You know, I had kinda liked the idea of an effective third party candidate jumping into the race. Because, yeah, the forced dichotomy is pretty ridiculous. It would be great to get other people in there who actually have a chance. Other people with different ideas that would let us actually choose what we want.

However, currently, the way the system is set up a third-party candidate would only help one of the two main candidates to lose. For instance, a third-party, tea party candidate would definitely split the republican vote and guarantee Obama a second term. And, that's why I think breaking up the current system and allowing for effective third-party participation could be a good thing.

However, that is what I thought. Yet, after considering it, I think that would be a terrible idea. Lincoln won with 39% of the popular vote. 1.8 million people, out of 31 million (Not sure what the voting age/participating population would be). 1.8 million people decided Lincoln should lead the country. Currently, in presidential elections, under 60% of the voting age population participates. Break that into thirds for a three-party race, and you've got 20% of voting age American's deciding who our next president is. Is it that different from 30-35% deciding? Personally, yeah, I'm more comfortable with a third of the population deciding the president rather than a fifth. Imagine if we had a fourth candidate (such as was the case in the 1860 election)? 15% of people controlling the leadership of the country.

Honestly, the majoritarian model seems kinda messed up to me. The fact that 51% of people in the country get to decide what is best for 100% of us is kinda worrying. And the idea that it could go lower, such as 33%, or even 20% is incredibly concerning.