that they have no chance of winning, and I like to win, is that their candidates always looks like morons or nutcases. Libertarian candidates, in paticular, always look like they just fell off a hay truck and cracked their noggins good.

A passing thought.

Suits that fit, normal ties, and haircuts are so Establishment. How else would we know they were 3rd party candidates?

Libertarian candidates, in paticular, always look like they just fell off a hay truck and cracked their noggins good.Probably because they became Libertarians right after the GOP got sick of their uncooperative observations about too much spending and religion, and booted them into the street.

I kind of liked the Libertarian who ran for California governor at the time of the recall. He was a cigarette-monger named Ned something or other. He certainly looked like the "cracked-noggin" type but the cracked-noggin type who would be fun to sit with and split a bottle of Old Crow.

The constitution even stacks the deck against them.

that they have no chance of winning, and I like to win, is that their candidates always looks like morons or nutcases. Libertarian candidates, in paticular, always look like they just fell off a hay truck and cracked their noggins good.

A passing thought.
They probably just want to look as dumb as the rest actually are. ;)

I'm a libertarian and I think I'd be afraid if we took over. But I vote libertarian because I want the rest of you (well, not you anymore) guys to pay attention to what I want more of in my government. My vote is the only way I can express my opinion of policy that gets attention. So, I'd rather vote for the guy who looks like a retard as opposed to spending my vote on the actual retards.

that they have no chance of winning, and I like to win, is that their candidates always looks like morons or nutcases. Libertarian candidates, in paticular, always look like they just fell off a hay truck and cracked their noggins good.

A passing thought.

But you had to love the candidate in the 2002 elections whose skin turned blue from whatever kind of funky diet & supplements he was taking. Can't remember if he was Libertarian or Green Party, but the picture was great.

With the mention of the Libertarian candidates, I found it interesting that Nader got all the attention, but Badnerik got almost the same number of votes . He was on the ballot in more states, I think, but it seemed like there were some states where Nader was on the ballot that Badnerik actually outpolled him.

You mean, like Ralph Nader? It's amazing how many fringe parties allowed him to pimp their party by letting him run. Here in NY he ran on the Independance party ticket. That's a party which was founded by Perot supporters a few years back, and Tom Golisano ran on it in his attempt to run for governor a couple of years ago. Certainly sounds like a pro-business party, doesn't it? So why the hell did they choose Nader for president???? One might get the idea it was so they could keep the party up higher on the future ballots?? Nah....

The problem with Libertarians is that they don't promise much of anything. Essentially, they say "I want government that does nothing. Elect me to do nothing." Who wants a government that does nothing? No pork. No welfare (of any variety). Other than druggies and gun owners, they don't get anyone too excited. Big government is so entrenched that you do look like a nut wanting to take all that away.

that they have no chance of winning, and I like to win, is that their candidates always looks like morons or nutcases. Libertarian candidates, in paticular, always look like they just fell off a hay truck and cracked their noggins good.

A passing thought.

Third party candidates tend to resemble their supporters too.

John Stewart recently did a book release at the NYC library and a nutty Greenie showed up. When they opened the room up for questions she got hold of the mic and wouldn't let go. Of course Stewart was a bit mocking and dismissive in an attempt to keep it light, but she was nuttier than a Clark bar.

If we had a legit third party it would be much harder to remove an incumbent if necessary.

Third parties serve to shift the middle ground. Because of the votes that Nader pulled from Gore in 2000 the democrats ran a more liberal candidate in 2004. While they fancy the idea of winning, they really just seek to stir up the pot and introduce ideas into the debate. That is, if they can get into the debate. Since the situation with Perot in 1992, I think we won't see the two main parties allow a third party a voice again.

Perot got 19% of the popular vote against Bush and Clinton in '92, no electoral votes so maybe no chance of winning but I wonder what a third party anti war andidate would have gotten this time around. It would have been a little reassuring to see some representation of that, instead of what appears to many to be a majority popular vote declaration of war and a green light to terrorists around the world.

In Political Science there is something called Duveger's Law. If politicians are elected by Plurality then there will always be a two party system. Unless America gets a 2 stage ballot or proportional representation the there will only be 2 parties.

I said that in a column about Perot supporters back in the day--something like "A third party option appeals to a lot of people, but Perot's backers always look like they're waiting for instructions from the Mother Ship." Got mail about it for days....