JOHN McCAIN IS A LIBERAL GUN GRABBER

[PA Rifleman]

Originally Posted by Elmar

Voting for the lesser of two evils is not only still voting for evil but encouraging the choice of only evil A or evil B by showing you accept the terms of the choice.

There are more than two people running for President.

I don't understand your point. As long as we're operating under the US Constitution, it's either A or B, determined by Congress. We do not elect the president, so we're spectators.

Presidential election 101:

The Electoral College insulates the election of the President from the people by having the people elect not the person of the President, but the person of an Elector who is pledged to vote for a specific person for President. Though the ballot may read "George Bush" or "John Kerry," you're really voting for "John Smith" who is a Bush supporter or "Jack Jones" who is a Kerry supporter.

http://www.usconstitution.net/consttop_elec.html

Amendment 12 - Choosing the President, Vice-President. Ratified 6/15/1804. Note History The Electoral College
The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;
The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;
The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.
The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

If you still don't understand the significance of the above text, google the term faithless elector. It means Congress picks the President, and they are not legally obliged to take your vote into consideration.

Since Congress is still bicameral (two-party system..R or D), an elector that broke ranks with their own party would be viewed as a maverick, or at least not a "team player" and would have a great deal of trouble getting cooperation from their party in the future.

Independent candidates that make a serious run at the White House seem to understand this, and appear to view the process as an opportunity for publicity since insiders know the only way they'll ever see the inside of the White House is by a guest invitation. Another reason for independent efforts at Presidential elections are a form of vote manipulation called "spoiling" which can give a trailing candidate a decisive edge by winning states without a majority, particularly if the votes are close.

[LittleRedToyota]

Originally Posted by PA Rifleman

Since Congress is still bicameral (two-party system..R or D),

congress being bicameral means there are two "branches" (house and senate), not two parties.

there is nothing in the constitution that mandates 2 parties. and, in fact, there were originally other parties...like the whigs, etc. (i don't think either the democrats or republicans actually even existed at the time of ratification).

also, some states require by law that their electoral college electors vote the way the people in the state vote. so, if the people of a particular state actually voted for a 3rd party candidate, the electors would have to cast their vote for that 3rd party candidate.

[ThoughtCriminal]

Originally Posted by manyplews

BULLSH-- !!

Google the author:

"Charles "Chuck" Baldwin (born May 3, 1952) is an American activist in the Constitution Party, and pastor of Crossroad Baptist Church in Pensacola, Florida; located in Escambia County on the far northwestern Florida Gulf Coast. In 2004, Baldwin was the Constitution Party nominee for Vice President, and on April 26; Baldwin was named as the 2008 presidential nominee.[1] Baldwin hosts a weekly radio program and writes a weekly news column carried on his website and on the VDARE.com site as well.

A former member of the Republican Party, Baldwin has been a longstanding critic of U.S. President George W. Bush. Baldwin is known as a staunch opponent of what he calls the "New World Order", the "North American Union" and amnesty for illegal immigrants. Baldwin has also suggested reopening the investigation into the September 11, 2001 attacks, believing that the 9/11 Truth Movement have a right to have their theories investigated, including the possibility of U.S. government involvement in the attacks

Hey,I like a lot of Ron Paul's ideas but a vote for him is a vote for Obama.
This Baldwin has mucho warts,as you will see when you "google" him.

Actually, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for RON PAUL!

[LastManOut]

Originally Posted by ThoughtCriminal

Actually, a vote for Ron Paul is a vote for RON PAUL!

Thanks! I thot I was the lone voice in the wilderness.

Here are my guestimates of how "We The People" could win in November:

• 40% of voters are Dems
• 40% of voters are Repubs
• The remainder are of a 3rd party or Independent

Assuming there are 125,000,000 US voters (based on 2004)

• If 33% of the Repubs vote 3rd party or ~16million
• If 10% of the Dems vote 3rd party or 5 million
• If 50% of Independent voters vote 3rd party or 12 million

That would be 33 million votes for a 3rd party candidate, if they could agree on who. So it is possible, if everyone I personally have heard/read say they are ONLY voting for McCain because they "have no other choice" or "he is the lesser of two evils" (which is the majority not 1/3 of the conservatives) Ron Paul or Bob Barr or Chuck Baldwin could be a squeaker, but possible.

[sams819]

DREAM ON!!!!!!!

[ccphilly1984]

the lesser of two evils is true... hopefully sooner or later a third party can sneak into the white house and we can get rid of one of the existing two... (hopefully replace democrats with libertarians or something) and mccain is far from a gun grabber... not the best 2nd ammendment person... sure... but so much better of a track record than Barrak hussein obama.

[Lysander]

Originally Posted by LittleRedToyota

congress being bicameral means there are two "branches" (house and senate), not two parties.

there is nothing in the constitution that mandates 2 parties. and, in fact, there were originally other parties...like the whigs, etc. (i don't think either the democrats or republicans actually even existed at the time of ratification).

also, some states require by law that their electoral college electors vote the way the people in the state vote. so, if the people of a particular state actually voted for a 3rd party candidate, the electors would have to cast their vote for that 3rd party candidate.

Partially right.

Thomas Jefferson was a Democrat. Yes, the party then was called "Republican" or "Democratic Republican" before becoming fully "Democrat" in 1844. Both Andrew Jackson and John Q. Adams were "Republicans" in the Democratic Republican sense.

The Constitution does not mandate parties. However, the Founding Fathers were well aware of them (Tories and Patriots weren't just identifiers during the war), and while Washington was considered unaffiliated, Adams (and Quincy Adams), Hamilton, Jefferson, Monroe, Madison, and others were well aware of parties, party politics, and how to use them.

[Montell C. Williams]

DON'T FORGET what happened when 18% voted for Ross Peroit, we got Bill Clinton, most Peroit voters were social conservitives who were closer to G.H. Bush than Clinton but they voted for Peroit and got Clinton. Clinton won by less than 5%.

If you vote for a 3rd party you WILL get Obama!

[thelemite]

Of these two is likely going to be president. The one less likely to screw gun owners is not named Obama.

[LastManOut]

Originally Posted by thelemite

Of these two is likely going to be president. The one less likely to screw gun owners is not named Obama.

That's one hell of an endorsement if I ever heard one. Maybe Juan McCain could use that as his campaign slogan.