Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : American Presidential Politics and foreign affairs -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: TimF who wrote (42244)	3/25/2010 1:17:13 AM
From: RMF	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 71588

Friedman, in this article talks about a "3rd" party. nytimes.com He discusses the problem of voting for a third party if it will only "hurt" one of the "major" parties. Apparently, in Australia they have "alternative voting", where you can vote for a third party but also indicate the party you would "LIKE" if this third party candidate doesn't win. I'm sure that would be a hassle, but certainly a WELCOMED hassle if it actually allows people to express their true opinions without sinking the whole ship in the meantime. If we had had that in 2000 Nader wouldn't have cost Gore the election and we wouldn't be in this current mess...maybe? As far as getting 34% for a third party goes, I believe Perot could have gotten that if he hadn't gotten all whacky. People, (including me) were VERY worried even back in 1992 about all the RED INK that Reagan and Bush I had wracked up. In 12 years those guys just about QUADRUPLED our National Debt.