don't you think it might be significant that you have to go back over 150 years to find the last time a third party candidate won? Maybe just a little significant?
Oh yes, that is very significant. No doubt about it.
It means that we have had the current 2 party system in place for over 150 years and in that time it has become a two headed monster that needs to be ended.
The fact that it has been over 150 years is the entire problem.
By the way, do you know the main reason why the Republican party candidate won in 1860? The Democratic party split its votes. They would have won the popular vote by a huge margin had they not done that. Maybe there's a lesson to be learned there too?
Yep there is a lesson to be learned there too.
A large percentage of Dems and Reps are dissatisfied with their party.
If we could get them to both split their votes like the Dems did in 1860, it could happen again.
I refuse to be trapped in the mire of "well, I hate the system but it is what it is, so I'll continue to participate in it."
No. That is the problem. People are not happy with the main 2 choices but yet they continue to vote for them. If everybody who said, "I would vote for the Libertarian candidate but I don't want to waste my vote" would actually do it, he would have a real chance. I will vote for the candidate to best represents my beliefs/views, regardless of party affiliation. Most often that is the Republican candidate because of my hard line 2A stance. Not always but the majority of the time anyway. There are some Southern Democrats (local election stuff) down here who are staunch 2A supporters.
Gary Johnson is the closest to my viewpoint on many, many issues, not only 2nd Amendment stuff.
There is not one who does on 100% of the issues, but I will choose the candidate who most closely mirrors them.