08-13-2016, 08:06 PM
(08-13-2016, 04:07 PM)Benton Wrote: Why's it a tie? It's not some hypothetical where there's only three people voting. You're talking about — most likely — a difference of several million votes.
And of the people that are voting for a 2-party candidate because they don't want to "waste" a vote, if 5-10 % end up voting third party, that's (roughly, depends on turnout which is probably going to be low) 10-15 million people. Combined with the people already planning on voting third party, that gets them well over the 5%, which means they can get federal funding and maybe actually get a candidate on a debate.
I've said for a few elections now, if people who are dissatisfied with the two party system voted for a third party in the next election it won't mean anything that year. But it could mean tons for the next several elections.
I was using the hypothetical to explain the point. In contested states, it's only about 1% of voters in that state that can swing an outcome - but if you vote 3rd party your impact is pretty much the same as not voting at all.
And "federal funding" is a drop in the bucket. That's not the hurdle or catalyst that's going to make the Libertarian party relevant. It's not going to happen at the Presidential level - you have to start electing Libertarians to Congress, and at the state level...and for that to happen, Libertarians have to actually RUN in those elections.
I'm a Libertarian, but I'm realistic. If I was in a contested state, I'd be voting for Hillary....because a vote for Johnson won't help keep the ******* from winning.
--------------------------------------------------------
