ThoughtManifest's Blog

Actualy , since Ross Perot pulled out about 18% of the popular vote , our republicans and democrats changed the rules about counting votes .
Before Ross , third parties had the right to have votes counted in their presence , as well as the two major parties .
Now , they need a certain percentage to qualify for that challenge .
No , how much sense does that make ? [ That means the other 2 parties get to tell them if they have enough votes to qualify to count them ]
Many states have adopted similar rules to keep any 3rd party from challenging votes , or , even being allowed to debate front running candidates .
Examples , : When was the last time a 3rd party presidential candidate was allowed in on any debate ?
When was the last time any 3rd party candidate was allowed in on any governatorial or senatorial debate in Michigan ?

Actualy Jax , a 3rd party vote , can give a 3rd party a chance .
Once they break the new set standards for exceptance , that puts a stone in both parties shoes . Now , they both have to spend money against a 3rd runner , as well as take a hit in how much they can collect in cash , because now donations for 3rd parties will also go up .
The only wasted vote , is one that is never cast .

I hate to say it shock, but I agree with what you say. The only problem is that no matter what, the third party votes will never be enough to be greater than 5-6% of the total votes.
"In the 2000 presidential election in Florida, George W. Bush defeated Al Gore by 537 votes. Nader received 97,421 votes. In fact, all seven of the other third-party candidates on the ballot in Florida each received more than 537 votes." (wiki, not great source, but in this instance it is accurate with comparison to political science statistics)

"A study in 2002 by the Progressive Review found no correlation between votes for Nader and votes for Gore (i.e., more votes for Nader did not correlate to fewer votes for Gore and vice versa).[23] An analysis conducted by Harvard Professor B.C. Burden in 2005 showed Nader did affect Gore's chances, but that-

"When asked by MSNBC's Tim Russert about the possibility of preventing a Democratic victory in 2008, Nader responded, "Not a chance. If the Democrats can’t landslide the Republicans this year, they ought to just wrap up, close down, and emerge in a different form."

I have to disagree on one thing you said DetroitLover , that a 3rd party doesn't have a chance .
Back in 92 , when Ross Perot ran , he got about 17 - 18 % of the vote , even after dropping out of the race , then re-entering late .
If he would have stayed in the whole time , many think that he would have won the presidential election flat out .
I personaly know more people that voted for him , than either Clinton or Bush sr. .

Relax colt, my remarks were comedic, in every instance.

Shock- Perot would have never gotten it.

Yes , it's too bad he didn't get in . I voted for him .
I loved his lines on Clinton , the one where he said ballancing the Arkansas budget for the year was like him ballancing his check book .
Or the one where he compared Clintons qualifications to putting a gas station attendant in charge of Wal-Mart .
Classics .