10-30-2008, 04:56 PM
Ole Wrote:PS. I'm sure that many did have this attitude way back when; there was just a better electable candidate in a different party back then.
I would propose that if Barr had 100+ million to spend on a campaign, he might be just as "electable" as either of the two that are. Perot came damn close. Why? Because he had MAD CASH and got himself in everyone's face. Way back when, (I would guess) candidates just weren't spending nearly as much... there wasn't nearly as much to spend it on.
If we outlawed TV advertisements, put some hard limits on spending, I bet 3rd parties would stand a chance. But which of the "two" parties is going to support something that lets others play? I would also argue that our voting system is just awful, we could be ranking our choices to cull much more data from each voter, and there should be a margin of error just like ANY other poll or statistic. If someone wins by 1%, well damn, we can't count that accurately, so do-over.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a van is a good guy with a van