What if there were a 3-way contest for President?

A lot of people are speculating on the presidential primaries and the eventual nominees from the Republican and Democratic Parties. But what if a third person entered the race in Presidential General Election? Remember Ross Perot?
The United States presidential election of 1992 was the 52nd quadrennial presidential election. It was held on Tuesday, November 3, 1992. There were three major candidates: Incumbent Republican President George H. W. Bush; Democratic Arkansas Governor Bill Clinton, and independent Texas businessman Ross Perot.
Some people have speculated that if Ross Perot had not entered the race as a third party candidate that Bill Clinton would not have been elected and that George H.W. Bush would have been re-elected.
I have found and read an interesting article concerning a possible scenario of a 3-way race for President this year. Note: I stated possible, not probable. Read the story: This Man Can Save Us From Trump—and Clinton.

Your rating: None Average: 5 (2 votes)

This article has no basis in fact! Eisenhower was a household name in 1952! He was the greatest military leader of World War II. He didn't need to campaign. And election seasons were both much shorter and much different then, because most delegates to national nominating conventions were chosen by state party leaders, NOT by voters. To be honest, this appears to be a fanciful pipe dream of a third party candidacy that could suck conservative voters away from The Donald and ensure a Democratic victory for POTUS in November!
For heaven's sake! Even Ross Perot was much better known in 1992 than Mattis is now! To be honest, I have never heard of Mattis myself. I had heard of Ross Perot in 1992, however. Much like The Donald, Perot was a high profile billionaire who never met a camera he didn't like.
I know that you said this was just "possible" not "probable." IMHO it's a special kind of possible...IMpossible!

Sorry, Dale, but you totally misconstrued the intent of my use of the article to which I linked in my initiating comment. Its use by me was intended only to open dialogue on the possible scenario of a 3-way race for President.
Please note that I wrote, "I have found and read an interesting article concerning a possible scenario of a 3-way race for President this year. Note: I stated possible, not probable."
IN NO WAY, was I advocating, proposing, or even suggesting that retired Marine General James Mattis be a third candidate in a 3-way race this fall. The article to which I referenced only served as a prompt stimulating my thinking that a 3-way race for President might be a possible scenario this year.

And, you did stimulate a discussion. Good job, Roland!

Id rather vote for the former republican governor of New Mexico

the Libertarian Party, so you may well have that chance. I urge you to support Gary Johnson. Good luck!

General Mattis is a great man but I don't see any indication he is interested in running. It's also not much of his style.

The problem with the scenario mentioned is I can't see him flipping any blue states. Whereas Donald Trump could compete in several solidly blue states like MI, PA, and NY.

This article is in my opinion just an extension of the Never Trump movement which really isn't seeing much movement in terms of votes. Trump is further along than toward the nomination than any candidate in either party and I've seen no evidence of that changing.


Mikey -- I accept your assessment of him as a military leader. My post was meant to show the differentiation between how well known Ike was in 1952 compared to Mattis in 2016. Because Ike was so well known, and because the nominating process was so different in 1952, Ike did not need to campaign the way Mattis would.

You may be right about Mattis's personality not lending itself to a run for the Presidency at all. I really don't know. It would seem likely that, if he were inclined to run; however, he would have had to make that decision at least several months ago. Even The Donald, with his astronomically high name recognition and his celebrity status, made his campaign official back in June of 2015. And that was considered to be late. If not for his high name recognition factor and celebrity status, it is unlikely that The Donald could have obtained even a small fraction of the free media coverage he has received which has helped to vault him to the highest levels within the Republican primaries and caucuses.

IMHO -- Ike was one of our greatest presidents ever. Also, IMHO, Ike was too politically moderate to get the nomination by today's Republican Party voters and caucus attendees.

General Mattis. One of his quotes sounds like The Donald could have said it, except, of course, Gen. Mattis actually did serve in the military and subject himself to the dangers which go along with that service. For others who read here and don't know Gen. Mattis, here's the link: http://www.businessinsider.com/a-retired-marine-general-named-mad-dog-co...

After reading this, I have no doubt that any potential POTUS should ask Gen. Mattis for military advice, especially in regard to the conditions in the Middle East. He might even be a good to great Secretary of Defense! That's a position that might interest him. I don't really get the feeling he even desires to be the POTUS, should that be a possibility. Along with other things, what positions does Gen. Mattis have on topics outside of the military? I get the feeling, even though he probably has opinions about these issues, he really would rather keep those feelings to himself. I am impressed at what is reported in this article, I must say!

If he were a DoD Secy or Nat Sec Advisor he'd be great of that I have no doubt.

I was merely speaking of him as a political candidate. There isn't much known about his politics or political positions. Personally he is top caliber but politically he could fail to live up to expectations.


An honest assessment. Thanks, Mikey.

The third person would lose.

So would one of the remaining two.

The only way a third party jumps in is if it's someone who can win both blue and red states. There are very few people who could do that.


he may well run as a third party candidate. IMHO -- He would do this for two reasons. Most importantly for this classic narcissist, more media exposure throughout 2016 would further market the Trump brand. Secondly, he doesn't really care if a third party run would help or hurt either the Democratic nominee, or the Republican nominee. After all, he has been both a Democrat and a Republican, and he has admitted openly that, as a businessman, he has donated and supported politicians from both major political parties.

In fact, since The Donald's current incarnation is as a self-proclaimed conservative Republican, a third party candidacy by him would probably hurt the Republican candidate more than the Democratic candidate. And, if he would be denied the Republican nomination even though it appears likely that The Donald will have more delegates at the Republican Convention than any other Republican candidate, being the narcissist that he appears to be, The Donald might be so insulted by such a slight that he would run mainly because he would want the Republican nominee to lose.
Only time will tell.

The GOP should ban him from being a nominee now instead of waiting for the convention. It's a matter of damage control. Trump sends a powerful message. They can't lead their party, how can they lead the country? The GOP has already demonstrated this over the last 15 years George W. Bush was the worst POTUS in recent history and the GOP dominated Congress over the last seven years has made this country appear to be a bunch of buffoons. We the people are the big losers. Look at the billions of dollars us tax payers have spent paying the salaries of these fat cats. One of the things the GOP is good at is blaming everybody else for their screw-ups. They behave as though the best form of government is an Oligarchy.

That's why you're a Democrat and your nominee is decided in a back room by party insiders where as the Republican nominee is majorly through the will of the people.


as usual! Let's see...whom did the Democrats nominate in 2008? Hillary was the choice of the vast majority of Democratic elected leaders that year. In which "back room" was Obama selected? Whom did the Republicans nominate in 2008? John McCain was the clear choice of most of the Republican elected leaders. And McCain was the nominee. What a surprise! McCain was rejected by the back room Republican wheelers and dealers in 2000. And we got a minority POTUS in W. That worked out great! Remember "Mission Accomplished?" We're still paying for that blunder. Remember the Great Recession? We're still paying for that one, too! Remember the vacuous Republican predictions of a second Obama term leading to another recession, growing deficits, and gun confiscation? Wrong, wrong, and wrong again! And in 2012, whom did most of the Republican leaders want to challenge Obama? Willard, of course! And they got him, too!

Mikey -- You live in a dream world! It is the Republican Party which skews its primary results in most states, allowing winner-take-all and winner-take-most to thwart the intent of the majority of voters. For example, in Florida, The Donald got the most votes, but it amounted to about 46% of the total cast in the Republican primary there. The majority of Republican voters in Florida rejected The Donald. However, because of the ridiculous, winner-take-all system, The Donald gets every one of the 99 delegates from Florida to the Republican nominating convention. This reflects "majorly[sic]...the will of the people?!" Give me a break!

Dale you are wrong. Obama secured the nomination after enough Superdelegates switched to support him.

In 2008, McCain was not the favorite of the party insiders. In fact his campaign was flat broke and had Huckabee not stayed in he likely would have lost it outright. Only through Huckabee splitting the vote with Romney did McCain take the lead. And he didn't take the lead because of party insiders but did so only off of votes.

Dale, the rules of what state is winner-take-all is determined by each state. Not the GOP. It's funny you mentioned Florida. The GOP tried to coerce Florida into changing its primary date in 2012 but Florida steadfastly refused.

Like it or not the Democratic nominee will be decided by Super Delegates and you know I'm right.


2008, and Obama got the nomination. Thank you for admitting this, Mikey!
FYI -- EACH POLITICAL PARTY in each state decides its rules for primary elections. Republican Partiy leaders in their respective states made the rules in each state. The GOP set a trend. Many state Republican parties took an undemocratic part of the electoral system, the Electoral College, and patterned their winner-take-all and winner-take-most primary elections after it. That's your idea of "...majorly[sic] through the will of the people?!"
If Huckabee was such a factor in 2008, explain how McCain had a majority of the delegates wrapped up before the GOP nominating convention that year, Mikey?
Of course, you ignore the Republican choice in 2000 and 2004. Remember how the W's people eviscerated a genuine hero, John McCain, in 2000? And, you conveniently ignore how the GOP reached its choice in 2012.
If you feel better pretending that the modern Republican Party really reflects the feelings of those who vote Republican, live the fantasy! As I stated above, Mikey, you live in a dream world.

No you are wrong. Despite the switch it was still party insiders who made the decision. Just because they were persuaded by the voting doesn't mean they don't make the choice.

Not in every state. In many states you are correct but there are those where primary workings are by state law and not political party rules.

I already explained. Huckabee split the pool of voters who otherwise would have gone to Romney. Huckabee's presence diluted the vote allowing McCain to edge him.

John McCain lost the 2000 primary in the voting booths. GWB secured it with his Super Tuesday wins.

You have given no scenario where the GOP has chosen the nominee. In every one it was solely chosen by voters and their votes.


Dream away, Mikey!

We must remember that MikeyA may be one of those people who think he will be catapulted to fame and fortune by the Republican handlers for his undying support. Dream on MikeyA, dream on. There is a place for you in the concentration camps and it's not in the role as a guard or administrator.

MickeyA always takes things off topic on here. And now Dale Pertcheck wants to do the same thing. Both of you need to get a life. Now I know why I stay away from here. As for my answer, I cannot find a 3rd party person I could give my vote up for!

Governor Sick would be the best candidate the Republicans could nominate for the November election. Why do you think that The Donald and Lyin' Ted both are calling for Governor Sick to drop out of the race? Here's a link to the latest poll information: http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/yet-another-poll-suggests-kasich-...
Now, if The Donald is denied the Republican nomination even though he has the largest number of delegates at the nominating convention, and runs as a third party candidate in November, all bets are off on a Governor Sick candidacy. And that is a real possibility.

Once again, I must add this disclaimer. I really do not like Ohio Governor Sick. He lies about coming into office with a deficit, since the Ohio Constitution requires there to be a balanced biennial budget. Every Ohio governor and every Ohio legislature has had a balanced budget. Governor Sick also discounts his first electoral victory because the national economy was so bad, and the domestic auto industry was in depression, which always affects Ohio more negatively than most states. And, his "economic miracle" has more to do with the saving of the domestic auto industry and the overall improvement in the economy than it does with anything Governor Sick's administration did! To me, he is an opportunist, not a great leader.
In addition, Governor Sick is intelligent enough to know that he benefits greatly from the extremism espoused by both The Donald and Lyin' Ted. Governor Sick looks downright moderate in comparison. And, to his credit, Governor Sick stays on a positive message.
Of the three candidates left on the Republican side, Governor Sick sounds the most like the Republican saint, Ronald Reagan. Isn't it fascinating that with all of the platitudes every Republican pays to Saint Ronnie, both The Donald and Lyin' Ted avoid even the mention of Saint Ronnie's 11th Commandment!

again! I first was reading about Trump being outmaneuvered in Colorado, and I read this: "On Saturday, Cruz picked up 13 additional delegates in Colorado, winning 34 out of 34 delegates who have has [sic] committed to support him at the convention. The state also has three additional unpledged delegates, which are the national commiteeman, national committeewoman and chairman of the state party." So, I wondered just how many other "unpledged delegates" would be attending the old white men's convention in Cleveland this summer. (WHOA! Come to think of it, I might be right at home there! I am, after all, an old white man!) Here's what I found. Even though they do not label them "Superdelegates" the Republican have a large number of these "unpledged delegates" who can decide the nominee, on top of many of their primaries being undemocratic (small "d") winner-take-all or winner-take-most elections. According to the infoplease website, "Out of 2470 total delegates at the Republican National Convention in 2016, 437 are unpledged delegates, who play the same role as superdelegates." Here's a link to the full article: http://www.infoplease.com/us/government/superdelegates.html
For you math people, this breaks down to 14.7% of the Democratic delegates being so-called "Superdelegates," while 17.7% of the Republican delegates will be "unpledged delegates." Hmmm...
Mikey -- cooking up some crow for you to eat. How would you like it? Deep fried, or sauteed?

As I stated each state determines how they award their delegates. And unpledged delegates are not the same as super delegates.

An I unpledged delegate is a delegate who was pledged to a candidate who dropped out of consideration. Rubio, Bush, and Christie have delegates who now can vote for whomever they like.

Now there are super delegates in the GOP yet those make up 3 per state/territory and only represent the three top Repubs in the state. (They make up the voting block of the RNC)

The super delegates in the Dem primary make up almost a quarter of the vote. Thus a candidate only needs to win only 25% of primary votes and for the super delegates to have enough to swing the vote.

The super delegates in the GOP primary make up less than 1/6. A candidate needs to win almost 40% of the vote to overthrow an election.


"Superdelegates" make up less than 15% of those who will attend the Democratic National Convention. That's not even close to the "almost a quarter" you claim.
Secondly, I quote from infoplease AGAIN, "Out of 2470 total delegates at the Republican National Convention in 2016, 437 are unpledged delegates WHO PLAY THE SAME ROLE AS SUPERDELEGATES." These are the words right out of the infoplease website. Mikey, when it comes to the military and weaponry, I have bowed to your expertise many times. In this case, I believe infoplease! You're just plain wrong on this issue. Sorry.

And. as far as states making up their own rules within the state, I have no problem in general with that concept. Political parties are private concerns. They are not governmental entities. They may make whatever rules they want. However, if rules are undemocratic, they are undemocratic, whether the rules come from the national organization or a state organization. If it looks like a duck, Mikey...

BTW -- How's that "establishment Republican" anybody but The Donald campaign going? Looks like you'll have The Donald as your standard bearer in November. Whoda thunk? It will be very interesting to see if The Donald can rally enough old, white, Judeo-Christian males to beat Hillary or Bernie. Once again, I state, you can't keep kicking people in the teeth, then wonder why they won't vote for you. The Donald is right about one thing, he will energize voters: women, African-Americans, Hispanics, Muslims, young people, and all to vote for the Democrats up and down the ticket. It should be a fascinating election, all righty!

Dale in your exuberance to attempt to prove me wrong you fail to comprehend what I wrote.

So let's read my claim shall we. "Thus a candidate only needs to win only 25% of primary votes and for the super delegates to have enough to swing the vote."

Well there are 714 Super Delegates. To win the Dem nomination you only need 2026 total votes. 714/2026= .35 or 35% of the delegates needed to secure the nomination. That means one only needs 1,312 delegates from voting. Now that 1312 represents about 32% of the total delegates. There are 3337 delegates from voting. So let's say O'Malley stayed in and gained some traction and he and Bernie both won about 37% of the vote. They'd top out at about 1235 votes each because . Yet with Clinton only winning 25% (834 delegates) and all of the super delegates (714) she then leads all candidates by 313 delegates. Possibly more if you add most candidates. This is just plain math.

Now an unpledged delegate is not the same as a super delegate. An unpledged comes as a matter of circumstance. A super delegate comes as a matter of position and privilege. A super delegate is always unbound.

Still think I'm wrong? Because the Democrat party has unpledged delegates on top of super delegates too! Again let's use O'Malley as an example. Let's say he won delegates in Iowa and NH and then dropped out. Who do his delegates vote for? TA DA! They become unpledged! They are not super delegates they are unpledged delegates.

As far as political parties rules go they get to choose how they do it in accordance with the state constitutions. Each state is different. There is a lot of hullabaloo about Colorado and Wyoming right now and I really only care about Colorado. Wyoming has been doing their state convention for decades. Colorado made their switch months ago and while I don't agree with it the decision was within the state's constitution and I am not a Colorado Repub so I had no say.


Somehow, it's differently written than I remember. Oh well. I am quite old you know. I could be a little addle-brained.

Mikey -- I have never claimed that either political party chooses its candidate in a purely democratic (with a small "d") manner. Both are private organizations, not governmental units. State laws do affect greatly how they operate, but they have a lot of freedom within those laws.

The bottom line is: if either Hillary or The Donald, or both, have substantial leads in delegates to their respective conventions, they should, and probably will, get the nomination for POTUS by their respective political party. If either or both do not, and the will of the voters in either or both party are thwarted by any combination of superdelegates and unpledged delegates, it is highly unlikely that people will be happy with that party.

Just remember, Mikey, Lincoln was nominated at a brokered convention, and only received 39.5% of the popular vote in the presidential election of 1860. He turned out to be a fairly good president.

a link to an article about the Kentucky Republican Party's undemocratic (with a small "d") system for selecting their delegates to the Republican nominating convention: http://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/elections/2016/04/23/trump-a...
This is yet more proof that you greatly understate the number of Republican delegates who are selected to the Republican nominating convention by undemocratic (with a small "d") means!

How many of these unpledged delegates were pledged to Rubio, or Fiorina because of voters' choices? I've forgotten. Please remind me, Mikey. As infoplease says, "...unpledged delegates...play the same role as Superdelegates." From Shakespeare's Romeo and Juliet, 1594: "JULIET: '... that which we call a rose
By any other name would smell as sweet;'"

State vs National.

The fact is the people of Kentucky could have changed the rules for their state convention through a change to the state constitution. They haven't. However such a system is not in place in Ohio, Texas, Arizona, etc so the problem is not systematic.

In the Democratic Party subversion of the voters through a large delegation of Super delegates IS systemic. As displayed above.

Therein lies the difference.


sweet." State vs. national is a garbage argument. The national Republican party's wishes are carried out in most states. It doesn't have to be a hard and fast rule to have the same effect. And, Kentucky is not the only state which operates in this manner. Ask The Donald about the rigged system to get the Republican nomination, Mikey! I don't really care. I am not a Republican.
I have full confidence that the Democratic party will follow the will of the voters, just as the Democratic Party did in 2008, when Democratic leaders, including the vast majority of the Super-delegates, preferred Hillary, and the voters in the Democratic primaries and at caucuses and at states conventions, preferred Barry.

" The national Republican party's wishes are carried out in most states." You are inherently wrong. The will of the state Republican party's wishes are carried out in ALL states. The national Republican party has no ability to affect anything in any state without the will of at least the Republicans of that state as it fits in that state's constitution.

How many states operate in the same manner of Kentucky? The answer is no others. Even Colorado and Wyoming that also have conventions in lieu of a vote they are still significantly different. So you're asking a question that has 56 separate answers (50 states + 5 territories + DC) yet you're making a blanket statement that covers all of them and it's patently false. For ever example you give I can give you two that show it is not the norm.

On the flip side I can give you one example about my judgement of the Democratic Party and you cannot dispute it. Because there is one rule and super delegates are set in that system.


The Donald, if state Republican leaders are not influenced strongly by national Republican leaders, and if the Republican nominating system is rigged or not. And, inform infoplease how wrong they are about unpledged delegates having the same effect as super-delegates, mister political expert.
Just name one time the Democrats failed to nominate the candidate who got the most delegates awarded via primaries, caucuses, and state conventions, since the inception of the super-delegate system? OK. I'll save you the time. NEVER!
You conveniently ignore the very similar scenario in 2008 for the Democrats. Hillary had most of the super-delegates supporting her, and Barry won the most from the voters. So, who was nominated? The people's choice, that's who! And most political pundits predicted doom for the Democrats in November of 2008. The Republicans even nominated an unknown, inexperienced woman as VPOTUS because they were so sure that a huge number of Democratic women would abandon Barry because they were so upset that Hillary was not nominated. WRONG! You are a prototypical Republican, shallow thinker. You have convinced yourself that Democratic voters are mindless robots. Never allow facts to changed your indefensible opinions, Mikey!

Mississippi. Do you think Mississippi is the only state in which this undemocratic (with a small "d') activity is taking place?
First, here's a segment of the article: "A post today on arch-conservative Laura Ingraham's LifeZette website says party Chairman Joe Nosef has in text messages threatened supporters of Donald Trump and Sen. Ted Cruz with eviction from the state convention in May. That would seem to indicate there's a move afoot to steer the GOP nomination to Ohio Gov. John Kasich or some other tamer Republican. Nosef took issue with the story but said he did send the texts. The story, 'Gov. Bryant, state GOP make sinister move to send pro-Establishment delegates to Cleveland,' is based on a text LifeZette says was sent from Nosef to a senior member of the Trump campaign in Mississippi. 'And like I told you, I can promise my cousin and anybody else if they even so much as raise their voice they're going to be outside in the parking lot and they won't be back in and no I won't be removing them—somebody with a gun and a badge will be,' it says the text from Nosef said." Remember. Nosef said that "...he did send the texts."
Here's a link to the entire article: http://www.esquire.com/news-politics/politics/news/a44197/republican-pri...

"WASHINGTON, May 14 (UPI) -- Former Republican presidential nominee Mitt Romney is leading a group of conservatives in trying to draft a third-party candidate who would run in an effort to deny Donald Trump the White House."

ref: Mitt Romney leading 'stop Trump' group seeking to draft third candidate

speculation: http://heavy.com/news/2016/05/can-an-independent-candidate-still-enter-2...

It's transparently clear that Bill Kristol and Willard share a hatred of The Donald. Will this translate into a third party candidacy? And just because Perot failed to win in 1992, would a late Willard entry be doomed? Not necessarily. Between The Donald's hatefulness and Hillary's misuse of her private email, any viable third party candidate could win in a three-way race. And, if Bernie, or some other well-respected left-winger makes it a four way race, all bets are off! BTW -- Lincoln only won 39.5% of the vote for POTUS in the Election of 1860. He won easily in the Electoral College vote in a four-way race. The United States does NOT directly elect the POTUS! Remember, in the Election of 2000, Al Gore won more popular votes than did W. Who was sworn in as POTUS, however?

Here's what can happen in a four-way race. This is what actually happened in Austria. Admittedly, the President of Austria has limited powers. It is the Chancellor of Austria who actually runs the executive branch of government there, as the leader of he majority party in their parliament. Austria has a run-off election for president if no candidate gets to 50% or more in the initial balloting. What is most significant to me is that the two candidates who emerged to run against each other in the run-off election were fronting NEITHER of Austria's major political parties. The candidates of both the center-right and center-left major parties finished third and fourth in the original election. Austrians were left with a choice between an extremist right-wing candidate (who denied he was extremist...sound familiar?) and an extremist left-wing candidate (who also, of course, denied he was an extremist). Oh...the left-winger won in a squeaker of an election. He promises to unite the nation. Good luck with that!

Here's a link to a story about the election in Austria: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/05/24/world/europe/austria-presidential-elec...
OK Roland...more fodder for you!

viable third party candidate in Gary Johnson, who heads the Libertarian Party ticket. Here's what polls in Utah show: http://www.sltrib.com/news/3993058-155/poll-trumps-unpopularity-could-sw...

Please note: neither Lyin' Don nor Hillary are popular in Utah. Gary Johnson is well into double digit support right now, and the Libertarian Party only received 1.2% of the actual vote in 2012! I even heard Willard proclaim that if William Weld, the VPOTUS candidate for the Libertarians, were at the top of the ticket, he would likely vote Libertarian in 2016!

Archie Bunker!

Louis Farakhan

Today the biggest third party in the U.S. is the Libertarian Party, which has taken a new prominence as it courts Republicans who have refused to fall in line behind the party's nominee, Donald Trump. Gary Johnson, the Libertarian nominee in 2012 and again this year, amassed 1.27 million votes in the last presidential election.
On the other end of the spectrum is the Green Party. The party traces its history to 1984. Its platform focuses on environmental issues and "social justice, peace and non-violence, local and regional self-management and grassroots democracy." In 2000, 2.8 million people voted for Ralph Nader as the Green Party presidential candidate — leading to accusations of "spoiling" the election for Al Gore, a charge Nader has rejected.
This year Dr. Jill Stein is leading the Green Party ticket for president.

ref: Green Party's Jill Stein Wants To Be 'Plan B' For Bernie Sanders Supporters

I encourage everyone to look at all of the third party candidates this election cycle.


I'm still with Archie, myself!

That is sad.

I agree with Mikey. Everyone should take a look at all of the candidates for President. The following embedded link may be helpful.

Presidency 2016 from Politics1

I guess I'll write him in.

Sad Face Smiley

So much for serious consideration.

on the ballot, I cannot take third party candidates seriously. As far as I'm concerned, the choice of Archie Bunker is as good as any -- other than Hillary.

BTW -- I have never voted for Hillary before. I did not vote for her in 2008. I did not vote for her in 2016 (so far). But, I cannot deny that others have chosen her to be the standard-bearer of the Democratic Party this year, and she is so far superior to the Republican candidate, that there really is no choice.
IMHO -- Third party votes are wasted votes. Just ask those who voted for George Wallace, or Ross Perot, or Ralph Nader. Those choices helped to elect others from one of the two major parties. Now, if one of the major parties pulls apart, a new party may emerge. Most of the world's best functioning democracies have two major political parties, three at most. Where power is more defused among more political parties, democracies generally function quite poorly.
Now, if you really want to have a serious discussion about the best form of democratic governance, I'll be glad to argue the case against the presidential system, and for the parliamentary system. I really do not think that this is the best forum for such a discussion, however.

The subject matter of this thread that I sarted is for all readers to consider. I have always encouraged people to take part in the political and electoral processes regardless of political parties or perspectives.
If you recall, back on May 1, I wrote, "Sorry, Dale, but you totally misconstrued the intent of my use of the article to which I linked in my initiating comment. Its use by me was intended only to open dialogue on the possible scenario of a 3-way race for President."
I did not start this thread to do as you have now written, "Now, if you really want to have a serious discussion about the best form of democratic governance, I'll be glad to argue the case against the presidential system, and for the parliamentary system."
I did not come here to have a one-on-one with you or anyone else. If you want to have a discussion on the issue of the best form of democratic governance in this message thread, find someone else because it will not be me. I choose not to be egocentric, or egotistical, and get into a peripheral dialogue with you on that issue; it is irrelevant to the subject matter of my initiating comment that this thread is about. Additionally, it is my opinion that the one-on-one type of back and forth that has become commoplace on SwampBubbles stifles participation by others who might otherwise weigh in on an issue.

If you read my entire post, I began by stating, "With someone who is as well qualified as Hillary on the ballot, I cannot take third party candidates seriously."
I went on to state facts about previous third party candidates, and facts about other democracies in the world: "IMHO -- Third party votes are wasted votes. Just ask those who voted for George Wallace, or Ross Perot, or Ralph Nader. Those choices helped to elect others from one of the two major parties. Now, if one of the major parties pulls apart, a new party may emerge. Most of the world's best functioning democracies have two major political parties, three at most. Where power is more defused[sic...should be diffused] among more political parties, democracies generally function quite poorly."

You chose to focus on one small addendum to my major arguments against third party candidates, and chose to treat it as though it is the major focus of my post. You even accuse me of trying to change the focus of this topic, when clearly almost my entire post was directly on point! When I referred to the parliamentary system, I even stated, "I really do not think that this is the best forum for such a discussion, however." On this, we agree.
This is still America. People may vote for whomever they want. Sorry that my humorous reference to Archie Bunker upset you so much, my friend.

And, as it shows clearly on this thread, my Archie Bunker reference was in reply to your Pat Paulson reference. I could tell because it was indented under your comment. (See, Mikey. I do pay attention to what you write.)

I am totally disappointed in your strawman arguments, Dale. My embedded link took people to a place that had links to the comedy sketches of Pat Paulsen (not Paulson) and was preceded by the phrase "In an alternative universe." It was my attempt at humor, something that seems to have escaped you in your repetitive sarcastic comments referencing Archie Bunker.
Dale, I did not come to SwampBubbles to fulfill your apparent need to argue with people as your history of contributions on SwampBubbles clearly indicates. You have exhibited the very same type of behavior including your constant use of name-calling that caused me to stop contributing on SwampBubbles in the past.
That being said, I am out of here and I will not come back to feed your ego. So, Dale, if you want the last word, be my guest.

I get it. When you start losing the argument, you leave.
See ya'!

me of doing to you. Can't find any.
Didn't realize you were so thin-skinned.
You certainly -- personally -- attack me!

Oh! And, I do like to argue. Erroneously, I thought you did, too!

Comment viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.