> Am 31 Jul 17  11:11:28 schrob BOB ACKLEY an GERHARD STRANGAR zum Thema 
> 
> 
> BA> The two major parties do everything they can to shut alternative
> BA> candidates out of elections.
> 
> Isn't offering the choice between Trump and Clinton the best thing they
could
> do to help other candidates?

There are 300 million people in this country and if those two idiots are
the best this country can come up with the country's in serious trouble.
 A choice between Trump and Clinton is not much different than a choice
between Charles Manson and Jeffrey Dahmer.

One reason over half of the American people don't bother to vote is the
caliber of the candidates presented.

> BA> The two major parties also will not allow a "None of these candidates"
> BA> option on the ballots.
> 
> What for? Put your mark in between both candidates and you get counted as
> invalid vote. But that doesn't change anything.
> 
> >> If you don't like the current situation and you choose to do nothing
> BA> about it,
> >> you're lazy or dumb.
> BA> That group would include people who don't register to vote - well over
> BA> half of the eligible population; and of the somewhat less than half
that
> BA> does register only about half actually bother to vote.
> 
> Are trying to say that only 25% of those who are allowed to vote
actually do?

Yeah.  Usually less.  In 2004 more than the usual number of people voted,
and Bush minor and Kerry between them couldn't muster half of the
eligible citizens - something over 105 million votes out of about 220
million eligible to vote.  Bush minor won with slightly less than 60
million votes, or a bit more than 1/4 of those eligible to vote.

> Because the numbers I read are 23.8% of all adults voted for Trump and
23.9% of
> all adults voted for Clinton.

That totals about 48%, which means that 52% didn't vote for both of them.
 
> BA> It's not that the
> BA> people are stupid or lazy, it's that they won't vote for any of the
> BA> candidates presented.
> 
> If half of the population doesn't vote, because they don't like the
candidates,
> why don't they get someone else on the ballot?

Because the two major parties have locked everybody else out of the system.

Even the courts are in on it.  When the Supreme Court invalidated term
limits for crongresscrooks it said that the states could not put
requirements on candidates that were not specified in the Constitution.
If that's true then:
* One doesn't have to pay a filing fee to get on the ballot,
* One doesn't have to get god-only-knows-how-many signatures on a
petition to have one's name on the ballot,
* One doesn't have to belong to an 'approved' political organization to
get on the ballot

Of course, one DOES have to do all three of the above, and the courts
think that's just fine despite that decision.