Championship Subdivision Football | FCS Football | Stadiums | Blogs | Forums

That's the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries.

And I'm guessing both parties are more than fine with this fact.

But keep on mocking the idea of 3rd parties....losers.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

But we're there any Libertarian or Green Party primaries? That might have increased the vote total by another .000693%.

Ivytalk wrote:But we're there any Libertarian or Green Party primaries? That might have increased the vote total by another .000693%.

Let's see if this helps you out Mr. Johnson supporter...

kalm wrote:That's the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries.

And I'm guessing both parties are more than fine with this fact.

But keep on mocking the idea of 3rd parties....losers.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

I never mocked third parties.

I just said you have to begin in the minor leagues, Puig.

kalm wrote:That's the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries.

And I'm guessing both parties are more than fine with this fact.

But keep on mocking the idea of 3rd parties....losers.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

The obvious solution here is to clam up primaries and make them harder to vote in. My open primary idea was just retarded.

Pwns wrote:

kalm wrote:That's the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries.

And I'm guessing both parties are more than fine with this fact.

But keep on mocking the idea of 3rd parties....losers.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

The obvious solution here is to clam up primaries and make them harder to vote in. My open primary idea was just retarded.

Indeed.

kalm wrote:That's the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries.

And I'm guessing both parties are more than fine with this fact.

But keep on mocking the idea of 3rd parties....losers.

I'm not sure mocking is the right word. So far, there hasn't been a third party worthy of my vote and I do think there are inherit problems with a third party making much headway. The fact that there are only 9% of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries and Johnson nor Stein will crack 4% of the popular vote kind of renders your post somewhat faulty.

kalm wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:But we're there any Libertarian or Green Party primaries? That might have increased the vote total by another .000693%.

Let's see if this helps you out Mr. Johnson supporter...

Small "l."

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:That's the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries.

And I'm guessing both parties are more than fine with this fact.

But keep on mocking the idea of 3rd parties....losers.

I'm not sure mocking is the right word. So far, there hasn't been a third party worthy of my vote and I do think there are inherit problems with a third party making much headway. The fact that there are only 9% of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries and Johnson nor Stein will crack 4% of the popular vote kind of renders your post somewhat faulty.

I'll take the over on Johnson and the under on Stein.

Ivytalk wrote:I'll take the over on Johnson and the under on Stein.

FWIW, he was polling around 5-6% in 2012 prior to the elections and got less than 1%.

89Hen wrote:

Ivytalk wrote:I'll take the over on Johnson and the under on Stein.

FWIW, he was polling around 5-6% in 2012 prior to the elections and got less than 1%.

Understood. I'll still take the over. More press/Internet coverage this time around, coupled with far worse GOP and Dem candidates.

CAA Flagship wrote:

kalm wrote:That's the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries.

And I'm guessing both parties are more than fine with this fact.

But keep on mocking the idea of 3rd parties....losers.

http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2016 ... .html?_r=0

I never mocked third parties.

I just said you have to begin in the minor leagues, Puig.

Youch.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:That's the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries.

And I'm guessing both parties are more than fine with this fact.

But keep on mocking the idea of 3rd parties....losers.

I'm not sure mocking is the right word. So far, there hasn't been a third party worthy of my vote and I do think there are inherit problems with a third party making much headway. The fact that there are only 9% of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries and Johnson nor Stein will crack 4% of the popular vote kind of renders your post somewhat faulty.

But Trump is, Your Highness?

Grizalltheway wrote:

89Hen wrote: I'm not sure mocking is the right word. So far, there hasn't been a third party worthy of my vote and I do think there are inherit problems with a third party making much headway. The fact that there are only 9% of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries and Johnson nor Stein will crack 4% of the popular vote kind of renders your post somewhat faulty.

But Trump is, Your Highness?

WTF, where have you been???

89Hen wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:
But Trump is, Your Highness?

WTF, where have you been???

No really caring that much about who you vote for.

So Hillary? Abstaining?

Grizalltheway wrote:Abstaining

Got it.

89Hen wrote:

Grizalltheway wrote:Abstaining

Got it.

Me too. I guess it just comes naturally to me.

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:That's the percentage of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries.

And I'm guessing both parties are more than fine with this fact.

But keep on mocking the idea of 3rd parties....losers.

I'm not sure mocking is the right word. So far, there hasn't been a third party worthy of my vote and I do think there are inherit problems with a third party making much headway. The fact that there are only 9% of eligible voters who actually voted for them in the primaries and Johnson nor Stein will crack 4% of the popular vote kind of renders your post somewhat faulty.

Hint: duopolies/monopolies prevent competition. Even if you have viable, reasoned candidates they tend to get absorbed or bought out. Alternatives are not allowed. Choices, the market place of ideas are bad.

Not faulty at all.

kalm wrote:Hint: duopolies/monopolies prevent competition. Even if you have viable, reasoned candidates they tend to get absorbed or bought out. Alternatives are not allowed. Choices, the market place of ideas are bad.

Not faulty at all.

Faulty

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:Hint: duopolies/monopolies prevent competition. Even if you have viable, reasoned candidates they tend to get absorbed or bought out. Alternatives are not allowed. Choices, the market place of ideas are bad.

Not faulty at all.

Faulty

"Argument is an intellectual process. Contradiction is just the automatic gainsaying of anything the other person says."

Didn't think I needed to spell it out Ivy.

[quote="89Hen"]Didn't think I needed to spell it out Ivy.[/quote

I'm afraid you do. We have two horrendously unpopular candidates representing the two major parties who garnered a whopping 9% support from eligible voters.

kalm wrote:I'm afraid you do. We have two horrendously unpopular candidates representing the two major parties who garnered a whopping 9% support from eligible voters.

And they will still get 95%+ of the vote. If EVER there was a time when a third party candidate should get a big chunk, it's this year. But I seriously doubt that will happen. Do you think Johnson and Stein combined will top the 18+ that Perot got in 92?

89Hen wrote:

kalm wrote:I'm afraid you do. We have two horrendously unpopular candidates representing the two major parties who garnered a whopping 9% support from eligible voters.

And they will still get 95%+ of the vote. If EVER there was a time when a third party candidate should get a big chunk, it's this year. But I seriously doubt that will happen. Do you think Johnson and Stein combined will top the 18+ that Perot got in 92?

And why do you think that is? Do you believe Trump is a more valid and reasoned candidate than Johnson?

(Keep coming...you're getting there!)

kalm wrote:

89Hen wrote: And they will still get 95%+ of the vote. If EVER there was a time when a third party candidate should get a big chunk, it's this year. But I seriously doubt that will happen. Do you think Johnson and Stein combined will top the 18+ that Perot got in 92?

And why do you think that is? Do you believe Trump is a more valid and reasoned candidate than Johnson?

(Keep coming...you're getting there!)

I think Johnson is pretty close to matching Trump for stupidity, so...

I said, I don't disagree that the system is set up to make it hard for a third party to get a foothold. Does anyone disagree with that? But the third party candidates have done nothing to overcome that IMO.