Let us pretend in 2016 the candidates were Hitler for the Republican Party and Stalin for the Democratic part, lets also pretend the Libertarians were still fielding Johnson and the Greens fielding Stein, now, who do you vote for?
They can’t, it take a constitutional amendment
I cannot vote simply because I am a minor (a reasonable restriction indeed). Well, the Greens are too far-left and support practically unrestricted abortion nonetheless (so much for being “peaceful” and “accepting”). If worst came to worst, I’d vote for a Libertarian… though reluctantly.
It’s easy to look at what Bush Jr did…he signed the PBA act (banning a certain gruesome type of abortion). He appointed two justices who do not legislate from the bench. It’s actually easier to pass the laws at the state level - and most republican governors are fairly reliable in this case. Democrat governors tend to veto ANYTHING that would take away blood money from Planned Parenthood.
Hmm. It takes a super-majority to pass an amendment. I guess Republicans have never had a super majority?
But we still have Abortions…
In the past, Governor Johnson said that he would leave it up to the states to ban abortion. Maybe he still holds to that. If so, that could be good.
Not the Democratic Governor of my state. He has signed some of the toughest abortion laws in the nation. He is very pro life and Catholic.
It would not be simple to just ban them. Imagine all of the leftist and ultra-radical feminists who would have political and even violent (look at the leftist movements, they riot: Black Lives Matter, for instance) protestations. We must go one step at a time.
What’s the point of voting for Clinton if you live in Texas or Trump if you live in California? What’s the point of voting for someone who is way behind in the polls? We don’t vote based on who we think can win, we vote based on who we think should win.
In a hypothetical with Hitler and Stalin running I think we can pretend you can vote.
Pretty sure there has never been a Republican supermajority in the history of the US
Very good point. And even if they didn’t, if a third party started polling high enough, people might finally start paying attention to them in the next election, rather than reflexively voting for Democrats or Republicans. There’s nothing in our system that says we have to have just 2 major parties.
I’ve always wondered that. I live in Louisiana. It’s like, whats the point of even voting in Presidential elections? We all know that the majority of the populace will vote for the Republican and all the electoral votes will go to the Republican. So it kind of makes voting for anyone other than the Republican kind of useless.
If enough vote for the Libertarian party then they might actually start getting attention which can allow them to actually win seats, if they secure even 10% of Congress then they can start to play kingmaker on bills.
Not surprising given Johnson is a liberal on social issues.
He appears to be taking away either an “even” amount of support from Trump and Clinton or actually more Clinton according to that article I posted.
The libertarian never really gets a lot of support in my state. So its hard to get them elected when no one wants to elect them.
This is not a compelling argument, and I disagree with your foundational premise that: “We don’t vote based on who we think can win, we vote based on who we think should win.”
He’s quite different in that those Democrats also want to force you and everyone else to pay for abortion and want to prohibit states from banning it. Johnson is far from perfect, but he’s getting my vote.
He has a pretty good chance if he gets into the debates.
Liberal != leftist.
