Content pfp
Content
@
0 reply
0 recast
0 reaction
logonaut.eth pfp
logonaut.eth
@logonaut.eth
Oh, and Kamala Harris being “not Biden” doesn’t automatically make her a great, or even a good, candidate for president. This just elevates her from NPC to main character — for better or for worse. I still pray that a vigorous multiparty system with real choice will emerge in my lifetime. Amen.
3 replies
0 recast
2 reactions
Maretus pfp
Maretus
@maretus.eth
You and me both. What’s crazy is it seems to me when I have conversations in the wild that A LOT of people think we’d be better off with more than 2 choices. But yet many of those same people won’t take the necessary step of actually voting for a 3rd party to begin the process of showing the world it’s actually possible. The last candidate that even came close was Ross Perot when I was like 5.
1 reply
0 recast
1 reaction
logonaut.eth pfp
logonaut.eth
@logonaut.eth
For even more context ... since 1920, only four third-party candidates have won at least one electoral vote in U.S. presidential elections. And the most recent of those was more than half a century ago, in 1968, when racist demagogue George Wallace — representing the American Independent Party and campaigning on a platform of segregation — won 46 electoral votes by carrying five states: Alabama, Arkansas, Georgia, Louisiana, and Mississippi. Hell, at this point, I'd take as a starting goal: Let's see if one or more non-racist third-party presidential candidates, individually or even collectively, can win at least 1/3 the popular vote in any state. Perot, in 1992 in Maine, came closer than anyone since Wallace, but Perot and other third-party candidates combined still only won about 30.85% of the vote that year in Maine. I don't know how we overcome the belief (stigma?) that voting for a third-party presidential candidate is throwing away your vote — or even tantamount to not voting at all.
1 reply
0 recast
0 reaction