The winner of the election requires a majority in the Electoral college, but only a plurality in the individual states to get its slate of electors. Therefore if the main candidates are D and R and someone whose second choice would be D votes for first choice of I, then that helps R get the plurality.
It's because the word "libertarian" became hip and people thought themselves cool if they used it, but in then end most are just republicans trying to make it seem like they aren't part of the sheeple contributing to the same corrupt system.
And that, folks, is how we end up with worse and worse candidates each and every election cycle.
And there is the reason that libertarians have failed at gaining any meaningful traction. They think they have all the answers because they are professional fence sitters. Honestly, as a republican, I usually see libertarians as idealist children who will eventually grow up. It takes a complete flop on the part of 2 parties for people to consider libertarians.
Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
I'm a realist.
Good for you. But it changes nothing of what I wrote.
Correct political positions have to be all over the map because the map is faulty.
Think outside the map.
Legalize drugs and the legal drugs will be taxed heavily and expensive.
The thugs will grow or make their own and sell it to other thugs and crime in the ghetto infestations of America will go on unchecked
The tax thing bothers me more. The guy seems to have no plan for taxing the people at the top.
That eliminates him as a serious candidate.
Nope. No chance in hell.
Vote for him? NO.
He's a Libertarian, grrrrrreat... but a vote for him is a vote for Hillary.
I'd rather walk through an ISIS controlled region wearing an American flag than give that criminal any shot at the White House.
Having less things that are illegal generally means that people have less probability to break the law. It follows then that it would be expected that if you legalize something that you will likely see a decrease in crime. Not arresting people for drugs will obviously lead to less people being arrested and less people going to prison.
Gary Johnson on the Issues
Just wondering how many people would actually support him over the establishment candidates? Personally? I HATE Trump. As a republican, I just cannot bring myself to vote for him. He is a Democrat to me. And an authoritarian. Not something I want again in the presidency.
So I have posted this up with his record. Take a peak. Do you see yourself agreeing with him on his stances? Or do you have too much of a problem with his social or fiscal views? Or does he have to reach a certain amount in polls for you to consider him?
Sent from my grapefruit using smoke signals.
That ASSUMES one would vote for the D or R at all.
That's stupid. Trump is a complete moron, Clinton is corrupt, incompetent and only believes in gun control and her own power, while Johnson on the other hand is a solid candidate that while not perfect as a libertarian candidate by a long shot isn't terrible.
I wont argue that.
How does that logic even work? Voting for someone is voting of them. There is no bizarre connection to some vote for some other candidate going on.
Correct. That's not an unreasonable assumption, however. Do you think it likely that people who would otherwise not vote at all would register and vote specifically for a third party candidate? Not many would. And many people would not vote at all rather than vote for a third party candidate.
So while not strictly accurate, it is true that many, probably most, of the votes that go to Johnson would otherwise go to the Republican candidate. Mine would go to almost any other Republican except Trump. And for him, I would make an exception and vote for almost any Democrat except Clinton.
How much do you think is made on illegal tax free alcohol or tobacco? Not much. And it is hardly enough for it to be a big trade.
Does he have a plan that states he will raise taxes on the poor?
every vote for Johnson is a vote that could have kept Hillary out of office
most people that will vote for him are independents, republicans, and libertarians that think Trump is the biggest moron this side of the Atlantic
i dont completely disagree....he can be a buffoon
BUT....the next president will select at least 2, probably 3 people to the supreme court.....and those decisions will be the most important to our country in a long time
we are at a crossroads imo.....and the court is already swinging more liberal....if we allow Hillary to put 2-3 very liberal justices on the bench, well that is a disaster i just dont want to think about
That is what a vote for Johnson is.....
Just be aware....and make sure you are ready for the consequences
Trump IS the biggest moron this side of the Atlantic. Maybe beyond.
Hillary is as bad, they will both damage the Republic.
That's why I'm voting for Johnson, I'm tired of the "lesser of two evils", I want the good guy to win.
He stands, and stridently so, for unlimited money in politics, so he is obviously an untenable candidate; I could never vote for the man, being cognizant of the massive damage to democracy already flawed campaign finance and lobbying laws have done that have permitted private money to be more influential than ever: https://scholar.princeton.edu/sites...testing_theories_of_american_politics.doc.pdf
Unlimited money in politics amounts to unlimited corruption and plutocracy.
Maybe Hillary and Clinton are 'worse guys' depending on your perspective, but Johnson is certainly no 'good guy'.
Money in politics means nothing. Voters are free to educate themselves and vote accordingly. No amount of money in politics impedes their ability to do that. Only laziness does.
As for corruption, it's also something the voters can take care of.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?