Of everyone who claims no third party could win would actually coalesce around and vote for a third party candidate, the third party would win. Their children apparently aren’t suffering and starving enough, yet.
Considering the Senate is just two assholes per state and the House would have over a 1,000 members if we had the same ratio as 1789 I’d expand that to all three branches.
It’s not a legitimate government, but we all pretend it is. Especially the people with guns.
The problem is you’re only focusing on one branch.
Congress has an amazing amount of power… the problem is a majority of them are really only concerned with their own piece of the United States of Pie. Their first, second, and only concern is being re-electable. Start focusing on electing more people who actually have the people’s (all the people, not just their specific constituents, mind) best interest at heart and you can have effective change.
Constantly focusing on the Presidential election, and only the Presidential election and you lose out on most of the power in this country.
Start focusing on electing more people who actually have the people’s (all the people, not just their specific constituents, mind) best interest at heart and you can have effective change.
The problem is that the person you want to elect will lose to someone who selfishly serves their constituents, because their constituents vote for them.
No they wouldn’t, it would, at most, be a deadlock between the three parties that the House would decide on. One would hope they would go with the one with the most votes, but in reality they can pick anyone. Including someone who wasn’t even one of the top three candidates.
Not to mention all the people who want a “third party” aren’t necessarily going to vote for the same third party. They all want their own person. Most likely none of them would get anywhere near the majority popular vote, much less any electoral votes.
Of everyone who claims no third party could win would actually coalesce around and vote for a third party candidate, the third party would win. Their children apparently aren’t suffering and starving enough, yet.
deleted by creator
Considering the Senate is just two assholes per state and the House would have over a 1,000 members if we had the same ratio as 1789 I’d expand that to all three branches.
It’s not a legitimate government, but we all pretend it is. Especially the people with guns.
deleted by creator
Idk about that. Maybe, but if we keep doing the same thing expecting different results, we’re definitely not getting them.
The problem is you’re only focusing on one branch.
Congress has an amazing amount of power… the problem is a majority of them are really only concerned with their own piece of the United States of Pie. Their first, second, and only concern is being re-electable. Start focusing on electing more people who actually have the people’s (all the people, not just their specific constituents, mind) best interest at heart and you can have effective change.
Constantly focusing on the Presidential election, and only the Presidential election and you lose out on most of the power in this country.
The problem is that the person you want to elect will lose to someone who selfishly serves their constituents, because their constituents vote for them.
What about of those candidates are never on my ballots?
Everyone wants a third party, but not everyone wants the same third party.
That’s true but many actual leftists will coalesce behind a better option.
No they wouldn’t, it would, at most, be a deadlock between the three parties that the House would decide on. One would hope they would go with the one with the most votes, but in reality they can pick anyone. Including someone who wasn’t even one of the top three candidates.
Not to mention all the people who want a “third party” aren’t necessarily going to vote for the same third party. They all want their own person. Most likely none of them would get anywhere near the majority popular vote, much less any electoral votes.