Because they're an instrumental part of how the election process works for quite a while now. If a candidate is receiving 0 electoral votes they are functionally as electable as you or I.
You've more than proven yourself to be in bad faith here though, so you'll have to pester someone else with future efforts.
I'm literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections and that's somehow acting in bad faith? What else am I supposed to do, given that you mistakenly believe that there are only two political parties in the US and, for some unknown reason, I'm an elector and not just a regular voter?
If you're acting in good faith why did you not answer when I asked if you understood how our elections work?
If you're acting in good faith where did I state you were an elector?
If you're acting in good faith why are you badgering with a question that you already know the answer to?
No. You are not "literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections" and you know it. You refuse to participate in the discussion in favor of your own, possibly with the intent of seeking some kind of so-called gotcha moment. It's not coming. They're are functionally two parties within our presidential elections.
Since 1900 a third party candidate has received more than 5% of the popular vote (that's you and me) roughly 6 times. That number drops to about 4 if you want more than 10%. In that same time a third party candidate has received any votes from electors (which are outdated but still very much the ones who are counted thus important to the process as it exists) in 6 elections. The last one was in 1972.
And just to further reinforce, that's any votes from electors. The highest in that time was in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt received 88. George Wallace later got 46 in 1968 and Strom Thurmond managed 39 in 1948. They continue downward from there.
So no, as you've been told by others, a third party candidate is generally not electable in the system we have. This is why the system is often called a two party system despite the existence of third parties. You'll notice in common parlance they're not counted, they're called third parties. This is not a controversial opinion I hold, it's how it is widely discussed by laymen and experts alike.
But you already knew all that and instead chose to badger to try and, I can only assume, have some kind of moment or way you were right. You were acting in bad faith and I have no more time or energy for your type of "discussion". Goodbye.
I ignored your bad faith questioning of my understanding of presidential elections for the sake of civility. Second, this thread is about votes cast in the general election, not the electoral college; as I've tried to make clear, I do not vote in the electoral college. Third, your Wikipedia data-dive is fascinating, but irrelevant to your theory that votes can be cast against candidates.
Because they're an instrumental part of how the election process works for quite a while now. If a candidate is receiving 0 electoral votes they are functionally as electable as you or I.
You've more than proven yourself to be in bad faith here though, so you'll have to pester someone else with future efforts.
I'm literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections and that's somehow acting in bad faith? What else am I supposed to do, given that you mistakenly believe that there are only two political parties in the US and, for some unknown reason, I'm an elector and not just a regular voter?
Against my better judgement, why not.
If you're acting in good faith why did you not answer when I asked if you understood how our elections work?
If you're acting in good faith where did I state you were an elector?
If you're acting in good faith why are you badgering with a question that you already know the answer to?
No. You are not "literally just asking you to explain your own understanding of presidential elections" and you know it. You refuse to participate in the discussion in favor of your own, possibly with the intent of seeking some kind of so-called gotcha moment. It's not coming. They're are functionally two parties within our presidential elections.
Since 1900 a third party candidate has received more than 5% of the popular vote (that's you and me) roughly 6 times. That number drops to about 4 if you want more than 10%. In that same time a third party candidate has received any votes from electors (which are outdated but still very much the ones who are counted thus important to the process as it exists) in 6 elections. The last one was in 1972.
And just to further reinforce, that's any votes from electors. The highest in that time was in 1912 when Theodore Roosevelt received 88. George Wallace later got 46 in 1968 and Strom Thurmond managed 39 in 1948. They continue downward from there.
So no, as you've been told by others, a third party candidate is generally not electable in the system we have. This is why the system is often called a two party system despite the existence of third parties. You'll notice in common parlance they're not counted, they're called third parties. This is not a controversial opinion I hold, it's how it is widely discussed by laymen and experts alike.
But you already knew all that and instead chose to badger to try and, I can only assume, have some kind of moment or way you were right. You were acting in bad faith and I have no more time or energy for your type of "discussion". Goodbye.
I ignored your bad faith questioning of my understanding of presidential elections for the sake of civility. Second, this thread is about votes cast in the general election, not the electoral college; as I've tried to make clear, I do not vote in the electoral college. Third, your Wikipedia data-dive is fascinating, but irrelevant to your theory that votes can be cast against candidates.