Soul Strut

Drop image/file

<blockquote class="Quote"><div><strong class="bc-author">Bon Vivant</strong> said:</div><div><blockquote class="Quote"><div><strong class="bc-author">BobDesperado</strong> said:</div><div><blockquote class="Quote"><div><strong class="bc-author">LaserWolf</strong> said:</div><div><blockquote class="Quote"><div><strong class="bc-author">BobDesperado</strong> said:</div><div><br />
	<br />
	Third parties and independent candidates have had significant impact in US history on numerous occasions.  It might even happen again in 2012, though I doubt it.</div></blockquote>
	<br />
	True. If by significant you mean almost none. And numerous occasions you mean rarely.</div></blockquote>
	<br />
	Ross Perot, Teddy Roosevelt & Robert Lafollette, George Wallace, Ralph Nader, Free Soil... this is off the top of my head.  There were 4 parties that got significant (10%+) vote percentages in the 1860 election.<br />
	<br />
	If by "significant" you mean "winning the whole thing" you're changing the meaning of the word.  I'll stand by "numerous occasions" since it's happened in a good chunk of our presidential elections.</div></blockquote>
	<br />
	Only one of  the above people won a national election, and that was about 100 years ago.    <br />
	<br />
	b/w<br />
	<br />
	Are you really referencing an 1860 election to support a claim that non-Democrat and Republican parties have a siginifcant presence in current American politics?   :ehhx2:</div></blockquote>
	<br />
	You don't have to win to influence the outcome of an election.  You just have to draw more potential votes away from either side to affect the final outcome.  In my own lifetime this possibly happened in presidential elections in 1968, 1992, and 2000.  <br />
	<br />
	And the discussion wasn't limited to "current" anything.<br />
	<br />
	I like how I'm supposed to offer ironclad reams of evidence in order to answer "arguments" like "LMFAO" and "only one of them won."

Cancel

Community