This "Law" assumes there are two distinct parties with two different
   ideologies. There aren't, There are two right wing (traditionalist for
   a start) factions of a one party (American exceptionalist ideology)
   state.
   Besides:
   231,556,622 eligible voters

   46.9% didn't vote
   25.6% voted Clinton
   25.5% voted Trump

   Nobody is president.
   Simple, elegant. A workaround for "Duverger's Law" whoeverthefuck
   Duverger is/was.
   Rr

   On 11/09/2016 01:01 PM, jim bell wrote:
     __________________________________________________________________

   From: Shawn K. Quinn [1]<skquinn@rushpost.com>
   2. As a result of #1, a vote for any candidate who finishes below
   second
   place is effectively the same as voting for the eventual winner. Put
   another way, it robs the second place candidate of the votes needed to
   win.
   This is called "Duverger's Law".  See:
   [2]https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger%27s_law
   "In [3]political science, Duverger's law holds
   that [4]plurality-rule elections (such as [5]first past the post)
   structured within [6]single-member districts tend to favor
   a [7]two-party system and that "the [8]double ballot majority
   systemand [9]proportional representation tend to favor
   multipartism."^[10][1]^[11][2] The discovery of this tendency is
   attributed to [12]Maurice Duverger, a French [13]sociologist who
   observed the effect and recorded it in several papers published in the
   1950s and 1960s. In the course of further research, other [14]political
   scientists began calling the effect a "[15]law" or principle.
   Duverger's law suggests a nexus or synthesis between a [16]party
   system and an electoral system: a [17]proportional representation (PR)
   system creates the electoral conditions necessary to foster party
   development while a plurality system marginalizes many smaller
   political parties, resulting in what is known as a two-party system.
   While a principle of political science, in practice most countries with
   plurality voting have more than two parties. While the United States is
   very much a two-party system, the United Kingdom, Canada and India have
   consistently had multiparty parliaments.^[18][3]^[19][4] Eric Dickson
   and Ken Scheve argue that there is a counter force to Duverger's Law,
   that on the national level a plurality system encourages two parties,
   but in the individual constituencies supermajorities will lead to the
   vote fracturing.^[20][5]
   "So... in Texas, Trump won. That means voting for Gary Johnson was the
   same as voting for Trump. Voting for Jill Stein was the same as voting
   for Trump. Voting for Evan McMullin was the same as voting for Trump.
   If everyone in Texas who had voted just for Gary Johnson had voted for
   Hillary instead, we'd be having an entirely different discussion
   because
   Trump would not have won."
   This development is, in general, very good for Libertarians such as
   myself.  It means that we are going to be consistently influencing
   elections, probably from here on in.  And that means that the two major
   candidates will have to start listening to libertarians.
   >I will say this: at least Jill Stein or Evan McMullin couldn't have
   been
   >any worse than Trump. But the system as it stands now doesn't even
   give
   >them, or others who run outside of the two major parties, a realistic
   >chance to win the presidency. This sucks, but it is what it is.
   My proposed solution is to give each candidate for a Congressional
   office influence in voting, proportionate to the vote totals in the
   election.  If there are three candidates, A, B, and C, with 50%, 45%,
   and 5% of the vote, the minority candidate gets an office elsewhere,
   and can neutralize part of the vote of the majority-vote candidate, if
   he wishes.
   If the majority-vote candidate is voting on something that is
   uncontroversial, agreed with by the minority-vote candidates, his vote
   will get an influence of 100%.  If the minority candidates choose the
   opposite position, the net result will be 50-45-5=0:  There will be no
   net vote from that state.
                        Jim Bell

References

   1. mailto:skquinn@rushpost.com
   2. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law
   3. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_science
   4. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Plurality_voting_system
   5. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_past_the_post
   6. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Single-member_districts
   7. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-party_system
   8. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Two-round_system
   9. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
  10. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law#cite_note-1
  11. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law#cite_note-2
  12. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Maurice_Duverger
  13. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociologist
  14. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Political_scientist
  15. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Law
  16. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Party_system
  17. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Proportional_representation
  18. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law#cite_note-3
  19. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law#cite_note-4
  20. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duverger's_law#cite_note-5