Nah, that's the dumb plan. What you gotta do is be like Obama- pick a political party then win and just kind of go and do the opposite of what you said you were gonna do bcuz you don't care.
REGISTER TO REMOVE ADS |
I get why Barry has opposed the legalization of marijuana since he probably didn't wanna go down in history as the first African-American president who also made sure to legalize weed during his first term, but I'm fantasizing that his stance on it throughout the first term was an act and that he'll do the right thing this time around.
Are we arguing about third parties? Is everyone here just outright unfamiliar with game theory? Third parties cannot win in a first-past-the-post system. The system organically progresses to a two-party system.
Change comes from the bottom-up. If you're trying to change the two-party system at the general election ballot, you already diddlyed up.
Yes, this is true. It's why I didn't vote third-party even though I wanted to. Actually my vote didn't matter at all so I don't even know why I bothered voting. I'm in a red-ass state.
I get why Barry has opposed the legalization of marijuana since he probably didn't wanna go down in history as the first African-American president who also made sure to legalize weed during his first term, but I'm fantasizing that his stance on it throughout the first term was an act and that he'll do the right thing this time around.
um guy s the election was last tuesdayfucking morons
It's not really solely up to him whether or not it becomes legalized fully and completely. I would like to think it's the people's choice whether something should be legal or not.
I am outright unfamiliar with game theory, and marginally interested in third parties. Please continue...Are we arguing about third parties? Is everyone here just outright unfamiliar with game theory? Third parties cannot win in a first-past-the-post system. The system organically progresses to a two-party system.
Really? It seems like the kind of thing that would be right up your alley xD Wikipedia does a better job at explaining it than I ever could:
Game theory - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Essentially, history and math tell us that in a first-past-the-post system, voting third party only benefits the party farthest away from your beliefs, because the party closest to your beliefs loses your vote (see Canada, where the idiot liberals split their votes between two parties and elected the conservatives).
The Libertarian Party did better than ever this year, with 1% of the vote. This could've been enough to lost Obama the election, but nowhere near enough to be even close to winning a single state. Ralph Nader did a bit better, and it was enough to give America Bush, but again, nowhere near enough to win anything.
You can certainly propel a party to major status, but all this does is kill one of the two other parties. All you get is a minor realignment and a name change; the two party system remains the same, and has always been the same since the beginning of the republic. The only way to change it is with a constitutional amendment, but that's something voting third party won't get you.