Will Johnson win the White House?

[OldLady]

I dunno how we're supposed to do it, but somehow or other we've got to have better candidates next time.

We need to change the voting system.

How? What changes?

 

[dblack]

I dunno how we're supposed to do it, but somehow or other we've got to have better candidates next time.

We need to change the voting system.

How? What changes?

This is my favorite (Approval Voting), but there are others. Most any of them would be an improvement on winner-take-all, plurality voting. Most modern democracies dropped our model long ago - or, having the advantage of our bad example - avoided it from the outset.

 

[OldLady]

I dunno how we're supposed to do it, but somehow or other we've got to have better candidates next time.

We need to change the voting system.

How? What changes?

This is my favorite (Approval Voting), but there are others. Most any of them would be an improvement on winner-take-all, plurality voting. Most modern democracies dropped our model long ago - or, having the advantage of our bad example - avoided it from the outset.

My state is considering something similar -- chosing candidates as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. I don't know much about it, but it is in reaction to electing an unpopular governor twice due to three parties on the ballot each time. I think it requires going back and voting more than once. Not sure how that would go over.

 

[dblack]

I dunno how we're supposed to do it, but somehow or other we've got to have better candidates next time.

We need to change the voting system.

How? What changes?

This is my favorite (Approval Voting), but there are others. Most any of them would be an improvement on winner-take-all, plurality voting. Most modern democracies dropped our model long ago - or, having the advantage of our bad example - avoided it from the outset.

My state is considering something similar -- chosing candidates as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. I don't know much about it, but it is in reaction to electing an unpopular governor twice due to three parties on the ballot each time. I think it requires going back and voting more than once. Not sure how that would go over.

Yeah. Rankings systems are appealing, but they tend to get complicated, which is why I favor the approval voting solution. It's really, really simple and would require only trivial changes to our current election process.

 

[flacaltenn]

I dunno how we're supposed to do it, but somehow or other we've got to have better candidates next time.

We need to change the voting system.

How? What changes?

This is my favorite (Approval Voting), but there are others. Most any of them would be an improvement on winner-take-all, plurality voting. Most modern democracies dropped our model long ago - or, having the advantage of our bad example - avoided it from the outset.

My state is considering something similar -- chosing candidates as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. I don't know much about it, but it is in reaction to electing an unpopular governor twice due to three parties on the ballot each time. I think it requires going back and voting more than once. Not sure how that would go over.

Yeah. Rankings systems are appealing, but they tend to get complicated, which is why I favor the approval voting solution. It's really, really simple and would require only trivial changes to our current election process.

All of those system tweaks are SECONDARY to breaking the 2 party stranglehold. If you still cannot put a party ID on the ballot -- what's the sense of an "instant run-off" with 2 lousy choices?

Vote 3rd party to HELP them maintain ballot access -- if you don't really like the other choices anyway..

On a bright note -- Lib Party is starting catch a few state-level Rep/Dems that are tired of being muzzled and controlled from DNC/RNC Headquarters. We've had 2 recently declare in office that they are now members of the Lib Party..

 

[dblack]

We need to change the voting system.

How? What changes?

This is my favorite (Approval Voting), but there are others. Most any of them would be an improvement on winner-take-all, plurality voting. Most modern democracies dropped our model long ago - or, having the advantage of our bad example - avoided it from the outset.

My state is considering something similar -- chosing candidates as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. I don't know much about it, but it is in reaction to electing an unpopular governor twice due to three parties on the ballot each time. I think it requires going back and voting more than once. Not sure how that would go over.

Yeah. Rankings systems are appealing, but they tend to get complicated, which is why I favor the approval voting solution. It's really, really simple and would require only trivial changes to our current election process.

All of those system tweaks are SECONDARY to breaking the 2 party stranglehold.

Maybe. But then, maybe we won't be able to break the stranglehold without first changing the voting mechanism.

 

[william the wie]

We need to change the voting system.

How? What changes?

This is my favorite (Approval Voting), but there are others. Most any of them would be an improvement on winner-take-all, plurality voting. Most modern democracies dropped our model long ago - or, having the advantage of our bad example - avoided it from the outset.

My state is considering something similar -- chosing candidates as 1st, 2nd, 3rd, etc. I don't know much about it, but it is in reaction to electing an unpopular governor twice due to three parties on the ballot each time. I think it requires going back and voting more than once. Not sure how that would go over.

Yeah. Rankings systems are appealing, but they tend to get complicated, which is why I favor the approval voting solution. It's really, really simple and would require only trivial changes to our current election process.

All of those system tweaks are SECONDARY to breaking the 2 party stranglehold. If you still cannot put a party ID on the ballot -- what's the sense of an "instant run-off" with 2 lousy choices?

Vote 3rd party to HELP them maintain ballot access -- if you don't really like the other choices anyway..

On a bright note -- Lib Party is starting catch a few state-level Rep/Dems that are tired of being muzzled and controlled from DNC/RNC Headquarters. We've had 2 recently declare in office that they are now members of the Lib Party..

This election year those numbers will grow rapidly this is the most odious top of the ticket the majors have ever had,.

 

[Kristian]

I dunno how we're supposed to do it, but somehow or other we've got to have better candidates next time.

We need to change the voting system.

How? What changes?

Libertainan vs Republican Party we will.

 

[mamooth]

You know what would really help the libertarians? Publicly funded elections. Most of the western democracies use them to some extent, and their elections are much less of a circus.

Liberals tend to support the idea.

Libertarians tend to hate the idea. Mainly because they don't really want to win. They'd rather sit on the sidelines and bitch, as that requires doing no work, and taking no responsibility for anything.

 

[dblack]

You know what would really help the libertarians? Publicly funded elections. Most of the western democracies use them to some extent, and their elections are much less of a circus.

Liberals tend to support the idea.

Libertarians tend to hate the idea. Mainly because they don't really want to win. They'd rather sit on the sidelines and bitch, as that requires doing no work, and taking no responsibility for anything.

Yeah. That's the main reason. Principles? Who needs 'em?

 

[HenryBHough]

Yes, Johnson COULD win the (former) White House!

But only if Obama raffled it off, since he won't be needing it when He goes into exile in Cuba, AND if He sold only one (1, liberals) ticket. And if Bernie Sanders had government buy it and give it free to Mr. Johnson.

What part of that do you find impossible, if any?

 

[mamooth]

Yeah. That's the main reason. Principles? Who needs 'em?

So sit up in your ivory tower, accomplish nothing, then pat yourself on the back over your lofty principles. While you're preaching, those of us down in the mud will be accomplishing something.

 

[dblack]

Yeah. That's the main reason. Principles? Who needs 'em?

So sit up in your ivory tower, accomplish nothing, then pat yourself on the back over your lofty principles. While you're preaching, those of us down in the mud will be accomplishing something.

:towel:

The reason libertarians don't think publicly funded elections are a good idea is the basic conflict of interest it represents. Whoever has majority control over government has the power, and the incentive, to control who gets 'publicly' funded. Look at what they've done with gerrymandering. You think things would be any different when haggling over who gets publicly funded and by how much?