@PlacidPenguin@MrMark Did you look at the 3rd party no one ever talks about Green Party’s Jill Stein? I am absolutely not endorsing her, but the 2 party system is so broken most people have not heard of her.
FYI search my ballot in google and enter your address. You can see what your ballot will look like and the candidates are clickable for a google search. In Iowa we have 10 candidates for president.
@caffeine_dude I agree with the two party system being an issue. It’s becoming more polarizing ends of the spectrum every-time it seems. I was aware of Jill, she has very many policies that I don’t agree with, but that wasn’t your point anyways.
I did love the “my ballot” suggestion, I was not aware of that and it is helpful. For the record I didn’t realize Mimi Soltysik was a person, nor did I realize he is running for president.
Pretty much all political systems will be “gamed” for maximum influence. And so political parties, with the number and configuration tending to settle over time into some fairly stable configuration depending on law, custom, and the amount of rule-bending that gets tolerated.
In the US, we have pretty much settled into a two party system, will a few very small extra parties and “1-election” parties thrown in to shake things up is prob the most natural power configuration.
The the U.K., 2-3 major parties most of the time seems to best fit to the system.
In Israel, if I understand their system (not claiming to), everything is based on proportional vote totals. So there is a huge incentive for tiny parties with somewhat or very radical agendas to exist, since they might be able to get one seat. If there are a lot of these parties (I am told there are) having lots of seats, and many of these few-seat minority parties share common agenda items, they can negotiate as a block for what they want (such as Sabbath laws) in exchange for their block votes on conventional policy issues that large parties care about.
Political parties are a natural consequence if having a democratic government, if I understand all this properly.
They often persue their own survival and dominance with greatef fervor than their philosophical agendas, with serving the wishes of the community often coming in third or lower in the priority list. And they do a ton of gaming the system and tit-for-tat power moves
And then there’s money. As in, they appear to be so increasingly hungry for power and so for sale that a remake of Mr Smith Goes To Washington would be laughed if out theaters. Possibly it’s always been this bad, we just didn’t have Politico, Twitter, and cable news.
The parties are usually somewhat better behaved during or shortly after a period of common danger and sacrifice shared by all, but paranoid or extremist agendas, dirty power plays, and spin-to-the-point-of-lies-and-beyond are eternal in a political system. imho.
Writing-in a frivolous presidential (or any) vote seems like a great idea to protest the poor selections we have this year.
However, if you think about it, it really just adds to the cost of the election.
When you write-in a name, that ballot must be pulled aside and more steps done by government election workers, who are really probably just trying to do their job.
Just taking the step to choose a candidate already on the ballot that has zero chance of winning (anyone but Clinton or Trump) will really help to reduce the cost of this stupid election.
I’m not happy with the choices either, but I thought maybe people should consider this costing issue.
Also… Just because of the crap being slung both ways in the election, please VOTE anyway. There are so many other local, state & federal offices on the ballot and many important issues.
Thank you.
@daveinwarsh Amen. This country is ripe for a strong 3rd party but NOT at the end of an election cycle. Had one of the earlier candidates started a write-in campaign several months ago, they’d probably have the strongest chance of winning in my lifetime (and I’ve been around a while) thus far.
SO in agreement! Don’t vote for Trump or Clinton; pick another choice for President. You can still pick whomever you want for Vice President…and certainly the other offices on the ballot.
I, like many many many folks, don’t really care for either candidate, and was prepared to write-in Bernie.
when i got my absentee ballot in the mail, in the write-in section, it clearly said something about write-ins only counting if that person had registered with the state as a write-in candidate… thanks ohio… granny pantsuit it is… (don’t really like her, but i sincerely doubt she would start world war 3, the great pumpkin on the other hand…no such faith.)
@HemlockTea I’m in the same boat, as is the rest of my city. My community votes contrary to the majority of the state, and it’s a winner-take-all state, in one of the “safe states” politicians routinely ignore. I’m still going to vote, even if it doesn’t get counted. When the popular vote and the electoral college vote differ, it fuels efforts to do away with that archaic and undemocratic institution.
@HemlockTea
Your vote may technically “not count” in a sense if you live in a die-hard red or blue state, and vote against or with the common political cast of your state, and thus your vote is that overwhelmed by the vote total.
However, your vote can indicate a possibly future direction for your state, even if the vote is overwhelmed in this election. Both red and blue states can go purple.
And I have read that there is a historical pattern of the US doing a major political re-alignment about every 30-50 years. The last big realignment was the “Reagan Revolution” according to many political historians. 36 years ago.
The political drama of this year seems to point to a possible big political realignment going on now, tho I can’t figure out which direction it’s headed.
Your “meaningless” vote may combine with others to mark a future direction in your state, and give heart to other people who share your sense of direction. And if you are a “lonely believer” in something, it can help to know you are less lonely than you thought.
Another reason to avoid Bugs Bunny type write-ins - I believe that, in many places, these votes are never counted or publicized. If that’s true, why do the equivalent of spitting into the wind?
In that case, why not refuse to vote at the presidential level, or vote for a registered third-party candidate, or vote for the “least bad”?
Regarding the major two candidates, both of whom come with major negative baggage: most of us have an opinion one way or another about which one is truly worst, or a bigger liar, or more dangerous.
Even if you consider your vote to be nothing more that a “show vote”, the consequences are going to be all too real. Perhaps your “meaningless vote” has the possible meaning of registering your opinion in that very real next four years that will have real consequences in our very real lives, even if your vote does not, per say, get reflected in your state’s electoral college outcome.
Technically, if all the meh forums actives - or all the Meh customers period - did “show votes” such as Bugs Bunny votes, it would prob not influence the presidential outcome this year, even at the state level - unless your state is a true purple state, or is on-the-cusp. So why vote in any year, if your argument is that you are just one among many? Isn’t one among many what we want? What we value in our traditions?
Only rarely can a given individual claim that their vote made a visible difference in a presidential rate - for example Florida in 2000 (Bush v Gore). Most of the time, our various states would have gone the way they went, whether any one individual voted or not. So why do we vote?
Whether or not you cast a vote that your state will count (as opposed to uncounted write-ins) can be a test of something else:
Do you believe in democracy, even if that makes you a tiny fish in an enormous pond full of many tiny fish and some very large fish?
In a year in which many people dislike both candidates and intensely dislike this election, are you still willing to make a choice that might be counted by your state, and express it?
Are you willing to make that choice even if your choice will lose in your state? Or even if your choice will win in a walk?
Are your willing to believe that one candidate is better or worse than the other in a concrete way, and act on that belief?
We all “get” why many want to register protest votes this year. In voting, I am not only picking my preference if the “least worst” candidate; I am also voting for our system, which also, currently, to me, appears to have a few flaws. ($$$$$$$$$ and gerrymandering), but in which I retain faith; and for which I have hope. My choice. My expression of it.
I would, personally speaking, wish to see all states go purple. We would get a different caliber of candidate at every level if that happened.
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately.
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The “keeping of a republic”, by definition, must be by the actions of the many, not the few. If a “republic” is kept and preserved by “the few”, it’s not a republic anymore, is it?
re·pub·lic
rəˈpəblik/
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
From Winston S. Churchill (House of Commons, 11 November 1947), quoting an unknown predecessor. From Churchill by Himself.
@HemlockTea
I believe that analysis of the “popular vote” alternative does change the political map: instead of the $$$$ going to Ohio, PA, and Florida, it will all get spent in high-population areas and enormous cities. Any system can be gamed. Wyoming and Montana and rural areas would get not a drop of consideration.
There might be a better alternative that the Electoral College as it operates now. But I would be slow to change the Constitution. It would take a lot of studies and public debate before I would seriously consider it.
There are always unintended consequences. There is prob not a perfect system to be found.
@HemlockTea
I am no historian, not even as an amateur. I have a belief, from some course or some reading in my past:
that the participants in the Cobstitutiinal Convention (admittedly very imperfect, and hideously immoral w regard to the rights of non-whites, females, and the entire issue of slavery), understood well the problems that the Electoral College would institutionalize. The also understood well the most robots that a purely popular vote would create.
They were not Gods or Heros, no matter how we may built monuments and apotheosize them. (Or not.)
They were humans under political pressure who did, one hopes, their best. If they had gone with the “popular” option, assuming that Constitution was adopted, many historical events might have yielded different outcomes - not least the # is states seceding in the 1860’s (I would predict a larger # of secessionist states, including midwestern and western ones, at that time, and perhaps more than one alternative nation, some with slavery, some without.)
Even with 70%+ rural population around 1800, mostly New York and Philadelphia and Boston and some other great cities would have mattered politically without an Electoral College. Rural areas would have mattered only if very dense or near a city. Which would have meant that the Constitution would have likely never been ratified.
We might now not have a nation, or might have a nation not much resembling our current one. Things might be far better, or far worse. Were the convention participants wise? Or corrupt and unfair? I don’t have the answer. So far, we seem to have some resilience.
The Electoral College has the effect of discounting individual votes if overwhelmed by the state majority. A popular vote system would have the effect, esp today, of discounting entire regions, and most rural areas and small towns - and cities and populated areas that are not dense enough to matter. All the $ and influence will always follow the key areas that can be swung.
If pork barrel politics is bad now, can you imagine what it would be without the Electoral College? NYC and LA and Chicago and Bost-Wash could have anything they wanted, as the price of their allegiance in the next presidential race. All power would be in enormous metro areas, and those can also be gamed and manipulated.
I would love to see a “fair” system that could not be gamed by regional issues. money, local influence, political manipulation. So far I’ve not heard of one.
@f00l I always vote, if for no other reason than to show respect for the many who have died for my right to do so. It’s not a gift, it’s a responsibility. Texas is starting to swing toward purple, though. A lot of people attribute it to our growing Hispanic population. But I also hope it’s because more Texans are starting to share my values.
One minor point (possibly made by someone already): the National Popular Vote does not change our constitution. The constitution leaves the method of selecting the president up to the states and each state can use whatever method they choose for divvying up their electoral votes. The methods used now are not based on the constitution nor have they always been how we’ve done it.
While I’m not totally happy with the National Popular Vote, I think it is better than what we have now.
FWIW, if we have to keep the electoral college, I would prefer a system where each state’s electoral votes are proportionally allocated to the candidates based on the voting within the state. With such a system, New York’s 29 electoral votes would be split with the larger share (likely) going blue but still a significant chunk going red (and possibly green and other colors as well).
@baqui63
I write a lot. This is connected to my user ID being somewhat accurate.
I was dimly aware of a proportional vote as you described not requiring national amendment. I think Maine and one or two other state have something like that?
I might prefer it. It might lead to more accurate results. Or to a massive power shift benefiting cities and suburbs.
No solid red or blue state will implement it, without a national mandate. Perhaps a few more swing states with evenly split legislature could be persuaded to try.
I would love to see the Court strike down gerrymandering, in state and federal elections. Reasonal models that include natural divisions based on geographic and historical districts aren’t that hard to do. I think some state do that by law.
No mono-party state will do that without a court order, I fear. It’s too much to expect them to put honor above political pressure.
@zachdecker I’m still back and forth on Stein or Sanders… I feel like he could win Vermont… but would he pull some stunt to try to persuade the electoral college to not count him as an option…
The one good outcome of voting for a third party candidate: if a third party candidate gets 5% of the vote, that party will be on the ballot in all 50 states next time around. This frees up their campaign efforts to get the word out rather than to try to get on the ballot. We may be able to get more than a two party system that way.
If you vote for Morgan Freeman, at least people would listen to the speeches. I’m not saying anything about his political views, whatever they are, but his speeches would be epic.
@juststephen Here’s a clip from Strange Days, my favorite film for both Angela Bassett and Ralph Fiennes. Like a lot of movies I love, it did poorly at the box office. Angela has done a lot of more prominent work, most recently as a regular on American Horror Story. But this is what I think of when I think of her.
Count me in.
I’m voting for whoever will banish Trump and Clinton, will @snapster commit to such a campaign promise?
My vote is too important to me, the consequences of this election are dire.
Oh, and I already voted.
I feel if you are going to ‘waste your vote’ you can always vote for a 3rd candidate party.
@caffeine_dude 3rd canidate may be the worst of all.
@caffeine_dude
I don’t really like the choices for the 3rd parties this year.
@PlacidPenguin @MrMark Did you look at the 3rd party no one ever talks about Green Party’s Jill Stein? I am absolutely not endorsing her, but the 2 party system is so broken most people have not heard of her.
FYI search my ballot in google and enter your address. You can see what your ballot will look like and the candidates are clickable for a google search. In Iowa we have 10 candidates for president.
@caffeine_dude I agree with the two party system being an issue. It’s becoming more polarizing ends of the spectrum every-time it seems. I was aware of Jill, she has very many policies that I don’t agree with, but that wasn’t your point anyways.
I did love the “my ballot” suggestion, I was not aware of that and it is helpful. For the record I didn’t realize Mimi Soltysik was a person, nor did I realize he is running for president.
@MrMark
@caffeine_dude
Pretty much all political systems will be “gamed” for maximum influence. And so political parties, with the number and configuration tending to settle over time into some fairly stable configuration depending on law, custom, and the amount of rule-bending that gets tolerated.
In the US, we have pretty much settled into a two party system, will a few very small extra parties and “1-election” parties thrown in to shake things up is prob the most natural power configuration.
The the U.K., 2-3 major parties most of the time seems to best fit to the system.
In Israel, if I understand their system (not claiming to), everything is based on proportional vote totals. So there is a huge incentive for tiny parties with somewhat or very radical agendas to exist, since they might be able to get one seat. If there are a lot of these parties (I am told there are) having lots of seats, and many of these few-seat minority parties share common agenda items, they can negotiate as a block for what they want (such as Sabbath laws) in exchange for their block votes on conventional policy issues that large parties care about.
Political parties are a natural consequence if having a democratic government, if I understand all this properly.
They often persue their own survival and dominance with greatef fervor than their philosophical agendas, with serving the wishes of the community often coming in third or lower in the priority list. And they do a ton of gaming the system and tit-for-tat power moves
And then there’s money. As in, they appear to be so increasingly hungry for power and so for sale that a remake of Mr Smith Goes To Washington would be laughed if out theaters. Possibly it’s always been this bad, we just didn’t have Politico, Twitter, and cable news.
The parties are usually somewhat better behaved during or shortly after a period of common danger and sacrifice shared by all, but paranoid or extremist agendas, dirty power plays, and spin-to-the-point-of-lies-and-beyond are eternal in a political system. imho.
@caffeine_dude
Jill Stein has certain opinions which I strongly disagree with.
I intend to cast a “real” vote. ASAP. Perhaps that will make it end sooner.
/giphy when will it end
Writing-in a frivolous presidential (or any) vote seems like a great idea to protest the poor selections we have this year.
However, if you think about it, it really just adds to the cost of the election.
When you write-in a name, that ballot must be pulled aside and more steps done by government election workers, who are really probably just trying to do their job.
Just taking the step to choose a candidate already on the ballot that has zero chance of winning (anyone but Clinton or Trump) will really help to reduce the cost of this stupid election.
I’m not happy with the choices either, but I thought maybe people should consider this costing issue.
Also… Just because of the crap being slung both ways in the election, please VOTE anyway. There are so many other local, state & federal offices on the ballot and many important issues.
Thank you.
@daveinwarsh Amen. This country is ripe for a strong 3rd party but NOT at the end of an election cycle. Had one of the earlier candidates started a write-in campaign several months ago, they’d probably have the strongest chance of winning in my lifetime (and I’ve been around a while) thus far.
SO in agreement! Don’t vote for Trump or Clinton; pick another choice for President. You can still pick whomever you want for Vice President…and certainly the other offices on the ballot.
I, like many many many folks, don’t really care for either candidate, and was prepared to write-in Bernie.
when i got my absentee ballot in the mail, in the write-in section, it clearly said something about write-ins only counting if that person had registered with the state as a write-in candidate… thanks ohio… granny pantsuit it is… (don’t really like her, but i sincerely doubt she would start world war 3, the great pumpkin on the other hand…no such faith.)
@earlyre You should live in New Jersey. Other than letting you write in anyone, New Jersey sucks.
@embedit i wonder how many votes @springsteen gets each year in NJ.
So I’m not the only one voting for @snapster. Good to know.
Thanks to the electoral college, my vote doesn’t count anyway, so why not? At least, if I can figure out how to when I go early vote Monday…
@HemlockTea I’m in the same boat, as is the rest of my city. My community votes contrary to the majority of the state, and it’s a winner-take-all state, in one of the “safe states” politicians routinely ignore. I’m still going to vote, even if it doesn’t get counted. When the popular vote and the electoral college vote differ, it fuels efforts to do away with that archaic and undemocratic institution.
@HemlockTea
Your vote may technically “not count” in a sense if you live in a die-hard red or blue state, and vote against or with the common political cast of your state, and thus your vote is that overwhelmed by the vote total.
However, your vote can indicate a possibly future direction for your state, even if the vote is overwhelmed in this election. Both red and blue states can go purple.
And I have read that there is a historical pattern of the US doing a major political re-alignment about every 30-50 years. The last big realignment was the “Reagan Revolution” according to many political historians. 36 years ago.
The political drama of this year seems to point to a possible big political realignment going on now, tho I can’t figure out which direction it’s headed.
Your “meaningless” vote may combine with others to mark a future direction in your state, and give heart to other people who share your sense of direction. And if you are a “lonely believer” in something, it can help to know you are less lonely than you thought.
Another reason to avoid Bugs Bunny type write-ins - I believe that, in many places, these votes are never counted or publicized. If that’s true, why do the equivalent of spitting into the wind?
In that case, why not refuse to vote at the presidential level, or vote for a registered third-party candidate, or vote for the “least bad”?
Regarding the major two candidates, both of whom come with major negative baggage: most of us have an opinion one way or another about which one is truly worst, or a bigger liar, or more dangerous.
Even if you consider your vote to be nothing more that a “show vote”, the consequences are going to be all too real. Perhaps your “meaningless vote” has the possible meaning of registering your opinion in that very real next four years that will have real consequences in our very real lives, even if your vote does not, per say, get reflected in your state’s electoral college outcome.
Technically, if all the meh forums actives - or all the Meh customers period - did “show votes” such as Bugs Bunny votes, it would prob not influence the presidential outcome this year, even at the state level - unless your state is a true purple state, or is on-the-cusp. So why vote in any year, if your argument is that you are just one among many? Isn’t one among many what we want? What we value in our traditions?
Only rarely can a given individual claim that their vote made a visible difference in a presidential rate - for example Florida in 2000 (Bush v Gore). Most of the time, our various states would have gone the way they went, whether any one individual voted or not. So why do we vote?
Whether or not you cast a vote that your state will count (as opposed to uncounted write-ins) can be a test of something else:
Do you believe in democracy, even if that makes you a tiny fish in an enormous pond full of many tiny fish and some very large fish?
In a year in which many people dislike both candidates and intensely dislike this election, are you still willing to make a choice that might be counted by your state, and express it?
Are you willing to make that choice even if your choice will lose in your state? Or even if your choice will win in a walk?
Are your willing to believe that one candidate is better or worse than the other in a concrete way, and act on that belief?
We all “get” why many want to register protest votes this year. In voting, I am not only picking my preference if the “least worst” candidate; I am also voting for our system, which also, currently, to me, appears to have a few flaws. ($$$$$$$$$ and gerrymandering), but in which I retain faith; and for which I have hope. My choice. My expression of it.
I would, personally speaking, wish to see all states go purple. We would get a different caliber of candidate at every level if that happened.
The deliberations of the Constitutional Convention of 1787 were held in strict secrecy. Consequently, anxious citizens gathered outside Independence Hall when the proceedings ended in order to learn what had been produced behind closed doors. The answer was provided immediately.
A Mrs. Powel of Philadelphia asked Benjamin Franklin, “Well, Doctor, what have we got, a republic or a monarchy?” With no hesitation whatsoever, Franklin responded, “A republic, if you can keep it.”
The “keeping of a republic”, by definition, must be by the actions of the many, not the few. If a “republic” is kept and preserved by “the few”, it’s not a republic anymore, is it?
re·pub·lic
rəˈpəblik/
noun
a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch.
“Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.”
From Winston S. Churchill (House of Commons, 11 November 1947), quoting an unknown predecessor. From Churchill by Himself.
@HemlockTea
I believe that analysis of the “popular vote” alternative does change the political map: instead of the $$$$ going to Ohio, PA, and Florida, it will all get spent in high-population areas and enormous cities. Any system can be gamed. Wyoming and Montana and rural areas would get not a drop of consideration.
There might be a better alternative that the Electoral College as it operates now. But I would be slow to change the Constitution. It would take a lot of studies and public debate before I would seriously consider it.
There are always unintended consequences. There is prob not a perfect system to be found.
@f00l - Thank you.
Also, some may be surprised at the chance their vote really does matter. As of today:
@HemlockTea
I am no historian, not even as an amateur. I have a belief, from some course or some reading in my past:
that the participants in the Cobstitutiinal Convention (admittedly very imperfect, and hideously immoral w regard to the rights of non-whites, females, and the entire issue of slavery), understood well the problems that the Electoral College would institutionalize. The also understood well the most robots that a purely popular vote would create.
They were not Gods or Heros, no matter how we may built monuments and apotheosize them. (Or not.)
They were humans under political pressure who did, one hopes, their best. If they had gone with the “popular” option, assuming that Constitution was adopted, many historical events might have yielded different outcomes - not least the # is states seceding in the 1860’s (I would predict a larger # of secessionist states, including midwestern and western ones, at that time, and perhaps more than one alternative nation, some with slavery, some without.)
Even with 70%+ rural population around 1800, mostly New York and Philadelphia and Boston and some other great cities would have mattered politically without an Electoral College. Rural areas would have mattered only if very dense or near a city. Which would have meant that the Constitution would have likely never been ratified.
We might now not have a nation, or might have a nation not much resembling our current one. Things might be far better, or far worse. Were the convention participants wise? Or corrupt and unfair? I don’t have the answer. So far, we seem to have some resilience.
The Electoral College has the effect of discounting individual votes if overwhelmed by the state majority. A popular vote system would have the effect, esp today, of discounting entire regions, and most rural areas and small towns - and cities and populated areas that are not dense enough to matter. All the $ and influence will always follow the key areas that can be swung.
If pork barrel politics is bad now, can you imagine what it would be without the Electoral College? NYC and LA and Chicago and Bost-Wash could have anything they wanted, as the price of their allegiance in the next presidential race. All power would be in enormous metro areas, and those can also be gamed and manipulated.
I would love to see a “fair” system that could not be gamed by regional issues. money, local influence, political manipulation. So far I’ve not heard of one.
@f00l I always vote, if for no other reason than to show respect for the many who have died for my right to do so. It’s not a gift, it’s a responsibility. Texas is starting to swing toward purple, though. A lot of people attribute it to our growing Hispanic population. But I also hope it’s because more Texans are starting to share my values.
@moondrake
The only year I didn’t vote I was out of country traveling and didn’t bother to get a ballot. Vote, for similar reason to your.
Re TX and shifting values: have noticed.
@f00l Man you write a lot.
One minor point (possibly made by someone already): the National Popular Vote does not change our constitution. The constitution leaves the method of selecting the president up to the states and each state can use whatever method they choose for divvying up their electoral votes. The methods used now are not based on the constitution nor have they always been how we’ve done it.
While I’m not totally happy with the National Popular Vote, I think it is better than what we have now.
FWIW, if we have to keep the electoral college, I would prefer a system where each state’s electoral votes are proportionally allocated to the candidates based on the voting within the state. With such a system, New York’s 29 electoral votes would be split with the larger share (likely) going blue but still a significant chunk going red (and possibly green and other colors as well).
@baqui63
I write a lot. This is connected to my user ID being somewhat accurate.
I was dimly aware of a proportional vote as you described not requiring national amendment. I think Maine and one or two other state have something like that?
I might prefer it. It might lead to more accurate results. Or to a massive power shift benefiting cities and suburbs.
No solid red or blue state will implement it, without a national mandate. Perhaps a few more swing states with evenly split legislature could be persuaded to try.
I would love to see the Court strike down gerrymandering, in state and federal elections. Reasonal models that include natural divisions based on geographic and historical districts aren’t that hard to do. I think some state do that by law.
No mono-party state will do that without a court order, I fear. It’s too much to expect them to put honor above political pressure.
I agree with her on very little, but am most likely going to vote for Jill Stein.
I have my reasons.
@zachdecker I’m still back and forth on Stein or Sanders… I feel like he could win Vermont… but would he pull some stunt to try to persuade the electoral college to not count him as an option…
The one good outcome of voting for a third party candidate: if a third party candidate gets 5% of the vote, that party will be on the ballot in all 50 states next time around. This frees up their campaign efforts to get the word out rather than to try to get on the ballot. We may be able to get more than a two party system that way.
If you vote for Morgan Freeman, at least people would listen to the speeches. I’m not saying anything about his political views, whatever they are, but his speeches would be epic.
@juststephen
Based on the speeches, I might have to vote for Samuel L Jackson for President.
@juststephen Angela Bassett. Her voice is so beautiful I could listen to her talk all day.
@moondrake Never heard of her. I take it she doesn’t sound like a bassett hound.
@juststephen Here’s a clip from Strange Days, my favorite film for both Angela Bassett and Ralph Fiennes. Like a lot of movies I love, it did poorly at the box office. Angela has done a lot of more prominent work, most recently as a regular on American Horror Story. But this is what I think of when I think of her.
@moondrake Did not know that’s where Fatboy Slim got that sample, or that it was Angela Bassett.
/image the more you know