This is how the system self-perpetuates.

You're right, but that doesn't actually change anything... It doesn't help anyone to ignore that 3rd party candidates are simply not viable in this environment.

What if everyone actually voted 3rd party??

And if I keep punching the wall, eventually it will break.

it is a message that the system is broken.

The only message being sent is that despite what we say we actually like the two party system... I wish it was otherwise, but I don't live in a world where wishes come true, and so I have to base my decision on reality. In this case the reality is that unless something drastic changes 3rd parties don't stand a chance.

Edit: I live in Wisconsin but next to Minnesota, and so all my news comes from there. So I still remember exactly what happened when a 3rd party candidate actually did win...

Instead of being a force for change who could bring the parties together, all Jesse did was unite the parties against him. Because Budgernaut alluded to... The system is rigged and not in our favor, it's rigged to keep those in power right where they are. Until something happens to change that, I just don't see it getting any better.

My hope is that this election and the next four years will be enough to actually wake people up and make them take back the power that they used to have... But the cynic in me can't help but believe it's only going to lead to greater division because instead of people seeing the system is broken, it's going to be spun as "See this is what's wrong with the other party" and we'll be destracted with bread and circuses until the next election comes around.

This is how the system self-perpetuates.

You're right, but that doesn't actually change anything... It doesn't help anyone to ignore that 3rd party candidates are simply not viable in this environment.

What if everyone actually voted 3rd party??

And if I keep punching the wall, eventually it will break.

it is a message that the system is broken.

The only message being sent is that despite what we say we actually like the two party system... I wish it was otherwise, but I don't live in a world where wishes come true, and so I have to base my decision on reality. In this case the reality is that unless something drastic changes 3rd parties don't stand a chance.

It does change something. . .it changes your vote.

Since this is the X-Wing forums, I'll say this is the unfortunate attitude of a Tatooine farmboy WHO STAYS ON TATOOINE BECAUSE THE EVIL EMPIRE IS TOO BIG AND THERE IS WORK TO DO ON THE FARM.

Change starts small. . .walk off the farm.

I remain astonished that the Democrats managed to nominate the only person in the entire country (hyperbole, I know) that can conceivable lose to Donald Trump. No as much of a doomsayer here, though. Either candidate won't bring the end of the world, I trust the other institutions to limit the damage they can do.

And one of the candidates has breaking climate agreements as a day 1 priority.

And the other has a long and repeated history of flip-flopping on climate issues (On everything really).

At least Trump is honest about what he intends to do.

And the other has a long and repeated history of flip-flopping on climate issues (On everything really).At least Trump is honest about what he intends to do.

NG looked like a favorable bridge in the near-term. Now it looks like a short-term way to keep coal in the ground and not much more.

Carbon capture did actually look somewhat promising about a decade ago. Now it doesn't.

If you reject politicians for being politicians you're just supporting more functional illiterates like the orange one.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/03/13/hillary-clintons-mistake-on-fracking-for-natural-gas/#751293de3e55

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/hillary-clinton-fracking_n_5796786.html

http://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/

http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/17/why_did_clinton_just_tap_a

http://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/the-holes-in-hillary-clintons-climate-plan-120682

Hillary Clinton is inconsistent and/or uneducated at best. And that's being nice, and giving her the benefit of the doubt, which we shouldn't considering all her other scandals.

I voted.

Voting is immoral. Please don't do it.

I already voted and have been hiding under my bed until it's over.

It's not that they're not options, it's that they're literally wasted votes. A 3rd party candidate really does little more then syphon votes from the candidate that they're closest to in terms of left/right wing.

No! No!! No!!!

This is how the system self-perpetuates. What if everyone actually voted 3rd party?? And even if a 3rd party candidate does not win this time, it is a message that the system is broken. The spark of rebellion starts small!

No vote is wasted if it expresses your beliefs. . .and if you are not voting your beliefs, if you are not free to vote for someone who espouses your ideals (even if they lose), then the ability to vote is an empty promise and a wasted freedom.

I fundamentally agree with your point but the issue is that for your point to have the power to make a change, the candidate needs to be worthwhile. What would have happened this time if Sanders or even Trump had been on the ticket as a 3rd party instead of how it played out? Think there would have been a pretty big upset, proving your point.

The issue here - and where I unequivocally agree with VanorDM - is that in THIS election a vote for a 3rd party candidate was completely wasted as the candidates were idiots and voters effectively DID siphon off votes.

I agree that more choice is better and would prefer to see a more balanced system here in the US but, my God, there isn't a "good" or obvious candidate in the bunch and I have never seen an election LESS based on who is the right candidate but based on who you're voting for to basically block another candidate.

On one hand there is what many perceive as a treacherous snake, on the other is what many perceive as a dangerous lunatic. Fun times ahead.

At least Trump is honest about what he intends to do.

that isn't a comfort when what he intends to do is completely insane.

It's not that they're not options, it's that they're literally wasted votes. A 3rd party candidate really does little more then syphon votes from the candidate that they're closest to in terms of left/right wing.

No! No!! No!!!

This is how the system self-perpetuates. What if everyone actually voted 3rd party?? And even if a 3rd party candidate does not win this time, it is a message that the system is broken. The spark of rebellion starts small!

No vote is wasted if it expresses your beliefs. . .and if you are not voting your beliefs, if you are not free to vote for someone who espouses your ideals (even if they lose), then the ability to vote is an empty promise and a wasted freedom.

I fundamentally agree with your point but the issue is that for your point to have the power to make a change, the candidate needs to be worthwhile. What would have happened this time if Sanders or even Trump had been on the ticket as a 3rd party instead of how it played out? Think there would have been a pretty big upset, proving your point.

The issue here - and where I unequivocally agree with VanorDM - is that in THIS election a vote for a 3rd party candidate was completely wasted as the candidates were idiots and voters effectively DID siphon off votes.

This is the argument every election cycle, because every cycle remains a 2-party system. Forget the candidate. the vote is worthwhile. Especially this cycle, when everyone finds the candidates distasteful.

You have to vote 3rd party or nothing changes.

It's not that they're not options, it's that they're literally wasted votes. A 3rd party candidate really does little more then syphon votes from the candidate that they're closest to in terms of left/right wing.

No! No!! No!!!

This is how the system self-perpetuates. What if everyone actually voted 3rd party?? And even if a 3rd party candidate does not win this time, it is a message that the system is broken. The spark of rebellion starts small!

No vote is wasted if it expresses your beliefs. . .and if you are not voting your beliefs, if you are not free to vote for someone who espouses your ideals (even if they lose), then the ability to vote is an empty promise and a wasted freedom.

I fundamentally agree with your point but the issue is that for your point to have the power to make a change, the candidate needs to be worthwhile. What would have happened this time if Sanders or even Trump had been on the ticket as a 3rd party instead of how it played out? Think there would have been a pretty big upset, proving your point.

The issue here - and where I unequivocally agree with VanorDM - is that in THIS election a vote for a 3rd party candidate was completely wasted as the candidates were idiots and voters effectively DID siphon off votes.

This is the argument every election cycle, because every cycle remains a 2-party system. Forget the candidate. the vote is worthwhile. Especially this cycle, when everyone finds the candidates distasteful.

You have to vote 3rd party or nothing changes.

I respectfully disagree. In THIS election cycle, it's truly a wasted vote as it changes nothing but again, fundamentally agree with you that with the right candidate, voting for the 3rd party could FORCE change.

However, the beauty of this system - however warped and broken it currently feels - is that you have the right to vote for who you want and feel good about it, and it's no one else's business. I simply offer an opinion

Sometimes, in the US (and the UK uses the same system but I think it's not as prevalent), your vote can be truly wasted thanks to gerrymandering completely invalidating your vote thanks to the fptp system but that will never be fixed in the US I fear.

On needing a national holiday to vote, I don't quite understand. We here in the Netherlands don't have a holiday, nor do we have months of early voting and yet there also aren't tremendous lines. Then again, in my hometown alone we have at least 70 polling places, and a quick comparison with a few cities of comparable size, Kenosha Washington, Albany New York and Flint, Michigan, shows about half to a third that number.

If this holds true country wide, that would explain things a bit, with all the long lines.

Can you guys vote by proxy, or change the location where you can vote?

I remain astonished that the Democrats managed to nominate the only person in the entire country (hyperbole, I know) that can conceivable lose to Donald Trump. No as much of a doomsayer here, though. Either candidate won't bring the end of the world, I trust the other institutions to limit the damage they can do.

Hillary locked up that nomination at least a year before that sucker even started. I'd say she started working as soon as she lost the last one. There never really was a choice in nominations and that's what sucks. She's got to be the worst possible choice, but internal politics had her dominating things from the get go. This election is historical as it's two candidates with the worst approval ratings going at it.

Basically, we have evil or stupid - either way we are in trouble.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/03/13/hillary-clintons-mistake-on-fracking-for-natural-gas/#751293de3e55http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/hillary-clinton-fracking_n_5796786.htmlhttp://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/17/why_did_clinton_just_tap_ahttp://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/the-holes-in-hillary-clintons-climate-plan-120682Hillary Clinton is inconsistent and/or uneducated at best. And that's being nice, and giving her the benefit of the doubt, which we shouldn't considering all her other scandals.

Did you just google those? Her anti-fracking stance IS a strong climate stance. Innuendo and association isn't substantive. Her climate plan is the strongest that any Us candidate has ever had that can actually be implemented. Her plan is branching, with contingencies based on how much of the senate dems control, how GOP attitudes change and how the Supreme Court breaks out. She's a policy wonk. Like other policy wonks her position is always "how much can we accomplish now?"

Basically, we have evil or stupid - either way we are in trouble.

I'll pick evil over stupid.

Once the nukes start flyin' you don't want the prez going on record as saying "whoops!"

Can you guys vote by proxy, or change the location where you can vote?

You must register to vote at a location, then go there. There is early voting, but essentially the problem is that voting occurs to your home location on a workday for most people. If you work an 8 hour day with a one-hour commute (not atypical), and your polling place is open 6 am to 7 pm (like mine) you have 2 hours to vote before work (hope there is not a long line) or 1 hour after work (hope the commute is light). And since you are at work, voting over lunch is not possible because you can't get home and back to work fast enough.

Either way, it can be a royal pain to get the ability to vote.

I always expected it to be tighter than the easy victory people predicted, but this is ridiculous.

If Trump wins, chances are it'll be a disaster for the world.

Whatever happens though, this night clearly shows the complete bankruptcy of the American election process, with too much complacency in states always being blue or red.

Can you guys vote by proxy, or change the location where you can vote?

You must register to vote at a location, then go there. There is early voting, but essentially the problem is that voting occurs to your home location on a workday for most people. If you work an 8 hour day with a one-hour commute (not atypical), and your polling place is open 6 am to 7 pm (like mine) you have 2 hours to vote before work (hope there is not a long line) or 1 hour after work (hope the commute is light). And since you are at work, voting over lunch is not possible because you can't get home and back to work fast enough.

Either way, it can be a royal pain to get the ability to vote.

Here you just notify them that you'll be voting in a different city. Then again, we don't load our ballots with multiple options. The elections are all single issue, parliament, city council, that sort of thing. No "president, senator, state senate, several propositions" malarkey.

Oh, and voting here is usually between 07:30 and 21:00, never closed earlier though.

A few weeks before an election you get your voting ticket and a copy of the ballot. When voting you hand over the ticket and go and vote. No prior registration necessary, everyone over 18 gets their ticket in the mail, the data being pulled from the local administration. When you move, you notify the county of your new address and the rest of the data (name, social security number, nationality, marital status, date of birth) is transferred.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/03/13/hillary-clintons-mistake-on-fracking-for-natural-gas/#751293de3e55http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/hillary-clinton-fracking_n_5796786.htmlhttp://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/17/why_did_clinton_just_tap_ahttp://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/the-holes-in-hillary-clintons-climate-plan-120682Hillary Clinton is inconsistent and/or uneducated at best. And that's being nice, and giving her the benefit of the doubt, which we shouldn't considering all her other scandals.

Did you just google those? Her anti-fracking stance IS a strong climate stance. Innuendo and association isn't substantive. Her climate plan is the strongest that any Us candidate has ever had that can actually be implemented. Her plan is branching, with contingencies based on how much of the senate dems control, how GOP attitudes change and how the Supreme Court breaks out. She's a policy wonk. Like other policy wonks her position is always "how much can we accomplish now?"

The point is she claims to be anti-fracking yet her actions constantly say otherwise. She follows the money.

http://www.forbes.com/sites/judeclemente/2016/03/13/hillary-clintons-mistake-on-fracking-for-natural-gas/#751293de3e55http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2014/09/10/hillary-clinton-fracking_n_5796786.htmlhttp://www.greenpeace.org/usa/campaign-updates/hillary-clintons-connection-oil-gas-industry/http://www.democracynow.org/2016/8/17/why_did_clinton_just_tap_ahttp://www.politico.com/story/2015/07/the-holes-in-hillary-clintons-climate-plan-120682Hillary Clinton is inconsistent and/or uneducated at best. And that's being nice, and giving her the benefit of the doubt, which we shouldn't considering all her other scandals.

Did you just google those? Her anti-fracking stance IS a strong climate stance. Innuendo and association isn't substantive. Her climate plan is the strongest that any Us candidate has ever had that can actually be implemented. Her plan is branching, with contingencies based on how much of the senate dems control, how GOP attitudes change and how the Supreme Court breaks out. She's a policy wonk. Like other policy wonks her position is always "how much can we accomplish now?"

The point is she claims to be anti-fracking yet her actions constantly say otherwise. She follows the money.

Basically, we have evil or stupid - either way we are in trouble.

I'll pick evil over stupid.

Once the nukes start flyin' you don't want the prez going on record as saying "whoops!"

Former governor of my beloved state famously blundered in 2012 with a great "Uh, whups" moment.

I voted.

Not happy about viable options.

Abolish first-past-the-poll and let's get us a plurality!

And while breaking up the FPTP, for crying out loud, destroy the two-party system as well. It only engenders duality and strife, get yourself a decent number and go for consensus based politics.

.