Voting: Spoilers not spoiling...

[Msterbeau]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3092282

WASHINGTON — In a year that offered a stark choice between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr found themselves on the sidelines, with little traction on their issues and no impact on the outcome.

Sad to see, though Nader is high if he thinks it would be a "three way race" if he had been in the debates.

[pomba gira]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/mcclatchy/3092282

WASHINGTON — In a year that offered a stark choice between the Democratic and Republican presidential candidates, independent Ralph Nader and Libertarian Bob Barr found themselves on the sidelines, with little traction on their issues and no impact on the outcome.

Sad to see, though Nader is high if he thinks it would be a "three way race" if he had been in the debates.

I'm still unhappy about the way Ron Paul was marginalized... doubt I would've voted for him but he deserved to be treated as a legitimate contender.

[Msterbeau]

I'm still unhappy about the way Ron Paul was marginalized... doubt I would've voted for him but he deserved to be treated as a legitimate contender.

Yeah.. This chopping people out of debates doesn't work for me either, even though I vaguely get why the networks do it.

[torn asunder]

Sad to see, though Nader is high if he thinks it would be a "three way race" if he had been in the debates.

it very well might have been, if he'd been given a voice in this process.hell, i think tv stations should be required to donate debate time to every part/independant who can gather enough signatures. (no idea how to establish that amount, however...)

we need more than two people debating, or we're always gonna get the same old shit.

vote *anything but republicrats*!!

[Goth Brooks]

it very well might have been, if he'd been given a voice in this process.hell, i think tv stations should be required to donate debate time to every part/independant who can gather enough signatures. (no idea how to establish that amount, however...)

we need more than two people debating, or we're always gonna get the same old shit.

vote *anything but republicrats*!!

you mean like perot in '92 and '96.

[torn asunder]

you mean like perot in '92 and '96.

yes, i do, actually, and i don't want to hear any of that bs about "he stole votes away", etc...

if people were brave enough to vote their conscience, instead of based in fear of "the other guy" winning, perot might even have won...

all we do now if vote *against* the guy we don't want, by voting for the person most likely to beat him. nobody (hardly, anyway) votes purely and solely based on the candidates' stand on the issues, and that makes me sad.

[n0Mad]

I want to see more elections like 1832 and 1836.

[Rev.Reverence]

yes, i do, actually, and i don't want to hear any of that bs about "he stole votes away", etc...

if people were brave enough to vote their conscience, instead of based in fear of "the other guy" winning, perot might even have won...

all we do now if vote *against* the guy we don't want, by voting for the person most likely to beat him. nobody (hardly, anyway) votes purely and solely based on the candidates' stand on the issues, and that makes me sad.

...& we REALLY don't need to do MORE things to make chaps like this feel sad...as sorrow IS their natural emotive state...

^{Takes one to know one!}