In the 2012 U.S. presidential election:

I predict the majority of commenters hate the two main parties, but the majority of responders to this poll will pick one of the two main parties.

Come back and tell me that when you've grown up and seen how things actually work, sonny. Do be sure to read up on Game Theory while you're at it, and the failure modes associated with first past the post voting.

Take a look at this map [electionprojection.com]. If you live live in one of the solid colored states, the electoral votes for your state are already statistically guaranteed. Voting for the lesser of two evils in one of those states is like pissing into the ocean. It has absolutely no chance of having any effect in the outcome of the election, and at best it slightly adjusts the margins of victory sending a message. Vote for the candidate that sends the best message; the one that best reflects your political views.

It has its disadvantages and advantages like every system:

Disadvantage: Two parties get to fight it out while other viewpoints and fringe ideas never really get brought up and dealt with. The winner, usually feeling they have a mandate because they beat out the only other choice takes actions far beyond what even the people who voted them into office want. Very bipolar partisan factionalism with little cause to form any sort of working together.

Advantages: The two main parties have to cater to the center mass of people rather than subscribe to fringe viewpoints as if they go too far, the otherside will always win. There is less factionalism, or at least less factions to deal with. Theoretically, the winner does so with a majority and therefore some sort of mandate which gains acceptance and provides for a more stable government.

You're bound to fail. The reason government gets so big is they make promises and have to deal with problems that become much easier to deal with when they have their hands on all these nice powers we gave their predecessors.

You know, I knew Obama would be the same as Bush. Not because I believed Obama was just like Bush and lying to us, but instead because he was inexperienced at the Federal level and had no idea what the job he signed up for was going to be like. When you are faced with everything being an emergency, and those emergencies can determine the fates of nations and people, you don't start throwing away your options. You don't start releasing Gitmo prisoners when you actually realize that your prisoners aren't meek political prisoners. You don't stop drone strikes when your other option is an infeasible invasion of Pakistan with troops that you can't justify and you certainly can't risk losing. You can't end the wars immediately and withdraw the troops because the Shiites and Taliban will be in full power in six months if you just start unilaterally withdrawing.

Add to that the fact that as President, you hold the reins of the bureaucracy, but that same bureaucracy happens to be a team of stagecoach horses running wild towards a cliff. It outweighs you by a ton, has its own momentum and you can only sometimes get it to ignore its dumb, animal instincts when you pull really hard and get really lucky.

This is a job that gives people grey hair in less than four years. Your usual third party libertarian candidate will be hilariously under-qualified for the job and if they even try half the shit they promise, they will either fall off and be trampled or they will give in and act just like any other president from any other party just to keep above water.

The only real hope for a useful third party candidate is if you can force a current party, and its experienced politicians, to split and merge with the libertarians. Then you might get some of these policies and some real power. Look at the history of parties in the US, and you can see all of the major parties grew very organically from previous big parties, only fracturing on very big items. I just don't think the Republicans are there yet, they're too disciplined. The Democrats are more likely to split because they're a lot less disciplined.
 

This might be the best possible outcome. Day 1, he pats Ryan on the head and dispatches him to play tiddlywinks at his Mass Ave. Mansion. Then he tweaks Obamacare with a few market-based reforms, and decides that spending a few extra $trillion to fuck up Iran by bombing them with gold-plated fighter jets isn't worth it. Trouble is, he knuckled under during the primaries. So. When Darth Cheney comes calling, and explains how $100 billion Halliburton contract to democratize Iranians in the face is vital to our interests, what do you think he will do?

Exactly this. Canada has -- or had, back when I was living there -- something called a 'declined vote'. You showed up at the polling place, then formally declined to vote. They had to record that, it was roughly like voting for 'none of the above'; if enough people did it, they'd have to hold that particular election over again. (Not that that ever happened in real life, alas.)

Here, third parties have little enough chance to win or even seriously tilt the election (except when there's a major random 3rd party candidate for president). If you'd really rather vote 'none of the above', pick some 3rd party and vote for them. It sends more of a message than just not showing up.

You may have a right to complain if you're too apathetic to show up to vote -- but I have a right to ignore you.

Well, the problem isn't with the Electoral College system, per se. It has a lot to do with the implementation. The whole point of having a proxy voting system is to try to quantize the popular vote and intermix it with the number of states so that the federal system isn't merely ruled by the most populace states. The rub is giving each state too much control over the quantizing process. The result is states have chosen to cast all their electoral votes in one fashion instead of splitting them upon the popular vote in each state. This has been done presumably because it results in a lot less moderate of results from each state--as in a system with "strong" (ie with a 15% edge) a state with 30 votes total would split with only a 5 vote difference instead of a solid 30 vote block one way or the other--which in turn pushes more consideration towards states with more electoral votes--be it more election focus to more general political considerations from the President.

So, while I could readily support a candidate who won the electoral vote while losing the popular vote by 500,000 votes, the system really needs to be split such that the above really means that more states (and mostly their populace) as a whole voted that way instead of it merely being a few "swing" states that are effectively able to upset the popular vote.

In this election it really doesn't matter whomever that gets elected, both are looking at a task that is a big headache - the economy.

It matters a great deal, because the press ignores all but the most egregious errors of Democrats, while reporting on just about anything negative they can find with Republicans.

If you care at all about the government getting away with murder (sometimes literally) then it makes no sense to vote Democrat. ANY other candidate will probably be investigated and reported on way more thoroughly.

The next President may have the opportunity to appoint 3 Supreme Court justices.

Voting has never taken me more than 30 minutes. Over four years that is 7 1/2 minutes a year for a better life and a better country.

Please vote.