Let's see...if my rear view mirror is working correctly...you could have voted for Perot along with 19% of Americans...or you could have voted for Bush along with 37.4% of Americans...either way, you voted (or would have voted) for a losing candidate.
As it turned out, the 37.4% of George the pre-W. Bush voters did take their ball & go home. And I would say that all voters participated in the process, thank you.
One of the biggest political myths around is that if you vote for the second-place loser, you've somehow done this great & noble thing...but if you vote for the third-place loser...or somewhere else further down the line, why, what a terrible voter you are! Sorry to have to break the news to you...but a vote for a losing candidate is a vote for a losing candidate...
If you do a straight-across bet re: the Super Bowl winner (& margin of victory doesn't effect the bet payoff), it wouldn't matter if the Giants lost in OT to the Pats or if they got blone out (other than for entertainment & sponsor preferences). A Super Bowl loser is still a Super Bowl loser.
Sorry,
37.4% of Americans has nothing to do with elections. Your post almost reads or seems that you are talking about Americans. I think that is what you meant. Regardless, the 37% was impacted by Perot.
NINETEEN PER CENT of VOTERS voted for Perot in 1992.
As 1 person who voted for Perot, I can say that I voted for Perot because George Bush and his “no new taxes” pledge violation ruined him when it came to reelection.
If that was not what you meant, then if Perot had not received those votes in my opinion they would have gone to President Bush, and he would have beat the scumbag who received only 43% of the vote.
In other words, Ross Perot changed the election results completely. The vast majority of his votes would never have gone to Clinton and we would not even ever have had the BJ legacy, or worse.
I repent for my Perot vote.