How do we get 155 million people to stop voting for the ‘duopoly’ / ‘uniparty’?

[Dadoalex]

The problem is we aren't a parliamentary style system, where ranked choice voting would work.

Our Legislatures aren't designed for coalition forming because there is no way constitutionally to call for early elections.

????

The GOP and DEM parties ARE COALITONS

If we eliminate partisan elections and implement ranked choice it would do much to eliminate the party's influence.

To spare you the indignity of considering a place like Rednecksville, Texabama, let's consider Libosville, Califork.

A place with an 80% "not conservative" voter base.
Now take 10 candidates.
That electorate will have to
A. take the time and effort to learn the candidates and their positions; or
B. Vote solely based on name, inferred gender, inferred race...

Few but the most dedicated will bother to learn of all the candidates and their positions as well as the important issues
A larger portion will vote based on familiarity with the name
MOST will simply take a shot

In that case and with ranked voting fewer libs and more moderates/conservatives will be elected in Libosville.

Of course the same is true in Rednecksville so don't get yourself a partisan boner.

 

[martybegan]

????

The GOP and DEM parties ARE COALITONS

If we eliminate partisan elections and implement ranked choice it would do much to eliminate the party's influence.

To spare you the indignity of considering a place like Rednecksville, Texabama, let's consider Libosville, Califork.

A place with an 80% "not conservative" voter base.
Now take 10 candidates.
That electorate will have to
A. take the time and effort to learn the candidates and their positions; or
B. Vote solely based on name, inferred gender, inferred race...

Few but the most dedicated will bother to learn of all the candidates and their positions as well as the important issues
A larger portion will vote based on familiarity with the name
MOST will simply take a shot

In that case and with ranked voting fewer libs and more moderates/conservatives will be elected in Libosville.

Of course the same is true in Rednecksville so don't get yourself a partisan boner.

But in the end they are parties, and vote for their leadership as parties. Now you will have 20 actual parties that would probably spend the 2 years of a congress trying to figure out who gets to be speaker.

I know how ranked choice works, and you can't stop someone from saying what party they are part of without violating the 1st amendment.

 

[Dadoalex]

1.OK
2. Constitutional issue, right to speech and association.
3. That's idiotic.

2. There have been nonpartisan elections in this country since its founding
3. You would know but tell us why prohibiting the spending of a billion dollars on advertising when the option is to appear on radio and TV programs to be questioned by reporters on policy issues. After all, can not mist of the corruption and incompetence in politics be traced back to funding?

 

[Dadoalex]

But in the end they are parties, and vote for their leadership as parties. Now you will have 20 actual parties that would probably spend the 2 years of a congress trying to figure out who gets to be speaker.

I know how ranked choice works, and you can't stop someone from saying what party they are part of without violating the 1st amendment.

You mean as opposed to what's been going on in the House the last 16 months?

You can call yourself a Democrat all day long and twice on Sunday.
BUT
The government does not have to put that fact on the ballot.

IF your voters don't know your party affiliation that's because you're not a good enough candidate to educate them.

 

[martybegan]

2. There have been nonpartisan elections in this country since its founding
3. You would know but tell us why prohibiting the spending of a billion dollars on advertising when the option is to appear on radio and TV programs to be questioned by reporters on policy issues. After all, can not mist of the corruption and incompetence in politics be traced back to funding?

Non partisan as the candidates are listed in one group in the primary, then the top two get to run off.

Not where you can't say you are a Dem or a Republican or a grapefruit.

Because again, constitutional issues. How would people know who is even running?

Just wait until they get to the ballot?

 

[d0gbreath]

We’ve heard it here a thousand times…..”stop voting for the duopoly”….“the parties are one and the same”….”there is no difference between the two parties”….etc etc
(Most don’t agree with that at all, most see at least one major difference between the parties.)
I’m sane enough to know that if I stop voting for the dupoly the duopoly will still win….That said, how can I be assured that my effort of ‘not voting’ will eventually pay off as others join in on the Don’t Vote coalition to prevent the duopoly from winning?
I don’t see any number of sane people ever being willing to take the chance. The only way this would work is if all 155 million stopped voting for the duopoly at the exact same time… How do we make that happen….are we just fantasizing?

Have you tried asking nicely?

 

[martybegan]

You mean as opposed to what's been going on in the House the last 16 months?

You can call yourself a Democrat all day long and twice on Sunday.
BUT
The government does not have to put that fact on the ballot.

IF your voters don't know your party affiliation that's because you're not a good enough candidate to educate them.

What you would get with your system would be far worse.

That's the government restricting speech. it's a no go without and amendment.

And how would you educate them when you would ban advertising as well?

Sorry, people don't all walk to ye olde village square every day anymore.

 

[Dadoalex]

1 and 3 are good. 2, not so much. If someone doesn't know a candidate's party do you really think they'll know the issues?

If all they know is DEM or GOP are they voting on the issues?

We've had non-partisan elections in this country since its founding.
MOST judicial elections are non-partisan.
Why?
Because we want our judges to act based on the law and facts, not political advantage.
Why would we want less from our other elected officials?

 

[Harpy Eagle]

How do we get 155 million people to stop voting for the ‘duopoly’ / ‘uniparty’?​

You don't.

The majority of people in this country are getting just what they want, large overbearing Govt, massive spending and less freedom.

This is what 155 million people voted for in the last election and they got it.

They are getting what they want, why would they change their voting?

 

[alang1216]

you might end up with 20 parties all hating each other and no way to form a majority to organize the chamber.

We would have an executive without a functioning legislative body for up to two years.

And how is that different from what we have now?

 

[alang1216]

If all they know is DEM or GOP are they voting on the issues?

We've had non-partisan elections in this country since its founding.
MOST judicial elections are non-partisan.
Why?
Because we want our judges to act based on the law and facts, not political advantage.
Why would we want less from our other elected officials?

You're expecting a lot from the electorate, something we have not demonstrated in the past.

 

[martybegan]

And how is that different from what we have now?

it would be worse, because you might not even be able to get a speaker from the start. Thus no committees, no committee chairs, and none of the other positions needed to run the house.

Same thing with the Senate.

 

[ColonelAngus]

A true libertarian should be able to answer this question.

We have none on this board.

 

[struth]

We’ve heard it here a thousand times…..”stop voting for the duopoly”….“the parties are one and the same”….”there is no difference between the two parties”….etc etc
(Most don’t agree with that at all, most see at least one major difference between the parties.)
I’m sane enough to know that if I stop voting for the dupoly the duopoly will still win….That said, how can I be assured that my effort of ‘not voting’ will eventually pay off as others join in on the Don’t Vote coalition to prevent the duopoly from winning?
I don’t see any number of sane people ever being willing to take the chance. The only way this would work is if all 155 million stopped voting for the duopoly at the exact same time… How do we make that happen….are we just fantasizing?

There is a difference between the two parties

 

[Dadoalex]

Non partisan as the candidates are listed in one group in the primary, then the top two get to run off.

Not where you can't say you are a Dem or a Republican or a grapefruit.

Because again, constitutional issues. How would people know who is even running?

Just wait until they get to the ballot?

What the actual fuck?
Primaries are EXCLUSIELY partisan events. DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

GENERAL election candidates should not have party labels on the ballot.

The appearance of a party label on a ballot is equivalent to ELECTIONEERING which is illegal in most states within 50ft of the polling place.

GWAOD...The same ignorant voters don't know now. All they do is vote DEM OR REP. BUT
In a race where 50% of the voters are ignorant and there's no party IDs on the ballot you reduced the influence of political parties by 50%. OR Those ignorant voters could educate themselves and vote based on their education in which case you've again reduced the influence of the parties.

?????

 

[martybegan]

What the actual fuck?
Primaries are EXCLUSIELY partisan events. DEMOCRATIC PRIMARY, REPUBLICAN PRIMARY

GENERAL election candidates should not have party labels on the ballot.

The appearance of a party label on a ballot is equivalent to ELECTIONEERING which is illegal in most states within 50ft of the polling place.

GWAOD...The same ignorant voters don't know now. All they do is vote DEM OR REP. BUT
In a race where 50% of the voters are ignorant and there's no party IDs on the ballot you reduced the influence of political parties by 50%. OR Those ignorant voters could educate themselves and vote based on their education in which case you've again reduced the influence of the parties.

?????

You ever hear of a non partisan primary?

Nonpartisan blanket primary - Wikipedia

Louisiana primary - Wikipedia



No it isn't, it's a sign of the right to free association.

 

[Dadoalex]

What you would get with your system would be far worse.

That's the government restricting speech. it's a no go without and amendment.

And how would you educate them when you would ban advertising as well?

Sorry, people don't all walk to ye olde village square every day anymore.

At times.
But it would be because of IDEAS rather than party influence.

repeating the same bit of ignorance doesn't make it less ignorant. There've be non-partisan elections in this country since its founding. There is no requirement in the Constitution for political parties much lass that political party affiliation be announced on the ballot.

How were they educated before spending a billion dollars on advertising for a single office? Meet the Press? Local radio and TV?

 

[Dadoalex]

You're expecting a lot from the electorate, something we have not demonstrated in the past.

When has anything beyond the minimum ever been asked of the electorate.
That is the nature of political parties.
They replace actual policies with slogans.
No need to think, to learn, to educate, just come up with a catchy slogan.

 

[dblack]

You’re never going to convince enough people to vote against the duopoly. We’re too far gone.

The only way to break up the duopoly is to change the system itself. A implementation of ranked-choice voting fixes this issue instantly.

But the partisans have already convinced their drones that RCV is a "trick" by the other side.

 

[dblack]

There is a difference between the two parties

Yes. They suck different.