Ya, if I lived somewhere where it was actually purple (and I do now), then I have to make some sort of binary decision, or forfeit any influence. But I didn't. And you don't.
Right. So as I said, your position/thinking is actually the problem in the not-Trump contingent. There are many flavors of this, but it is all the same in the count. And I think you might live in a state where it could matter.
I'll vote my conscience and have no qualms about it. Hopefully I'll be presented a choice not vomit inducing. I actually changed from independent to D (first time ever) so I can vote for a candidate in the primary here. I'm trying to make it happen. Also, don't assume there are only 1-2 candidates I'd vote. There are several. I simply have a few definite 'NO's.
I don't think you know what "know" means. I don't "know" how anyone voted, except me, since voting rolls are private. Someone told you something. You believed it. Then you passed it off here as "know"ledge. That makes you a gullible idiot.
Or maybe these people I know very well they are telling the truth and you are just a jackass? Are you really telling me it’s impossible someone would get disenfranchised enough to vote 3rd party or not vote at all? I’m a lifelong republican and didn’t vote for trump and voted 3rd party.
I am a jackass. That doesn't mean they are telling you the truth. No, I'm saying that it is statistically unlikely, without you being abnormal. Now, you might be abnormal, and I might be wrong. Or you might just be normal, and they voted for Hillary, and thought, for some reason, that you'd think less of them, or someone would, if you knew. Which is more likely, that you're a statistical abnormality, or voters didn't want to share who they actually voted for?
3rd party got 7 percent of the vote in California https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/2016_United_States_presidential_election_in_California what that means is it’s highly likely I know multiple people that voted 3rd party. And that’s not counting people who abstained
No, that means it is highly unlikely you don't know multiple people that voted 3rd party. Each of the people you know, assuming just a straight 1:1 probability, only has a 7% chance of actually voting 3rd party. Another way to look at it is this, assuming 7/100, straight 1:1, without any other factors (which is itself is unlikely), for you to get to just 3, which is the least amount of "few", you'd need to know 42 people well enough to tell you the truth about their voting habits. We've talked. I don't think you are dumb enough to talk politics with 42 people you know in real life. I sure as hell am not. Lastly, people that abstained did not vote. And since we're only talking about people that voted, they are excluded. They have to have voted.
Y'all know there's nothing that requires you to vote for a Democrat or the GOP? I mean who's really throwing their vote away at this point?
If a viable new 3rd Party candidate without ties to either Party didn’t emerge in 16, it won’t emerge in the next 25 years, if even then. Much better chance of one or both parties splitting.
I have given up on a third party forming that holds any traction. It will most likely be a splinter group that is so far on the left/right as to be unpalatable to anyone but the most ardent supporters.
I think we’re already seeing that with the dems. The party leadership already showed they didn’t care what the people wanted with how they treated Sanders
Doesn’t help that the current two parties have created a monopoly of power to where it’s basically impossible to get on the stage. People lose their damn minds about the thought of a private monopoly in business but just smile and take it in our political system
