1984. First year I was eligible.
Heh, you and VR were eligible to vote before most of the people on this forum were born.
I see, I didn't realise it worked like that - in the UK, there are practically no restrictions on who can stand in an election.
Yep, it's nice to have a system whereby anyone who pays the nomination fees and gets the minimum number of signatures on the nomination papers can run as an Independent candidate. Sometimes they end up winning.
And next year I anticipate yet another litany of excuses from Stephen Harper why he won't let Elizabeth May participate in the televised leaders' debates...
Depending on the state, that is close to how it works here. The key problem is the number of petition signatures or registered party members to qualify, which can easily be over 50,000 in a state and in some cases approaches a half-million. Through a combination of media neglect, exclusion from debates, first-past-the-post, and a lack of prior candidates on the ballot, it is difficult for third party candidates to reach that critical mass to get on the ballot regularly.
Combined with the current state of campaign funding in the US, prospects aren't good.
I like the quotation in your signature, by the way.
From the man in the avvie himself!
My first vote was in 2008. I was going to college in Iowa at the time and I drove there at the beginning of January to caucus for Obama. My precinct ended up giving Obama most of the vote, shutting out Hillary Clinton, and giving Joe Biden more than 1/4 of all the tiny number of Iowa state-level delegates he won (or would have had he stayed in the race). I also voted for him in the general election in November.
That was the first and last year that participating in the political process was any fun for me. I cast an inconsequential ballot in Portland when I lived there in 2010 (all the Democrats won by large margins of course), and another inconsequential ballot in a mostly rural area of central Illinois in 2012 (Obama obviously won the presidential vote; all the other races on the ballot were easily won by Republicans and most were uncontested).
This time I'll probably vote for a weird mix of Greens (mostly write-in), a Libertarian or two (at least I agree with them on civil liberties and social issues), and Democrats wherever it matters or no third parties are on the ballot and no write-ins have registered. It won't have any more significance than any major-party vote.
Open races are always more fun than reelection bids.
I can feel your Portland pain, though. Georgia and Massachusetts aren't exactly swing states, and the greatest impact you can have here is participating in the primary. Does Illinois have open primaries (so you don't have to register) or are they closed?
You have to win a majority of the electoral college. I suppose you could play the numbers and only bother getting on the ballots in enough states that would make that doable, but then you'd have to win in every State you were on the ballot in.
Or cut costs by not contesting a state you have no chance of winning - but I suppose that would be damaging on campaign, since your opponent would rightly say that you weren't standing on behalf of the entire nation.
I think new parties would be cut some slack in this department, but if either of the major parties didn't run a presidential or state-wide candidate it's a story. See the recent stories about the Democrats dropping out of the Alaska gubernatorial race and Kansas senate race, for example. Or when presidential campaigns pull advertising in states, it's typically viewed as a weakness because they don't think they can win or are running out of money.
If the Republicans got out of bed with the loony tunes wing of their party and went back to their economic fundamentals and courted the Latino vote, they could win California by 2022. One of the absurdities of our election system is the biggest State in the union by every single important metric is basically completely ignored when this country elects its President.
I think it's a bit of an unusual period in our country's history that most of the electorally-rich states are safe for one party. Back in the day, the big states like New York, Pennsylvania, Ohio, Illinois, and Michigan were always in play.
Nowadays, our largest five states are California, Texas, New York, Florida, and Illinois, and of those only one is regularly contested (Florida). Pennsylvania, the #6 slot, has also been leaning to one side for quite awhile now.