Wrong.
It's not the "realities of . . . the people that participate in elections" that makes it clear that, in 2008, either the Republican or Rat nominee WILL become President of the United States.
It is the reality of our system of government, the three salient points of which I set out in my last post and which you ignored, to wit:
(1) the winner-take-all system at the national level,
(2) the fact that candidates must win a majority of Electoral College votes to win the election,
(3) and the fact that, if no candidate receives a majority of the vote, the Constitution requires the House of Representatives to decide the Election (and no third party—even Teddy Roosevelt’s-—has fielded more than a handful of candidates for Congress).
I have NEVER suggested, nor would I, that it is impossible to change our system of government.
I suggest that it is my studied conclusion that it would be quite STUPID to change our system of government, *in regard to the three particulars set out above,* no matter how easy or hard it is.
The ONLY way a third party candidate can win is for one or more of the above particulars to be radically eliminated.
I am not for that. I feel the wisdom of our founders is elegantly obvious in the way those three prongs work together to prevent the death spiral of extra-major-party factionalism.
If you are talking about overthrowing our system of government, so that those three prongs no longer work together to keep factionalism something that is (1) sorted out primarily WITHIN parties and (2) WITHOUT it being given unchecked and unbalanced capacity to throw a presidential election into chaos, you'd better get cracking if you want to have more than two viable choices on Election Day.
In the meantime, I support our system of electing our president as one that allows for protest (both in the primaries and in the general election), but which limits the possibility for chaos in the transition of power in our highest office.
And since no revolution is going to occur between now and Election Day---nor would your or my refusal to vote or refusal to vote for the Republican or Rat nominee facilitate revolution (even if I so desired)---I intend to do what I view as my duty to secure the best choice, of the viable choices, for my country.
That's why I am voting for McCain.
>Wrong.
>It is the reality of our system of government
I can't believe this simple point isn't getting through. I'll try again.
Both our system of government and what we do with that system is the collective result of our individual choices. Remember that whole concept? I know that the god of "individual choice" kind of get left out of the GOP pantheon a few elections back, but trust me, it still exists.
There is nothing, zero, nada, not a single thing in the world preventing us from collectively choosing to elect someone to the presidency besides these two. Nothing. Heck, for that matter, there's nothing preventing us from nominating someone else: the convention hasn't actually been held, you know. The "reality of our system of government" is so because we choose it to be so. The reality of who we tend to vote for given that reality is also our choice. If the odds are low of a minor party candidate winning, it's because we have chosen to make them low, nothing more.
So I didn't ignore your points. I simply maintained, and continue to do so, that they are irrelevant. I'd also disagree strongly that it is those points solely that have gotten us into the ugly mess we're in now, but that's a separate topic. The point is that those systems, like what we do to them, continue to exist by the choice of people like you. Without your support, they wither and die. The "odds" are of our making, nothing more or less.
Still don't believe me? Let's try an exercise. Let's pick a random person on the street. Now before we talk to them, let's bet whether or not this person has worn a blue tie around his ankle that day. What are the odds of that, you think?
Let's say a billion to one. OK, then. Let's move it to me. Will you bet me one billion of your dollars to one of mine that I haven't worn a blue tie around my ankle today? Hey, that's what the odds say. That must be "reality". I have no control over it. Right?
Our system of government and what we do with it are not "hands dealt to us" or "realities" handed down from above, or anything else that implies that someone else besides us are in control of them. We are in control of them. Completely. If we wanted, we could elect Mike Schmidt. Or Albert Einsten. Or the entire Brady Bunch. Or we could move the election to tomorrow. Or never. Or we could all stay home and play Parcheesi.
And the only thing that affects whether or not these things happen is our choice. Nothing more. Let me repeat: nothing more.
I have NEVER suggested, nor would I, that it is impossible to change our system of government
I'm sorry to have gleaned that, but that is what your statements translate to to me. If you really believe that, though, then there is at least some hope for our agreement.
If that's the case, then I have to disagree with you. In my opinion, our system of governmental system has became a zombie: dead, and doesn't know it.
I suggest that it is my studied conclusion that it would be quite STUPID to change our system of government, *in regard to the three particulars set out above,* no matter how easy or hard it is.
Well, I would take all of what this election is showing us as proof that our system is fragged and a reboot is needed. When there is an election in which not only does half of the population doesn't participate but most of them don't like their candidates, and it's been like this several cycles in a row, I would suggest that the time for change has come.
Don't worry: I have no illusions about how hard it is. But it is my God-honest opinion that at this point, there is absolutely nothing left to lose. As far as I'm concerned, this election might as well have been held in Russia. And just to be sure, I am working on something. The chances of it coming off right?
Oh, I'd say about a billion to one. :-)
Cheers. I think we've gotten to the center of the disagreement, and as such, have probably taken this thread as far as it will go.