Prospectively Approved Other: Fill & Download for Free

A better voting system.First off, let's define "serious" more specificially, because obviously, you'll never get a perfect three-way tie. Do recent third-party candidates such as John Anderson (1980), Ross Perot (1992, etc.), and Ralph Nader (2000, etc.) count as "serious"? All of them had millions of voters taking them seriously enough to vote for them, and probably millions more who would have liked to; but none got a single vote in the electoral college. Most critically, for at least the latter two, post-election polls asking "Whom did you vote for?" showed significantly lower support than exit polls. In other words, people who voted for these candidates tended to regret it so much that they (consciously or unconsciously) edited their own memories and reported having voted for one of the frontrunners.I think that kind of regret makes a good definition of "unserious". There have been, and will continue to be, people who mix hope and belief, and in the time leading up to an election choose to think a good, serious person must be a good, serious candidate. But as long as, in the harsh light of the morning after, such people regret that vote and thus, implicitly, that belief, then all that even the most serious third-party candidates will accomplish will be to inoculate the electorate against buying that illusion ever again.And under the current voting system — the distortions of plurality voting in each state, filtered through the further distortions of the electoral college — such regret is inevitable for any third candidate. In game theory terms: if a third party candidate had any meaningful impact on an election outcome, then that outcome cannot have been a strong Nash equilibrium. The third candidate's voters will always have reason to regret their vote and wish they'd supported a frontrunner.But it doesn't have to be that way. Consider the situation under a nationwide approval voting (probably implemented by hacking the electoral college with an interstate compact, akin to the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact). Because approval voting fairly counts ballots that vote for more than one candidate, you can vote for a third candidate without giving up your power to affect the crucial race between the two frontrunners. Studies across many countries consistently show that under approval voting, third (and fourth and fifth) candidates would get many times more votes. That doesn't mean they'd necessarily win, but they'd have a chance to be "serious", to build support over time without constantly being reset to zero through voter regret.Approval voting is only the first step of voting reform; there are many possible further refinements. For instance, "majority approval voting (MAV)" is a system which lets you assign a letter grade to each candidate and then successively tally the A's, then the B's, etc., as if it were approval voting, until some candidate gets a majority; and "Simple Optionally-Delegated Approval (SODA)" is a system where, if you approve of just one candidate, you delegate your voting power to that candidate. That way, if they see that they can't win, they can use your ballot to approve other candidates, in a process designed to ensure that candidates with clear majority support will win in the end.But as long as we have plurality voting, third candidates will only be a source of regret. Even if one or both of the main parties had multiple serious meltdowns to the point where a "third-party" candidate actually won, plurality would still be causing regret for anyone who'd foolishly voted for the melted-down ex-major-party candidate.

Lol - great question! The answer is NO..There is a popular technique in sales, which has been mastered by the auto (sales) industry, called the “higher authority” close. Simply put, the salesperson asks the prospect for a commitment to do business, in return for a price (or other negotiable item) which they already know they can obtain. So while there are times they truly need approval from a manager (kudos to the prospect), most of the time it’s just a technique..For those who want to master it, you tell the prospect, “I would need to get approval on your request. But I hesitate to ask for such a huge concession unless you are certain there are no other obstacles to moving forward. If my manager approves this, are you prepared to move forward immediately? If not, let’s discuss any other obstacles BEFORE i go to my boss with this request, so I don’t get ‘egg on my face’ by getting his approval and then having to tell him you were just curious..”

Hello!Good question!The answer is beats me!It is safe to say that 3 years into Trump’s presidency we have become tragically accustomed to Donald Trump’s pattern of making up fake approval rating numbers for himself. For instance he routinely claims his approval rating within the Republican Party is 95%, but he doesn’t bother to cite any specific poll, and of course no such poll exists. Trump also loves to quote his overall approval rating from the Rasmussen poll, even though it’s widely discredited. Yesterday, Saturday morning, Trump did something different. Here’s what he tweeted:95% Approval Rating in the Republican Party, a record. 53% Approval Rating overall (can we add 7 to 10 percent because of the Trump “thing?”). Thank you!— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) January 11, 2020That’s right, he made up a fake 53% approval rating for himself, and then complained that it’s not higher. But this guy’s definitely included in Trump’s numbers…That’s what we call know-nothingism and general selfish assholishness. And this is Theresa May and Angela Merkel’s reaction when they read Trump’s tweet:“Luk, everyvun, it’s za Trump zing...” 😂 pic.twitter.com/A89UaMZrrY— Jo (@JoJoFromJerz) January 11, 2020To be clear, Trump’s not even quoting Rasmussen this time around, which at last count has him at 48% (legitimate polls all have that number even lower). Donald Trump has now declined to the point where he’s making up fake numbers and then complaining about them.This is the latest FiveThirtyEight poll numbers:53% disapproval and 41% approval rating on average President Trump! Here’s the link: How Popular Is Donald Trump?Furthermore, a poll in November from The Washington Post and their partners at ABC News had Trump’s approval among Republicans at a low for his presidency: 74 percent. Good numbers but far from 95%. Fun fact: considering the dwindling prospects of the Republican Party (only 28% of the electorate), even 100% of them wouldn't be particularly noteworthy. You can find that poll and other interesting numbers here: https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2019/11/01/trumps-approval-with-republicans-is-nowhere-near-where-he-says-it-is/And what the hell is "The Trump Thing." In his twisted, warped mind he believes that he can just tack on 7 to 10 points to his polling for no reason other than that it pleases him. That’s hilarious…Where Trump is getting his numbers from is a mystery. In five polls taken since Trump killed the Iranian general, he has declined in four of them (the fifth was flat). And none get anywhere near 53% (YouGov: 42%, Rasmussen: 48%, MorningConsult: 40%, Reuters: 43%, Ipsos: 41%). So it is safe to say that the words Trump and reality don’t fit in one sentence. Particulary not when it gets in the way of his adoration of himself.So why does he post this balderdash? The most logical explanation would be that Trump desperately needs GOP legislators to think Republican voters overwhelmingly approve of his presidency so those legislators are hesitant to support Trump’s impeachment. But he has their unwaivering support already! Or, and most likely, he’s trying to convince himself that he isn't a total loser. But at the very least he can be secure in the knowledge that the tiny contingent of his ignorant and worshipful cult followers will believe anything he says…