as in, not under one of the two major parties?
Answer by mancosmomma at 10:14 AM on Jul. 14, 2010
Nope and I think it's totally unfair. Everyone should be given the same amount of money to fund raise for office and lets see what they can do with that. Our election system needs a major over-haul and until the two party system is done away with- elections will never be fair.
Answer by IhartU at 10:11 AM on Jul. 14, 2010
Answer by gammie at 10:11 AM on Jul. 14, 2010
Answer by LovingSAHMommy at 10:17 AM on Jul. 14, 2010
I think our system doesn't work well with a 3rd or 4th name on the ballot. We end up with candidates like Ross Perot who's only purpose was to split the Conservative vote and get Clinton elected. They knew that was the only way it would happen. Perot only appeared on the political scene those 2 elections. He didn't need any fund raising. He accomplished his goal and then went away. A 3rd candidate who most likely has no real chance of getting elected will be too conservative or liberal (though these people are usually very conservative) and the result will be the same. That's not to say, there aren't very serious candidates. It just doesn't work. We need 2 very good choices. We just don't seem to ever like who has risen to the top.
Answer by jesse123456 at 10:09 AM on Jul. 14, 2010
Answer by Youngwifey2 at 12:13 PM on Jul. 14, 2010
not until they get the 5% needed for equal funding and airtime
I think they need a "NAME" to do it...
I think Colin Powell should run as an INDY....
He would get at LEAST the 5% needed....and then we could possibly get THREE possabilities
Answer by sweet-a-kins at 10:05 AM on Jul. 14, 2010
Answer by anime_mom619 at 10:37 AM on Jul. 14, 2010
Answer by itsmesteph11 at 12:32 PM on Jul. 14, 2010
Answer by Sisteract at 12:50 PM on Jul. 14, 2010
Next question overall
(Just for Fun)
For those of you who live in Tornado-frequent areas