care? Voting rights? Minimum wage? He's to the right on most, if not all of these. He would leave abortion up to the states(pro-choice or not, that shit is unacceptable), and is against federal funding of stem cell research.

Gary Johnson is far from great(atypical as he may be), and Libertarians on average are terrible, and this is without going into the the less fucked up, but perhaps loonier shit some of those in the party believe. (abolishing driver licenses)

 

[Fitts]

To the above (sorry I'm on mobile at work) that's perfectly fine with me. Either way it's a shakeup which brings attention to an alternative and helps expose the system for the bullshit that it is.

 

[Badlucktroll]

We have red states, and blue states. If Gary Johnson wins some states on election day, what color will the news stations make them? Green? Orange? Yellow? Grey?

 

[Zukkoyaki]

We have red states, and blue states. If Gary Johnson wins some states on election day, what color will the news stations make them? Green? Orange? Yellow? Grey?

Libertarian is usually represented by Yellow

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

We have red states, and blue states. If Gary Johnson wins some states on election day, what color will the news stations make them? Green? Orange? Yellow? Grey?

A darker red.

 

[Deleted member 231381]

Democrats being blue and Republicans being red is fucked up tbf. Like, every other country in the world more or less uses blue for rightwing and red for leftwing, and then the US is just like "fuck you, we'll use our own standard with donkeys and elephants!".

It's metric all over again.

 

[Vengal]

Democrats being blue and Republicans being red is fucked up tbf. Like, every other country in the world more or less uses blue for rightwing and red for leftwing, and then the US is just like "fuck you, we'll use our own standard with donkeys and elephants!".

It's metric all over again.

Democrats were the traditionally rightwing party until the 1960s.

 

[Erevador]

Johnson starting to roll out major ad buys. His campaign is more flush with cash now then it has ever been, and seems to be starting its ad push to hit 15% and make the debates.

Targets right-leaning Latinos who are tired of Trump's racism, and voters generally tired of war and debt.

 

[Pop-O-Matic]

Democrats were the traditionally rightwing party until the 1960s.

The color choices we have now weren't established until 2000.

 

[noshten]

He might have a chance

Spoiler

to make a debate

, after the first one. I expect Trump to be torn to shreds by Clinton which might get Johnson to 15%. This is an election where nothing can suprise me.

 

[AntraxSuicide]

Democrats being blue and Republicans being red is fucked up tbf. Like, every other country in the world more or less uses blue for rightwing and red for leftwing, and then the US is just like "fuck you, we'll use our own standard with donkeys and elephants!".

It's metric all over again.

You'll get my imperial system when you pry it from my cold dead hands.

 

[[boots]]

Democrats being blue and Republicans being red is fucked up tbf. Like, every other country in the world more or less uses blue for rightwing and red for leftwing, and then the US is just like "fuck you, we'll use our own standard with donkeys and elephants!".

It's metric all over again.

Actually, I believe Dems were red and Reps blue originally, but someone on CNN fucked up representing them on a graphic and it just ended up sticking to what it is now for some odd reason. Pretty sure it was Chuck Todd that mentioned this a while back.

 

[Maledict]

To the above (sorry I'm on mobile at work) that's perfectly fine with me. Either way it's a shakeup which brings attention to an alternative and helps expose the system for the bullshit that it is.

It doesn't though. That's what we are saying. We've had third party candidates who gained literally millions of votes, far more than Johnson will - and it changed nothing. We've had third party candidates who cost parties the election - and it changed nothing.

Protest voting for a third party candidate at the presidential level has one effect, and one effect only A it helps the party you hate the most win. That's it. Voting for Johnson won't expose anything, it won't make either party change their platform, and it won't spark system change. If you want that, join the democrats, become active, and get it into the party platform (a lot of democrats are up for some form of reform of the system!). But don't kid yourself that voting third party in the election will have any impact at all beyond potentially helping the party you dislike the most win, because it won't. It can't.

 

[Maledict]

Actually, I believe Dems were red and Reps blue originally, but someone on CNN fucked up representing them on a graphic and it just ended up sticking to what it is now for some odd reason. Pretty sure it was Chuck Todd that mentioned this a while back.

My understanding was they used to swap, and that it was only in 2000 did everyone settle on red for Republican and blue for democrat. I definitely remember in the 90s it being the other way around sometimes.

 

[Fitts]

It doesn't though. That's what we are saying. We've had third party candidates who gained literally millions of votes, far more than Johnson will - and it changed nothing. We've had third party candidates who cost parties the election - and it changed nothing.

Protest voting for a third party candidate at the presidential level has one effect, and one effect only A it helps the party you hate the most win. That's it. Voting for Johnson won't expose anything, it won't make either party change their platform, and it won't spark system change. If you want that, join the democrats, become active, and get it into the party platform (a lot of democrats are up for some form of reform of the system!). But don't kid yourself that voting third party in the election will have any impact at all beyond potentially helping the party you dislike the most win, because it won't. It can't.

But if enough people did vote for a third party then it would make an impact. And I'm not protest voting since Johnson is the candidate that I currently agree with most.

And the "helping the party you dislike most" thing is some scare tactic rhetoric. I've always voted democrat but they've lost me this time around. (and no, I'm not a Bernie supporter)

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

To the above (sorry I'm on mobile at work) that's perfectly fine with me. Either way it's a shakeup which brings attention to an alternative and helps expose the system for the bullshit that it is.

Why is that perfectly fine with you?

 

[Bonen no Max'd]

But if enough people did vote for a third party then it would make an impact. And I'm not protest voting since Johnson is the candidate that I currently agree with most.

And the "helping the party you dislike most" thing is some scare tactic rhetoric. I've always voted democrat but they've lost me this time around. (and no, I'm not a Bernie supporter)

It's not a scare tactic, it's literally how the system works. In 2000, Nader got about 2% of the vote and cost Gore New Hampshire and Florida, either of which would have made him win. Nader voters certainly would have gone for Gore over Bush if they only had two options, and would have kept the person they least wanted (Bush) out of the White House.

In 1992 Perot ran and got about 18% of the vote, qualifying him for funding in 1996. In 96 Perot got 8% of the vote and the Reform Party still has virtually no elected officials.

 

[DontBeThatGuy]

It's not a scare tactic, it's literally how the system works. In 2000, Nader got about 2% of the vote and cost Gore New Hampshire and Florida, either of which would have made him win. Nader voters certainly would have gone for Gore over Bush if they only had two options, and would have kept the person they least wanted (Bush) out of the White House.

In 1992 Perot ran and got about 18% of the vote, qualifying him for funding in 1996. In 96 Perot got 8% of the vote and the Reform Party still has virtually no elected officials.

I don't understand how it's so hard for some to grasp, and it's the kind of stubborn and foolish mentality that gets a Paul LePage elected. Bravo.

 

[PreyingShark]

She never had a reasonable share of the vote.

Yep. There are people I know voting Stein because they think Clinton isn't a real progressive and is actually just as far right as Trump, if not more so, but they've always been a small minority.

 

[Blader]

To the above (sorry I'm on mobile at work) that's perfectly fine with me. Either way it's a shakeup which brings attention to an alternative and helps expose the system for the bullshit that it is.

What is the bullshit that's being exposed? That America is in a perpetually two-party system? Voting for third-party doesn't change that (nor does it "expose" that, unless this is literally your first election); the only making a third party more prominent on the presidential scale does is supplant one of the other two major parties.

You're never going to have a three-party system of Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians fighting it out for the White House on equal ground. It'll always be a two-party system in a presidential election. What *could* change is what those two parties, or rather what they represent. Maybe the Libertarian party becomes the national center-right party with the GOP pushed off to the far-right fringe. Or maybe the far-right crazies within the GOP become marginalized, even split off into their own party, while the Libertarians steer the GOP back in their direction, in which case you have a more Libertarian-defined Republican Party than a Tea Party-defined Republican Party. Or maybe the Libertarians join the GOP and Dems in equal measure.

There's a few ways that the scenario can play out, but none of them end up with three equal parties vying for the presidency. The American presidential electoral system is binary by design.

But if enough people did vote for a third party then it would make an impact. And I'm not protest voting since Johnson is the candidate that I currently agree with most.

And the "helping the party you dislike most" thing is some scare tactic rhetoric. I've always voted democrat but they've lost me this time around. (and no, I'm not a Bernie supporter)

At the risk of sounding cynical, voting for the presidential candidate that you agree with most who isn't a Republican or a Democrat (specifically, the Republican or Democrat on the ballot that year) is a protest vote.

(I mean terms of principle; if you live in NY, then you're right, it doesn't really matter who you vote for this year )

And math is not a scare tactic (unless you happen to find math itself scary). America will always be a two-party system where the electoral college majority winner becomes the president. In the event an election does not produce an EV majority winner, the House of Representatives gets to decide, which this year means that even if Trump came in third behind Hillary and Johnson in the electoral college, he would still end up becoming president. That's why a three-party presidential system can never work; barring a year where there is a clear electoral college winner (like in '92), the election will inevitably come down to whichever party is running the House that year.

 

[exmachina64]

Democrats were the traditionally rightwing party until the 1960s.

It's more complicated than that -- anyone who thinks otherwise should travel down the rabbit hole.

 

[Late Flag]

You're never going to have a three-party system of Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians fighting it out for the White House on equal ground. It'll always be a two-party system in a presidential election. What *could* change is what those two parties, or rather what they represent. Maybe the Libertarian party becomes the national center-right party with the GOP pushed off to the far-right fringe. Or maybe the far-right crazies within the GOP become marginalized, even split off into their own party, while the Libertarians steer the GOP back in their direction, in which case you have a more Libertarian-defined Republican Party than a Tea Party-defined Republican Party.

I'm a right-leaning libertarian, and this is exactly why I'm happy to vote for Gary Johnson this year. The Republican Party is going to get shellacked in a few months, and in the aftermath, they're going to have to do some soul-searching. If the Libertarians pull in 5% or 7% or 10% of the vote, maybe that drags the GOP away from people like Trump and more toward people like me.

Also, I would appreciate the irony of the Libertarian party receiving federal matching funds in 2020.

 

[Erevador]

I'm a right-leaning libertarian, and this is exactly why I'm happy to vote for Gary Johnson this year. The Republican Party is going to get shellacked in a few months, and in the aftermath, they're going to have to do some soul-searching. If the Libertarians pull in 5% or 7% or 10% of the vote, maybe that drags the GOP away from people like Trump and more toward people like me.

Yes, GOP needs to become more of a center right party or we risk an increasingly deranged future. They should look to how the Tories in Britain as evolved into a centrist conservative party.

They'll need to do that, and if they don't they'll hopefully find themselves losing more and more ground to a growing group of younger people that lean right, but are perfectly comfortable voting Libertarian instead of Republican.

 

[KRod-57]

Gun Control? Taxes? Education? Social Security? Environmental issues? Health Care? Voting rights? Minimum wage? He's to the right on most, if not all of these. He would leave abortion up to the states(pro-choice or not, that shit is unacceptable), and is against federal funding of stem cell research.

Gary Johnson is far from great(atypical as he may be), and Libertarians on average are terrible, and this is without going into the the less fucked up, but perhaps loonier shit some of those in the party believe. (abolishing driver licenses)

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about supreme court picks. I think the Libertarians would be excellent for supreme court picks. You say that Gary Johnson would leave abortion to the states, but that's never been a positions he's held (except maybe on wikipedia), in his own word "it should be left up to the woman" and “the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land today and must be respected” (official position https://www.johnsonweld.com/abortion) . He didn't even agree with the notion of leaving same sex marriage to the states, which by the way was the position that the president took on the issue.

I'm not sure what issue you have with the Libertarian party and voting rights.. in fact that's another category I believe they would make excellent decisions, like shooting down mandatory ID laws for voting

Though I do agree with your criticisms of what kind of decisions he (Gary Johnson) and his party would make on healthcare, and I've never felt that the "fair" tax is a good idea.. but everything else you named, I think would leave everything pretty much the way it is now, or better

 

[Joni]

I'm sorry, I thought we were talking about supreme court picks. I think the Libertarians would be excellent for supreme court picks. You say that Gary Johnson would leave abortion to the states, but that's never been a positions he's held (except maybe on wikipedia), in his own word "it should be left up to the woman" and “the right of a woman to choose is the law of the land today and must be respected” (official position https://www.johnsonweld.com/abortion) . He didn't even agree with the notion of leaving same sex marriage to the states, which by the way was the position that the president took on the issue.

I'm not sure what issue you have with the Libertarian party and voting rights.. in fact that's another category I believe they would make excellent decisions, like shooting down mandatory ID laws for voting

Though I do agree with your criticisms of what kind of decisions he (Gary Johnson) and his party would make on healthcare, and I've never felt that the "fair" tax is a good idea.. but everything else you named, I think would leave everything pretty much the way it is now, or better

Wikipedia simply quotes his own site. Johnson would be a Trump-like disaster for the Supreme Court. Even worse, Trump would be a disaster for the future while Johnson wants to redo the entirety of their existing decisions. Johnson is like Cruz and Rubio. I'd rather have the openly racist Trump over any of them as candidates, as I trust people to identify the wolf better when he is not in sheep clothes.

“Judges should be appointed who will interpret the Constitution according to its original meaning. Any court decision that does not follow this original meaning of the Constitution should be revisited. That is particularly true of decisions such as Roe vs. Wade, which have expanded the reach of the Federal government into areas of society never envisioned in the Constitution. With the overturning of Roe vs Wade, laws regarding abortion would be decided by the individual states.”
Extracted from Gary Johnson’s Our America Initiative site

As for the rest of the stuff, do you think companies will invest money to go green when they aren't forced to? Have you heard of VOlkswagen? They were forced to and still tried to get out of it.

 

[Rocket Scientist]

15% is a really high cut off for the debates. We've seen in the primaries how much it means to get airtime on national level and how much it influences polls. They really should change it. Getting 9% in polls is quite a feat and means there is serious support for his ideas in the country, regardless of the fact that it's not close to actually getting the presidency.

 

[Haunted]

15% is a really high cut off for the debates. We've seen in the primaries how much it means to get airtime on national level and how much it influences polls. They really should change it. Getting 9% in polls is quite a feat and means there is serious support for his ideas in the country, regardless of the fact that it's not close to actually getting the presidency.

You talk like they're actually interested in including more parties in the debate.


Over here, parties have to clear a 5% cutoff to make it into parliament.

US' partisan, two-party, first-past-the-post electoral system is in dire need of a serious reform, but who thinks that things could really change when the ones benefitting from it are the ones making the rules.

 

[Clefargle]

Ugh, YT and FB are full of contrarian morons yelling about "both sides are the same, vote Johnson!" It's just so... Ugh...depressing that this is the third party answer people want. Ugh

 

[KRod-57]

Wikipedia simply quotes his own site. Johnson would be a Trump-like disaster for the Supreme Court. Even worse, Trump would be a disaster for the future while Johnson wants to redo the entirety of their existing decisions. Johnson is like Cruz and Rubio. I'd rather have the openly racist Trump over any of them as candidates, as I trust people to identify the wolf better when he is not in sheep clothes.

Nonsense, I linked what his web site says, his supreme court picks are most definitely not comparable to Trump. On a woman's right to choose (pro-choice), on the 4th amendment (anti-patriot act), on same sex marriage(for marriage equality), on voting rights (against voter ID laws), on war (anti-war/believes the decision to go to war should be decided by congress), on essentially everything. The one thing Trump is right on is his criticism of citizens united

Gary Johnson would be my favorite candidate on supreme court picks, Sanders would be my favorite on healthcare and education.

 

[Bam Bam Baklava]

Ugh, YT and FB are full of contrarian morons yelling about "both sides are the same, vote Johnson!" It's just so... Ugh...depressing that this is the third party answer people want. Ugh

Makes you wonder who has to be nominated for the both sides are the same bullshit to no longer apply. David Duke?

 

[TheLaughingStock]

No.

Edit:

For anyone interested, it's known as Duverger's law.

The wiki article characterizes the concept as a tendency and states the principle is not absolute. Are there any other sources?

If people want to gamble another way and vote for Johnson, then I'd say go for it. He sucks, but the Republican Party wouldn't exist if some hadn't decided to take a risk and give radical ideals like anti-slavery a chance.

I'd tell folks on the fence to stop worrying people nudging you to vote for Democrats or Republicans because your vote probably won't be necessary depending on your state and your chance of determining the election is essentially 0. Do some research on your state and if your among the many millions who don't matter, then get some productive work done instead or donate to a reputable charity. Alternatively, take a vacation and see some family.

 

[Autumn Wind]

Gun Control? Taxes? Education? Social Security? Environmental issues? Health Care? Voting rights? Minimum wage? He's to the right on most, if not all of these. He would leave abortion up to the states(pro-choice or not, that shit is unacceptable), and is against federal funding of stem cell research.

Gary Johnson is far from great(atypical as he may be), and Libertarians on average are terrible, and this is without going into the the less fucked up, but perhaps loonier shit some of those in the party believe. (abolishing driver licenses)

Don't the Democrats have a lot more work to on all of the above issues?