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 : View from the Center and Left -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: neolib who wrote (288969)	1/23/2016 1:33:46 PM
From: Sam	Respond to of 542139

I don't think so. Our winner-take-all system heavily stacks the deck against all third party candidacies. It isn't the candidate--it is the system. There is too much party identification and loyalty and the argument that "You'll throw your vote away if you vote for xxx" becomes very powerful. I think that the only thing that historically has overcome that is the racism of the South, where occasionally third party candidates held their own against the established parties. But that is because the people who voted for the third party candidate (e.g., Wallace or Thurmond) actually identified with the Klan more than the Democratic party. Perot was a special case. However, while Bloomberg would make a far better candidate than Perot did, but he still wouldn't win the election without party support. He would just be a spoiler. We need to have proportional voting. And a true "one person, one vote" system. But I don't think the Rs would allow it.