NPR "I side with" siteFollow

86% Gary Johnson
85% Mitt Romney
76% Virgil Goode
61% Barack Obama
57% Illinois Voters
60% American Voters

73% Republican
66% Libertarian
55% Green
52% Democrat

Jill Stein : 92% on science, foreign policy, environmental, economic, domestic policy, and social issues
Barack Obama: 79% on science, environmental, social, and immigration issues
Gary Johnson: 74% on domestic policy, foreign policy, social, healthcare, and immigration issues
Rocky Anderson: 53% on foreign policy, economic, and social issues
Mitt Romney: 43% on domestic policy and immigration issues
Virgil Goode: 24% on foreign policy and immigration issues
Pennsylvania Voters: 61% on science, domestic policy, environmental, economic, healthcare, social, and immigration issues.
American Voters: 63% on science, domestic policy, environmental, economic, healthcare, social, and immigration issues.

93% Green
90% Democrat
54% Libertarian
23% Republican

That seems more or less accurate to me. More than one question got a least important rating from me, and a number of them need a more complicated answer than yes/no, but I couldn't be bothered to get more specific.

Are you talking in terms of winning state electoral votes? Or electoral votes in the election as a whole? For the former, it's up to each state to determine how its electoral votes are awarded. For the latter, you can't win unless you get more than 50% of the electoral votes. That's largely why we have a two party system. We could get away with more parties in congress, but we can only have two major parties competing for the White House.

Barack Obama 90%
Jill Stein 90%
Gary Johnson 66%
Rocky Anderson 71%
Mitt Romney 12%
Virgil Goode 3%

You can still win a majority of electoral votes even if you aren't over 50%...

Plurality. It's the winner tales all part of the electoral college that makes third parties effectively useless in the American system. I'm sure that's what is explained by what Joph linked, but I was too lazy to click through.

It just means it's a long haul sort of fight, no? You need to win a state to get on the map. But winning a state would also do a lot to legitimatize your organization, which should rapidly fuel your spread.

I've honestly never really decided what my take on plurality and the electoral college is, so I don't have any solutions to present. I see the pros and the cons, and I just don't know which is the greater evil.

From what I gathered, it links it based on various position statements of the candidates. Romney's had many different positions over the past 4 years.

No, you can't. A majority means "more than 50%". A plurality means "he who got the most".

The reason you can really only have two parties compete (yes, that word is important) for the White House is because our system requires that the winner receive a majority (meaning "more than 50%" in case you forgot) of the electoral votes.

All a serious third party candidate does is take votes away from the guy closest to him politically, thus preventing either of them from being competitive in the race.



Except that somewhat by definition, the guy who wins can never be the "third party" candidate. Else he wouldn't be the third party candidate, he'd be the candidate of one of the two major parties least like the third party candidate. The pressure to avoid having congress choose who the president and vice president are ensures that the overwhelming majority of voters will align into a party capable of achieving a majority. This in turn results in two major parties representing those voters and competing to win the election.


In such a system, you are wasting your vote if you vote for a third party candidate for president. You are vastly better off figuring out which party is closest to your beliefs and working within that party to put forth candidates who represent what you want. Having a small influence on a party which could win is better than having a larger influence on a party which can't. Obviously, if we're talking about local and even state elections it's a different ballgame, but the fastest way to ensure that your opinions will *never* influence federal level policy is to vote third party because it's slightly more in line with your own beliefs than one of the major parties. Not only will your guy not win, but if enough people do this, then you ensure that the party that you disagree with *most* will win.

In some cases, it all makes sense.

Jill Stein(Green) - 83% - Foreign & Domestic Policy, Environment, Immigration, Science, Healthcare
Gary Johnson(Libertarian) - 74% - Foreign & Domestic Policy, Health Care, Social Issues
Rocky Anderson(Justice, whatever that is) - 66% - Foreign Policy, Immigration
Barack Obama(Democrat) - 65% - Environment, Economy, Science, Immigration, Social Issues
Mitt Romney(Republican) - 23% - Health Care
Virgil Goode(Constitution) - 16% - No issues(then how the hell is there 16%?)
American voters - 60% - Everything but the economy

82% Democrat
80% Green
58% Libertarian
3% Republican

Makes sense to me.

Candidates you side with...

96% Jill Stein
86% Barack Obama
80% Rocky Anderson
60% Gary Johnson
20% Mitt Romney
9% Virgil Goode

Probably would have been 100% for Jilly Bean, but I answered "yes" to the idiotically worded question "Should the US continue to support Israel" Since she's from the 'Chussetts, I've actually had the chance to vote for her a few times. I haven't.