I'm not sure about the 'two worst candidates in recent memory' thing, Brady.  But, I'm spending more time and effort looking in to the respective platforms.  The D-tribe platform more closely aligns with my own personal view of the world. 

As far as the R-tribe's flag carrier, Donald Trump, he's an interesting character, but he's simply too 'far there' and weird for me.

I'm perfectly happy to vote for Clinton based upon both policy and preparedness.

But, if the Yutes can bring a viable alternative party to the stage in the future that would be great

The Man wrote:

The only thing I don't like about the idea of having,say 4 major party candidates on the ballot is that a candidate could win with only 26% of the vote. That might cause problems. Too many candidates is part of the reason that we have Donald Trump as a nominee.

IMHO it is more that many are dissatisfied with the do nothing atmosphere that has been created by the current people in power during the last couple of Presidencies. Trump is looked at as an outsider that can change everything that is wrong (which he cannot). Add to that he is totally ill-equipped to take charge and manage all the issues our country faces. For sure, Hillary is well qualified to do that. The question posed, however, is just where that leaves the younger voters. The idealists will likely vote for someone outside the 2 major party system. That is OK, but what they NEED to zero into are the Congressmen themselves who are more of the problem going forward than EITHER Clinton or Trump. 

The  fivethirtyeight current assessment of the youth vote still shows Clinton with a commanding lead in the youth vote, but no where near Obama's share in 2008. They certainly are not helping Trump at all if you believe the numbers in the article.
 



 

Tarnation wrote:

There is much that is to be commended  with the Isreali  system of parties in such plurality that it is almost always necessary to form a "coalition government"--in plain words, to learn to work with some entity outside one's own ideological box.

It is a way of softening the extremes....the very theory behind the breakout "small groups" so popular in seminars and some decision-making "retreats".

However, I remember a noteworthy politician (Reagan?) who said "extremism in defense of liberty is no vice".

I would love to see a situation in which parties are forced by necessity to form coalitions with other group in order to govern. More collaboration and less gridlock would meet a warm welcome from me.

BTW, that line is from Goldwater's 1964 acceptance speech.