Red_Canadian posted:convincing my drug dealer to spoil his ballot
catchphrase
Red_Canadian posted:sure, might as well vote for someone who can't win because of a technicality than reality. either of the two that will win are terrible choices, we don't need that on our conscience. while i can't take full credit, my arguments played a role in convincing my drug dealer to spoil his ballot, since his state had no one interesting to choose from.
gloria la riva is eligible to be president, youre thinking of peta lindsay who ran last election
Moorehead (WWP) is eligible in Utah and Wisconsin, which is another 16 electors.
Soltysik (Socialist Party) is also eligible in Michigan - this adds 16 electors.
That's 167 electors. If the college is split after that, all La Riva would have to do is convince 103 electors to defect to her, presumably after the endorsement of Jill Stein after dropping out. This isn't over.
Edited by swampman ()
getfiscal posted:La Riva has a possible 135 electors if she wins California, Colorado, Florida, Louisiana, New Jersey, New Mexico, Vermont and Washington.
Moorehead (WWP) is eligible in Utah and Wisconsin, which is another 16 electors.
Soltysik (Socialist Party) is also eligible in Michigan - this adds 16 electors.
That's 167 electors. If the college is split after that, all La Riva would have to do is convince 103 electors to defect to her, presumably after the endorsement of Jill Stein after dropping out. This isn't over.
excuse me, comrade but wwp is also on the ballot in new jersey.... which you will find alters your scenario quite considerably....
stegosaurus posted:excuse me, comrade but wwp is also on the ballot in new jersey.... which you will find alters your scenario quite considerably....
You're too late, getfiscal's revisionist crapaganda has already sloshed across the front page
stegosaurus posted:excuse me, comrade but wwp is also on the ballot in new jersey.... which you will find alters your scenario quite considerably....
Does it, Stego? Does it? Or did I already exclude that from the calculation because I assumed La Riva won the state, and therefore won the electors?
getfiscal posted:stegosaurus posted:excuse me, comrade but wwp is also on the ballot in new jersey.... which you will find alters your scenario quite considerably....
Does it, Stego? Does it? Or did I already exclude that from the calculation because I assumed La Riva won the state, and therefore won the electors?
i think, obviously, that they split the state and clinton ends up eking out a victory, thus subtracting those electors and demonstrating once again the urgent necessity for principled yet chill unity among marxist-leninists.
cars posted:i am curious why "no", the most supported option in the previous discussion thread, did not pass muster as an endorsement
I think everyone agrees that the best thing to do is obstruct the voting process for others by, say, screaming wildly in the polling booth until they make you leave.
cars posted:i am curious why "no", the most supported option in the previous discussion thread, did not pass muster as an endorsement
Voting for Gloria la Riva is exactly the same as not voting.
i'm sure my vote will tip the scales for glorious communist revolution
tpaine posted:wait, jill stein has the current prez as her running mate? isn't that unconscitutional???
that's his second son, moron
tpaine posted:hi i'm barack obama and these are my children, ojibwe mufalasa baracka, tommibwe dajalaswa obamanda, yahalla malike delibird, mahanda shicklegruber dehinde, behinga formalda hydesong,
lol i googled and these are their real goddamn names
