- Joined
- Jan 31, 2013
- Messages
- 30,715
- Reaction score
- 22,319
- Location
- Georgia
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Other
It means nothing, there was 32 other candidates and all that made up 6% ,like I said it means nothing. Simply go back and look at votes through the years for alternative candidates . It will show you that 6% means nothing, what can I say.
Johnson received 3.28% in 2016 vs.0.99% in 2012, the leading third party vote getter.
Stein received 1.07% in 2016 vs. 0.36% in 2012
Mullen received 0.54% in 2016 didn't run in 2012
Those three candidates received 4.88% of the vote in 2016 compared to just 1.35% in 2012. a three fold increase.
Those vote totals may mean nothing to you. But since Perot's last run in 1996, third party candidate in total averaged less than 1.5% of the total vote from 2000 thru 2012.
The question is, did those extra 4.5% above the norm 1.5% who decided not to vote for either of the major two party candidates because of the dislike factor of both in their minds, make a difference in the results of the 2016 election. What if the normal amount 1.5% voted third party instead of 6%, would Trump have won Wisconsin, Michigan, Pennsylvania and Florida? What if those extra 4.5% of the total electorate chose between the two major party candidates, would the results have been different in those four states? We don't know. But the possibility is there.
Trump won Michigan by 0.23%. 5.23% voted third party vs. 1.08% in 2012. The extra 4.15% of voters in that state who voted third party above the normal amount could have easily made up the 0.23 difference Clinton lost by if they had chosen between the two major party candidates. Same for the other 3 states I mentioned.