Who is your candidate?

[RoboTripper]

Here's a quiz to take if you aren't sure... or even if you already know it's interesting to see if your man (or women) is the one closest to your views.

www.selectsmart.com/president

here's some of my results:
1. Green Party Candidate (100%)
2. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (88%)
3. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (83%)
4. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (78%)
6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (73%)
10. Socialist Candidate (65%)
11. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (65%)
16. Libertarian Candidate (50%)
20. Buchanan, Patrick J. – Reform/Republican (21%)
22. Bush, George W. - US President (15%)

[FUNKbrs]

suprise, suprise, I'm a libertarian. Now if we can only settle on a candidate.....

[wdfcverfgtghm]

Your Results:

1. Green Party Candidate (100%) Click here for info
2. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (99%) Click here for info
3. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (98%) Click here for info
4. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (91%) Click here for info
5. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (89%) Click here for info
6. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (83%) Click here for info
7. Leahy, Patrick Senator, Vermont - Democrat (79%) Click here for info
8. Jackson, Cong. Jesse Jr., IL - Democrat (78%) Click here for info
9. Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham, NY - Democrat (77%) Click here for info
10. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (76%) Click here for info
11. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (73%) Click here for info
12. Libertarian Candidate (72%) Click here for info
13. Kaptur, Cong. Marcy, OH - Democrat (72%) Click here for info
14. Biden, Senator Joe, DE - Democrat (71%) Click here for info
15. Daschle, Senate Minority Leader Tom, SD - Democrat (71%) Click here for info
16. Feingold, Senator Russ, WI - Democrat (71%) Click here for info
17. Bayh, Senator Evan, IN - Democrat (69%) Click here for info
18. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (69%) Click here for info
19. Socialist Candidate (62%) Click here for info
20. Dodd, Senator Chris, CT - Democrat (62%) Click here for info
21. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (62%) Click here for info
22. Gore, Former Vice-President Al - Democrat (58%) Click here for info
23. Feinstein, Senator Dianne, CA - Democrat (48%) Click here for info
24. Bradley, Former Senator Bill NJ - Democrat (45%) Click here for info
25. McCain, Senator John, AZ- Republican (29%) Click here for info
26. Buchanan, Patrick J. – Reform/Republican (28%) Click here for info
27. Hagelin, John - Natural Law (21%) Click here for info
28. Bush, George W. - US President (20%) Click here for info
29. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (18%) Click here for info
30. Hart, Former Senator Gary, CO - Democrat (7%) Click here for info
31. Vilsack, Governor. Tom IA - Democrat (-3%) Click here for info
32. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (-11%) Click here for info
33. Clark, Retired Army General Wesley K "Wes" Arkansas - Democrat (-11%) Click here for info

Damn I really wish that I wasn't affiliated with a worthless party.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 6/30/03 07:46 PM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote: Your Results:

1. Green Party Candidate (100%) Click here for info
2. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (99%) Click here for info
3. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (98%) Click

I think I'd actually vote for Kucinich if he wasn't a little weiner, who yells constantly to make up for his total lack of charisma and inablity to communicate with other people.

I'll probably end up voting for Gephardt in the primaries, and then vote for the losing candidate against Bush, unless Liberman wins. If Lieberman wins I'll vote for Bush, Lucifer, or reagan again before Lieberman.

[Commander-K25]

My top eight:

1. Bush, George W. - US President (100%)
2. Libertarian Candidate (90%)
3. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (70%)
4. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (67%)
5. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (64%)
6. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (63%)
7. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (61%)
8. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (56%)

What suprised me is that the Libertarian cantidate wasn't at least tied with Bush.

[BWS]

I hate to say it, but if you vote for anything but the two major parties, youre throwing away your vote. The reason why is because of how our electoral college works. Its sad but true.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/1/03 01:45 AM, BWS wrote: I hate to say it, but if you vote for anything but the two major parties, youre throwing away your vote. The reason why is because of how our electoral college works. Its sad but true.

The entire point of other parties running is to get federal subsidization, or for long-term goals that project a break in a two-party system.

[BWS]

At 7/1/03 02:47 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote:

At 7/1/03 01:45 AM, BWS wrote: I hate to say it, but if you vote for anything but the two major parties, youre throwing away your vote. The reason why is because of how our electoral college works. Its sad but true.

The entire point of other parties running is to get federal subsidization, or for long-term goals that project a break in a two-party system.

Yes, thats true.
Thing is, there isnt a shot in hell, for the meantime, for a third party to win the electorals of a decent size state, let alone 270 electoral votes. What im saying is that, for the meantime at least, you might as well vote like: primary-for the weaker of the party against yours...General-for the one you would rather win. Like I said, its sad but true...Politics have certain things that are extremely hard to change. Besides, look how long those parties have been around.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/1/03 02:57 AM, BWS wrote:

At 7/1/03 02:47 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote:

At 7/1/03 01:45 AM, BWS wrote: I hate to say it, but if you vote for anything but the two major parties, youre throwing away your vote. The reason why is because of how our electoral college works. Its sad but true.

The entire point of other parties running is to get federal subsidization, or for long-term goals that project a break in a two-party system.

Yes, thats true.
Thing is, there isnt a shot in hell, for the meantime, for a third party to win the electorals of a decent size state, let alone 270 electoral votes. What im saying is that, for the meantime at least, you might as well vote like: primary-for the weaker of the party against yours...General-for the one you would rather win. Like I said, its sad but true...Politics have certain things that are extremely hard to change. Besides, look how long those parties have been around.

First off you're wrong to assume that a third party would have to get 270 electoral votes. If there are two parties, the winning party has the majorty of votes, I.E. more than 50%, but in a third or multiple party system the majority of electorates maybe less than 50%.

I don't see how removal of the electoral system would harm a third party.

If the problem a third party has in entering the political mainstream is getting a majority vote in order to elect a candidate, then removing the electoral college wouldn't allow a third party to elect a candidate with any fewer votes than a majority. An electoral college would have the possibility of benefiting a minority vote party in electing a candidate, as we're all aware of from the 2000 elections.

In the 2000 elections Ralph Nader ran to get a 5% of the national turn out, in order to receive a federal subsidy for the Green Party. Any party that gets 5% of the national vote, gets a grant by the Government for Campaign Finance, it was Ralph Naders goal to get enough votes to have an adequate financial base for future elections, to eventually break the Two-Party system into a multi-party system.

[BWS]

At 7/1/03 03:07 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote:

At 7/1/03 02:57 AM, BWS wrote:

At 7/1/03 02:47 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote:

At 7/1/03 01:45 AM, BWS wrote: I hate to say it, but if you vote for anything but the two major parties, youre throwing away your vote. The reason why is because of how our electoral college works. Its sad but true.

The entire point of other parties running is to get federal subsidization, or for long-term goals that project a break in a two-party system.

Yes, thats true.
Thing is, there isnt a shot in hell, for the meantime, for a third party to win the electorals of a decent size state, let alone 270 electoral votes. What im saying is that, for the meantime at least, you might as well vote like: primary-for the weaker of the party against yours...General-for the one you would rather win. Like I said, its sad but true...Politics have certain things that are extremely hard to change. Besides, look how long those parties have been around.

First off you're wrong to assume that a third party would have to get 270 electoral votes. If there are two parties, the winning party has the majorty of votes, I.E. more than 50%, but in a third or multiple party system the majority of electorates maybe less than 50%.

Youre right, it only needs a majority; I did take that into consideration. But, its highly unlikely for that to happen.

I don't see how removal of the electoral system would harm a third party.

I never said anything like that. Removal of it would help them for sure. I agree with that for sure.

If the problem a third party has in entering the political mainstream is getting a majority vote in order to elect a candidate, then removing the electoral college wouldn't allow a third party to elect a candidate with any fewer votes than a majority. An electoral college would have the possibility of benefiting a minority vote party in electing a candidate, as we're all aware of from the 2000 elections.

Above.

In the 2000 elections Ralph Nader ran to get a 5% of the national turn out, in order to receive a federal subsidy for the Green Party. Any party that gets 5% of the national vote, gets a grant by the Government for Campaign Finance, it was Ralph Naders goal to get enough votes to have an adequate financial base for future elections, to eventually break the Two-Party system into a multi-party system.

Good for him, but its going to be a long road.

You see, its just that the way the electoral college works, its hard for them to get the votes because they need to win the state in order to do so; its a cut and dry, win lose situation.
It seems that you know how it works, and im not saying that you dont. It would, in my opinion, be good for more parties. What I was saying originally was simply that with this type of process, people dont quite fully understand how the process works, therefore they should be informed so that they can know how it works and thus not throw their vote away because that is in fact what they are doing at this point in time.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/1/03 03:27 AM, BWS wrote:

I don't see how removal of the electoral system would harm a third party.

I never said anything like that. Removal of it would help them for sure. I agree with that for sure.

"I hate to say it, but if you vote for anything but the two major parties, youre throwing away your vote. The reason why is because of how our electoral college works. Its sad but true."

Here's what you said.

The electoral college has nothing to do with the inhibition of a third party system.

The reason why Third Party Candidates blame their inability to enter into the political mainstream, is because they lack the funding to set up a run for election.

Third parties lack the backing, financially, and vote wise to be taken into any serious consideration by the majority of the public.

Eliminating the Electoral college would not A. Increase the funding of third party candidates, or B. Increase the voting turn out for third party candidates.

I don't see how, or why changing or eliminating the electoral college, would effect third parties.

Therefore, it would not help Third Party Candidates, if it was elected.

In the 2000 elections Ralph Nader ran to get a 5% of the national turn out, in order to receive a federal subsidy for the Green Party. Any party that gets 5% of the national vote, gets a grant by the Government for Campaign Finance, it was Ralph Naders goal to get enough votes to have an adequate financial base for future elections, to eventually break the Two-Party system into a multi-party system.

Good for him, but its going to be a long road.

He didn't get the required amount of votes for federal subsidy, so his plan never really began succesfully.

It has always been a long-term goal, and Ralph Nader openly stated this in 1999.

You see, its just that the way the electoral college works, its hard for them to get the votes because they need to win the state in order to do so; its a cut and dry, win lose situation.

I fully understand what you have typed, however you are incorrect on two points.

First, Third Parties, and voters who understand the platforms they are voting for, are not attempting to win the national election or to win a state's electoral votes. Third Parties, and their voters are attempting to win enough votes to grant their party a federal subsidy. It is an attainable goal, which was almost accomplished in 2000 by Ralph Nader, I don't remeber specifically the number of votes his party was short by, but I believe that it was 50,000.

If the goal of a Candidate, and his or her voters is to gain a federal subsidy, and they have nearly accomplished their goal previously, and have the ability to attain an adequate percent of the votes to grant federal subsidy, then they are not throwing their votes away. It is possibly, and viable for Third Party Candidates to run and vote for their goal, therefore their votes are not useless.

Second, Whether or not the electoral college exists, has no bearing on a Third Party entering the political mainstream. The reasons why, (as I have stated previously - often) Are A. They lack the funds which mainstream parties receiver, B. They lack the popularity to gain a majority of votes.

Removing the electoral college would not allow for Third Parties to gain access to more money for campaign finance, or create a system where the victor does not have a majority vote, therefore the electoral college does not inhibit Third parties.

It seems that you know how it works, and im not saying that you dont. It would, in my opinion, be good for more parties. What I was saying originally was simply that with this type of process, people dont quite fully understand how the process works, therefore they should be informed so that they can know how it works and thus not throw their vote away because that is in fact what they are doing at this point in time.

If a Third Party Candidates goal was to win the National election, and the voters were under the belief that an American Third Party has the ability to win the national election, then their vote would be useless. That is not the case in American politics, (as I have stated before) with the major Third Parties.

The Electoral College is based on majority votes. A state is awarded a larger degree of electoral votes based on their population, although their electoral votes will never be fewer than 3. Eliminating the electoral college, and going by a majority vote would not allow Third Parties to gain easier access to the political mainstream.

If a Third Party has no ability to win the majority of electoral votes, then they also have no ability to gain the majority vote, therefore whether there is or is not an electoral college, does not effect the ability of a third party to win an election in a democratic majority vote system.

[Nirvana13666]

Reject voting because it is not part of the solution, its part of the problem. It endorses an unjust and unfree political system and makes us look to others to fight our battles for us.

Voting obstructs constructive self-activity and direct action. It prevents the building of alternatives in our communities and workplaces. I will not deny the importance of political liberties or the importance in wining the right to vote.

The question I ask then is whether or not it is a more a fitting to acknowledge the millions of people who used direct action, fought and suffered for the right to vote and use that victory to endorse a deeply unfair and undemocratic system or should we not create a system based upon true popular self-government. If we are true to our desire for a real, meaningful democracy, we would have to reject political action in favor of direct action.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

At 7/1/03 10:11 AM, Nirvana13666 wrote: Voting obstructs constructive self-activity and direct action. It prevents the building of alternatives in our communities and workplaces. I will not deny the importance of political liberties or the importance in wining the right to vote.

Posting online, writing angst essays to the english teacher who understands you, and getting your daddy to send you via Am Track to the newest birkenstock riot isn't very constructive either.

[DrxFeelgood]

Republican all the way

[BWS]

At 7/1/03 07:01 AM, AnRkeyPenguin wrote:

At 7/1/03 03:27 AM, BWS wrote:

The electoral college has nothing to do with the inhibition of a third party system.

Of course it does.

Eliminating the Electoral college would not A. Increase the funding of third party candidates, or B. Increase the voting turn out for third party candidates.

It wouldnt increase funding, but it would change the process enough to help them.

I don't see how, or why changing or eliminating the electoral college, would effect third parties.

Well, if the electoral college was done away with there would be a system that was a bit more helpful for them. The states would still have different amounts of electoral votes. The thing that would change is the all or none rule. If each single electoral vote was determined by majority, it would change the outcome a lot.

I fully understand what you have typed, however you are incorrect on two points.

First, Third Parties, and voters who understand the platforms they are voting for, are not attempting to win the national election or to win a state's electoral votes. Third Parties, and their voters are attempting to win enough votes to grant their party a federal subsidy. It is an attainable goal, which was almost accomplished in 2000 by Ralph Nader, I don't remeber specifically the number of votes his party was short by, but I believe that it was 50,000.

If the goal isnt to win the national election, or a few good sized states, then yes, youre right. There is still one problem; many states are predictable as to which way they will vote, and this will be quite hard to change once they do decide to run for the national.

Second, Whether or not the electoral college exists, has no bearing on a Third Party entering the political mainstream. The reasons why, (as I have stated previously - often) Are A. They lack the funds which mainstream parties receiver, B. They lack the popularity to gain a majority of votes.

They lack the popularity, but removing the electoral college would, like I said above, change it in their favor; it would be very likely for them to change it into something like ive mentioned above.

Removing the electoral college would not allow for Third Parties to gain access to more money for campaign finance, or create a system where the victor does not have a majority vote, therefore the electoral college does not inhibit Third parties.

If the districts determine the outcome, you can actually win them in such a way that you might not have a majority overall. Look at how districts are gerrymandered; the outcome is totally different compared to the standard majority. This would allow them to do much better because they could create a better focus. Like I said, this is likely because it spreads the vote in such a way that more opinions are held higher.

If a Third Party Candidates goal was to win the National election, and the voters were under the belief that an American Third Party has the ability to win the national election, then their vote would be useless. That is not the case in American politics, (as I have stated before) with the major Third Parties.

So the case with American politics is that when they vote for them with the beleif that they will win, they arent throwing away their vote? Youre contradicting yourself.

The Electoral College is based on majority votes. A state is awarded a larger degree of electoral votes based on their population, although their electoral votes will never be fewer than 3. Eliminating the electoral college, and going by a majority vote would not allow Third Parties to gain easier access to the political mainstream.

I know how it works. If districts were decided by a majority (and yes, I know, there are e. votes than districts) it would change it.

If a Third Party has no ability to win the majority of electoral votes, then they also have no ability to gain the majority vote, therefore whether there is or is not an electoral college, does not effect the ability of a third party to win an election in a democratic majority vote system.

[HardcoreChristmas]

1. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (100%) Click here for info
2. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (80%) Click here for info
3. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (79%) Click here for info
4. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (77%) Click here for info
5. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (77%) Click here for info
6. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (74%) Click here for info
7. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (66%) Click here for info
8. Libertarian Candidate (64%) Click here for info
9. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (60%) Click here for info
10. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (59%) Click here for info
11. Bush, George W. - US President (29%) Click here for info
12. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (17%) Click here for info
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (-8%)

Al Sharpton #2 ??? Fuck.

[Zalbun]

Gee....I wonder whicg party I support...

Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (94%) Click here for info
2. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (93%) Click here for info
3. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (87%) Click here for info
4. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (80%) Click here for info
5. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (77%) Click here for info
6. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (73%) Click here for info
7. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (72%) Click here for info
8. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (61%) Click here for info
9. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (60%) Click here for info
10. Libertarian Candidate (37%) Click here for info
11. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (19%) Click here for info
12. Bush, George W. - US President (19%) Click here for info
13. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (-6%) Click here for info

Anyway The Electoral College should be abolished. Doesn't it seem natural that in a government "For the people" That the candidate the Majority of Americans vote for become president?????

Even though it is cleat which party's policies I support I still am frustrated with the fact that just because one party is pro a certain issue the other party automatically is agianst it. Our Partisan system forces Moderates and third party candidates completely out of the picture.

I also find it funny how many communists and socialists post on this website, though I have nothing agianst them.

[Mr-Chuckles]

I'm not American, but meh, who cares.....

. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (100%) Click here for info
2. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (83%) Click here for info
3. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (82%) Click here for info
4. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (75%) Click here for info
5. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (74%) Click here for info
6. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (72%) Click here for info
7. Clinton, Senator Hillary Rodham, NY - Democrat (71%) Click here for info
8. Daschle, Senate Minority Leader Tom, SD - Democrat (66%) Click here for info
9. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (65%) Click here for info
10. Sharpton, Reverend Al - Democrat (64%) Click here for info
11. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (62%) Click here for info
12. Gore, Former Vice-President Al - Democrat (51%) Click here for info
13. Dodd, Senator Chris, CT - Democrat (51%) Click here for info
14. Libertarian Candidate (47%) Click here for info
15. Bayh, Senator Evan, IN - Democrat (46%) Click here for info
16. Bush, George W. - US President (25%) Click here for info
17. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (22%) Click here for info
18. Hart, Former Senator Gary, CO - Democrat (11%) Click here for info
19. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (-5%) Click here for info

[DrxFeelgood]

1. Bush, George W. - US President (100%)
2. Gephardt, Cong. Dick, MO - Democrat (89%)
3. Kerry, Senator John, MA - Democrat (87%)
4. Lieberman Senator Joe CT - Democrat (86%)
6. Edwards, Senator John, NC - Democrat (77%)
7. Biden, Senator Joe, DE - Democrat (76%)
9. McCain, Senator John, AZ- Republican (74%)
10. Bayh, Senator Evan, IN - Democrat (65%)
11. Daschle, Senate Minority Leader Tom, SD - Democrat (63%)
12. Dean, Gov. Howard, VT - Democrat (61%)
14. Kucinich, Cong. Dennis, OH - Democrat (60%)
15. Kaptur, Cong. Marcy, OH - Democrat (58%)
16. Dodd, Senator Chris, CT - Democrat (53%)
17. Graham, Senator Bob, FL - Democrat (52%)
18. Buchanan, Patrick J. – Reform/Republican (51%)
19. Feinstein, Senator Dianne, CA - Democrat (50%)
20. Moseley-Braun, Former Senator Carol IL - Democrat (49%)
22. Jackson, Cong. Jesse Jr., IL - Democrat (45%)
23. Leahy, Patrick Senator, Vermont - Democrat (43%)
25. Phillips, Howard - Constitution (34%)
26. Bradley, Former Senator Bill NJ - Democrat (34%)
27. Feingold, Senator Russ, WI - Democrat (31%)
29. Hagelin, John - Natural Law (22%)
30. Vilsack, Governor. Tom IA - Democrat (-2%)
31. Hart, Former Senator Gary, CO - Democrat (-5%)
32. LaRouche, Lyndon H. Jr. - Democrat (-9%)
33. Clark, Retired Army General Wesley K "Wes" Arkansas - Democrat (-9%)

[JMHX]

Oh, come now! How can any of you forsake Howard Dean? He's the man right there.

[JMHX]

Kerry's fallen off since he's had a lack of things to complain about. Of course, he could always just start screaming simply to get air-time. That can never hurt when you're one of the 9 Unknowns.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

I'll respond in two posts, due to character limitations.

At 7/1/03 04:25 PM, BWS wrote:

I don't see how, or why changing or eliminating the electoral college, would effect third parties.

Well, if the electoral college was done away with there would be a system that was a bit more helpful for them. The states would still have different amounts of electoral votes. The thing that would change is the all or none rule. If each single electoral vote was determined by majority, it would change the outcome a lot.

No. I don't see how you can possibly still not understand that, considering I've gone over it three times.

Here's a step by step run through of the situation.

The American Democracy is a Majority vote winner take all system, that is subdivided into 538 electoral votes.
Electoral votes are awarded to a state based on state population.
Therefore the majority vote should win the election.

The Electoral college is a less than acurate depiction of the majority vote, because the number of electoral votes awarded are
A. Based on state population, not voter turn out
B. Based on 538 votes, who are suppose to depict the votes of Millions, which causes a descrepincy in the electoral to true vote count.

Whether or not a party recieves No true, or electoral college votes, or a minority of true or electoral college votes, that party will always lose.

The only possible miselection in a Electoral college count, rather than true vote count, is that a minority vote winner could win, rather than a majority vote winner.

All third parties since the Bull Moose party have received less than 5% of the national vote.

To win a majority election a party needs, in a Two-Party only system 51% of the vote, or in a Three-Party sytsem 34-51% of the vote (depending on how equaly distributed the votes are).

A minority vote will always lose in a true vote count.
A minority vote usually loses in an electoral college system, but has the possinility to win.

A majority vote will always win in a true vote count.
A majority vote usually wins in an electoral college system, but has the possibility to lose.

Third parties have always been minority votes.
There has never been a single election where minority votes have been the majority.

Therefore, an electoral college may not inhibit a third party from entering the political mainstream.

[wdfcverfgtghm]

First, Third Parties, and voters who understand the platforms they are voting for, are not attempting to win the national election or to win a state's electoral votes. Third Parties, and their voters are attempting to win enough votes to grant their party a federal subsidy. It is an attainable goal, which was almost accomplished in 2000 by Ralph Nader, I don't remeber specifically the number of votes his party was short by, but I believe that it was 50,000.

If the goal isnt to win the national election, or a few good sized states, then yes, youre right. There is still one problem; many states are predictable as to which way they will vote, and this will be quite hard to change once they do decide to run for the national.

Second, Whether or not the electoral college exists, has no bearing on a Third Party entering the political mainstream. The reasons why, (as I have stated previously - often) Are A. They lack the funds which mainstream parties receiver, B. They lack the popularity to gain a majority of votes.

They lack the popularity, but removing the electoral college would, like I said above, change it in their favor; it would be very likely for them to change it into something like ive mentioned above.

Removing the electoral college would not allow for Third Parties to gain access to more money for campaign finance, or create a system where the victor does not have a majority vote, therefore the electoral college does not inhibit Third parties.

If the districts determine the outcome, you can actually win them in such a way that you might not have a majority overall. Look at how districts are gerrymandered; the outcome is totally different compared to the standard majority. This would allow them to do much better because they could create a better focus. Like I said, this is likely because it spreads the vote in such a way that more opinions are held higher.

If a Major party lead a campaign to gain 51% of the votes in major states, so that they would win those states and receive an innacurate represenation of the national vote, then it would only be beneficial if they received a minority of the national vote but innacurate majority of electoral votes.

Third parties have never received a majority vote.

An electoral college system allows a minority vote to win the election (2000 election).

The electoral college has the off chance of benefiting a minority vote party, such as third parties, but whether or not there is an electoral college a party who does not have the ability to gain a majority vote, does not have the ability to win the election. Minority parties cannot win states, because they cannot get majority votes, not because the electoral college inhibits them from getting majority votes. Regardless of if their is or is not an electoral college the majority vote will always win a state. A Majority vote will always win a national election in a true vote count, and will most likely win with an electoral college.

If a Third Party Candidates goal was to win the National election, and the voters were under the belief that an American Third Party has the ability to win the national election, then their vote would be useless. That is not the case in American politics, (as I have stated before) with the major Third Parties.

So the case with American politics is that when they vote for them with the beleif that they will win, they arent throwing away their vote? Youre contradicting yourself.

No, I never contradicted myself. You did not comprehend what I said.

I'm going on the assumption that when you say "Throwing your vote away", you mean voting in a way that will not achieve the goal or reason for why you voted.

The purpose of most third party candidates and parties in the short term, is to gain public spotlight, and federal funding.

Voters, who vote for these third party candidates and agree with their short term platforms, have the ability to achieve their goals, and nearly have in the past.

Therefore, Third Party canidates and third party voters are not throwing away their votes, even if they do not have ability to win the national election.

This IS the case with American politics, specifically Ralph Nader's 2000 run.

In what you responded to, I wrote what was NOT the case with American politics. Please reread what I originally wrote, and your response. You'll find that I didn't contradict myself, but you misread, or misunderstood. Perhaps you didn't understand or read "That is not the case in American politics".