Election Reform and the Spoiler Effect

[JoeB131]

So let's tally them all up, shall we?

Ranked choice voting initiatives massively fail

Initiatives related to ranked choice voting in political primaries and general elections were on the ballots in eight states and the District of Columbia.

reason.com

Arizona Propositions 133 and 140: The first would amend the constitution to require partisan primaries and the second would amend it to permit the adoption of ranked choice voting in elections: Both were rejected (by 59 percent to 41 percent and 58 percent to 42 percent, respectively). Basically maintaining the state's current semi-closed primary system.

Colorado Proposition 131. Top-four ranked choice voting in primary elections and RCV for both federal and state general elections: rejected by 55 percent to 45 percent.

Idaho Proposition 1. Top-four ranked choice voting in primary elections and RCV for both federal and state general elections: rejected by 69 percent to 31 percent.

Montana Constitutional Amendment 126. Top-four ranked choice voting in primary elections for both federal and state general elections: rejected by 52 percent to 48 percent.

Montana Constitutional Amendment 127. Requires a majority vote to win state and federal general elections: rejected by 61 percent to 39 percent.

Nevada Question 3. Top-five ranked choice voting in primaries and RCV for both federal and state general elections: rejected by 54 percent to 46 percent. Note that a ranked choice voting amendment to the state constitution passed with 53 percent of the vote in 2022. (Amendments must be passed in two successive state general elections.)

Oregon Measure 117. Ranked choice voting in primary and general elections for federal and state executive offices beginning in 2028: rejected by 60 percent to 40 percent.

South Dakota Constitutional Amendment H. Replace partisan primaries with top-two primaries for state and federal elections: rejected by 66 percent to 34 percent.

Washington, D.C. Initiative 83. Semi-open primaries and ranked choice voting for all elections, beginning in 2026: adopted by 73 percent to 27 percent.

Alaska Ballot Measure 2. Repeal top-four ranked choice voting in primaries and general elections: too close to call now but it's 51 percent to 49 percent for repeal. Note that RCV squeaked through in 2020 with 50.55 percent vote in favor.

Missouri Amendment 7. Prohibit ranked choice voting and require plurality primary elections: prohibit wins 69 percent to 32 percent.

 

[dblack]

Guy, it wasn't a positive reform effort.

It was a confusing mess, funded by dark money.

So, answer the question, why was the Billionaire Class so invested in this scheme?

Because they think it's a good cause? Why did they invest so much trying to get Harris elected?

 

[JoeB131]

].

Because they think it's a good cause? Why did they invest so much trying to get Harris elected?

Because they know Trump will be a disaster.

Stop trying to change the subject. Why do you think these rich sugar daddies are trying to shove RCV down the throats of the voter when the voters pretty clearly don't want it.

Despite massively outspending the opposition, RCV failed in NINE states that had it on the ballot.

 

[dblack]

So let's tally them all up, shall we?

Yes. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have an army of partisan drones like you - who regurgitate fear mongering lies to smear any attempt at reform that threatens their dominance. There's no need to tally your "success".

But you're wrong. You're supporting a corrupt duopoly that dictates who we can vote for. And does a really shitty job of it.

Enjoy your President Trump. You deserve him.

 

[dblack]

Because they know Trump will be a disaster.

Yep. And they know that the two party system IS a disaster. Outside your partisan bubble, we all know that.

Stop trying to change the subject. Why do you think these rich sugar daddies are trying to shove RCV down the throats of the voter when the voters pretty clearly don't want it.

You're the one harping about "deep money". By your reasoning there's nothing more corrupt than the Democrats. I agree, but it's not because they have the most rich people supporting them.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes. Both the Democrats and the Republicans have an army of partisan drones like you - who regurgitate fear mongering lies to smear any attempt at reform that threatens their dominance. There's no need to tally your "success".

Or it was just a bad idea that no one liked.

You rolled it out, the few places that had it, it didn't work well.

You're the one harping about "deep money". By your reasoning there's nothing more corrupt than the Democrats. I agree, but it's not because they have the most rich people supporting them.

Like most third party twatnoodles, you seem to have an inflated sense of your own importance.

 

[dblack]

Or it was just a bad idea that no one liked.

The DNC and the Republican leadership certainly don't like it. Because it undermines their stranglehold on our elections. In Colorado it was polling quite well before Dems fired up the fear mongering. They used all the same misinformation you've been copying and pasting. (it's confusing! It's a conspiracy by the deep state!, etc...)

The duopoly is a blight, and it's taking the US down. Maybe that's your intent.

 

[JoeB131]

The DNC and the Republican leadership certainly don't like it. Because it undermines their stranglehold on our elections. In Colorado it was polling quite well before Dems fired up the fear mongering.

Guy, try to be intellectually honest.

Spending in favor of Prop 131 was 14 Million, six million of which came from Ken Thiry

Spending against Prop 131 was

$359,549.49

The Monied interest had a 38-1 spending advantage, and STILL Lost.

 

[dblack]

Guy, try to be intellectually honest.

LOL - sure man. Are you laughing when you type that? You'er probably the most intellectually dishonest poster on the board. Everything you post is some kind of game or straight up propaganda.

Spending in favor of Prop 131 was 14 Million, six million of which came from Ken Thiry

So what? How much did George Soros spend on Harris? Or any of the other billionaires funding her election? Your hypocrisy is stanky. Light a match or something.

Let's summarize your complaints about RCV:

• It's confusing. Rank the candidates from first to last. Damn that is a puzzler. You'd be sitting there for hours just trying to figure it out.
• It's a conspiracy by the deep state. Rich people are trying to trick us!
• It'll mess with the primary process. This last one is your only honest objection. And you're right, at least for the proposal in Colorado. The state won't be running your primaries for you. Too bad. You can still run them if you like, there's certainly nothing preventing that. But the official ballot won't be decided by the Ds and Rs. That intentional. You guys are doing it wrong.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL - sure man. Are you laughing when you type that? You'er probably the most intellectually dishonest poster on the board. Everything you type is some kind of game straight up propaganda.

I answer straighforward questions, something you seem unable to do in your child-like fashion.

So what? How much did George Soros spend on Harris? Or any of the other billionaires funding her election? Your hypocrisy is stanky. Light a match or something.

Why do you keep trying to change the subject. Billionaires funded both Harris and Trump, and unfortunately, campaign finance reforms have been largely gutted by SCOTUS

It didn't answer the question, though, how can Thiry outspend the anti-RCV folks 38-1 and STILL Lose if it was such a nifty idea?

Let's summarize your complaints about RCV.

• It's confusing. Rank the candidates from first to last. Damn that's a puzzler. You'd be sitting there for hours just trying to figure it out.

If I am trying to figure out 10 - 15 races, um, yeah.

This year, I had to vote for:

President
Congress
State Senate
State Rep
County State's attorney
County Board President
County Sheriff
Clerk of the Circuit Court
Water Reclamation District (3 positions)
16 Judge positions (1 Supreme, 3 appellate, 12 circuit

I'm really going to spend 20-30 minutes ranking all these fools?

It's a conspiracy by the deep state. Rich people are trying to trick us!

Didn't say anything about a "Deep State". I did say something about dark Money, which is money that we can't track where it's coming from.

It'll mess with the primary process. This last one is your only honest objection. And you're right, at least for the proposal in Colorado. The state won't be running your primaries for you. Too bad. You can still run them if you like, there's certainly nothing preventing that. But the official ballot won't be decided by the Ds and Rs. That intentional. You guys are doing it wrong.

Or we are doing it right. The value of a partisan primary should be for the party faithful to define itself and what it stands for.

Let's take the Reform Party. Instead of having actual primaries, it was whoever could hijack the bag of money.

Perot self-funded first time out.
Grabbed a bag of money the second time.
2000 - Pat Buchanan grabbed the bag of money, (much smaller this time) even though he wasn't anywhere near what Perot believed.
2004- Ralph Nader grabbed the money that was left, because the Greens didn't want to get blamed for electing Bush again.

When your process is a free-for-all, you have no idealogical moorings.

 

[dblack]

I answer straighforward questions, something you seem unable to do in your child-like fashion.

Hah.. Really? I've read a fair number of your posts, and I've never seen you do "straightforward". You're basical Fakey redux. Hell, maybe you're his sock.

Why do you keep trying to change the subject. Billionaires funded both Harris and Trump, and unfortunately, campaign finance reforms have been largely gutted by SCOTUS

The subject is the need for reform of our electoral process, specifically with regard to the spoiler effect. The current system props up two divisive parties, parties that have us at each other's throats unnecessarily. You don't want that to change. You suck. Why do you have to suck?

It didn't answer the question, though, how can Thiry outspend the anti-RCV folks 38-1 and STILL Lose if it was such a nifty idea?

Because most people are Democrats and Republicans and the actually believe their party leaders. Even when they're being lied to.

Didn't say anything about a "Deep State". I did say something about dark Money, which is money that we can't track where it's coming from.

Oh yes "Dark Money" - the Democrat's version of the Deep State. It's a conspeeeracy!!!

Or we are doing it right.

No. You're not. Harris vs Trump - that's a sick joke. And it's the best your two-party system can come up with. Pathetic.

The value of a partisan primary should be for the party faithful to define itself and what it stands for.

You can still do that. None of the reforms block it. You just don't decide who gets to be on the ballot. Sorry, not sorry.

 

[JoeB131]

Hah.. Really? I've read a fair number of your posts, and I've never seen you do "straightforward". You're basical Fakey redux. Hell, maybe you're his sock.

Really? Seems to me that I directly answer questions, unlike you.

The subject is the need for reform of our electoral process, specifically with regard to the spoiler effect. The current system props up two divisive parties, parties that have us at each other's throats unnecessarily. You don't want that to change. You suck. Why do you have to suck?

Third parties aren't going to fix that problem. Every third party movement in the last 100 years have been loons and fringe characters.

Because most people are Democrats and Republicans and the actually believe their party leaders. Even when they're being lied to.

Or... people just realize that RCV is a clusterfuck. Oh, I noticed you avoided the point of why RCV would be a clusterfuck if you are voting for 20-30 open offices.

Oh yes "Dark Money" - the Democrat's version of the Deep State. It's a conspeeeracy!!!

Well, no, thanks to idiotic decisions like Citizen's United, Dark money is flooding our elections. You see, after Watergate, they put an upward limit on individual donations so that rich people couldn't buy themselves a candidate. But that has been undermined by decades of PACs,

It used to be you had conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans that kept the system in balance. You voted for the person as much as the party.

No. You're not. Harris vs Trump - that's a sick joke. And it's the best your two-party system can come up with. Pathetic.

Harris was perfectly fine. She had a proven record.
If this country wasn't so racist and misogynistic, she'd have won, easily.

You can still do that. None of the reforms block it. You just don't decide who gets to be on the ballot. Sorry, not sorry.

Sure we do. If you are running as a Democrat or a Republican, the party decides if you represent us. That's how it should work.

The problem with you Libertarian Children is that you think it should be handed to you, even though you haven't earned it. Show us you can do a good job in some low-level position, then you can talk about the bigger offices.

 

[dblack]

Really? Seems to me that I directly answer questions, unlike you.



Third parties aren't going to fix that problem. Every third party movement in the last 100 years have been loons and fringe characters.



Or... people just realize that RCV is a clusterfuck. Oh, I noticed you avoided the point of why RCV would be a clusterfuck if you are voting for 20-30 open offices.



Well, no, thanks to idiotic decisions like Citizen's United, Dark money is flooding our elections. You see, after Watergate, they put an upward limit on individual donations so that rich people couldn't buy themselves a candidate. But that has been undermined by decades of PACs,

It used to be you had conservative Democrats and liberal Republicans that kept the system in balance. You voted for the person as much as the party.



Harris was perfectly fine. She had a proven record.
If this country wasn't so racist and misogynistic, she'd have won, easily.


Sure we do. If you are running as a Democrat or a Republican, the party decides if you represent us. That's how it should work.

The problem with you Libertarian Children is that you think it should be handed to you, even though you haven't earned it. Show us you can do a good job in some low-level position, then you can talk about the bigger offices.

You're just repeating yourself now. I've debunked all this horseshit already.

 

[JoeB131]

You're just repeating yourself now. I've debunked all this horseshit already.

Avoidance isn't debunking.

You still haven't explained to me how we are going to rank choice vote thirty races in a timely manner.

Or why someone who loses a primary deserves to still be on a ballot.

Or why the Ultra-Rich are pumping money into states they don't live in to prop this shit up.

 

[dblack]

Avoidance isn't debunking.

You still haven't explained to me how we are going to rank choice vote thirty races in a timely manner.

Or why someone who loses a primary deserves to still be on a ballot.

Or why the Ultra-Rich are pumping money into states they don't live in to prop this shit up.

Take your trolling elsewhere. And don't worry, your precious two parties are still firmly in control. And doing a wonderful job!

 

[JoeB131]

Take your trolling elsewhere. And don't worry, your precious two parties are still firmly in control. And doing a wonderful job!

I'm sure better than the libertarian children and their magical thinking.

But you still haven't answered why voters rejected a confusing system, despite tons of dark money propping the idea up.

Maybe they know a turkey when they see one.

 

[dblack]

Alaska Ballot Measure 2. Repeal top-four ranked choice voting in primaries and general elections: too close to call now but it's 51 percent to 49 percent for repeal. Note that RCV squeaked through in 2020 with 50.55 percent vote in favor.

Alaska came through, and voted to keep RCV, so it's not all doom and gloom.

 

[JoeB131]

Alaska came through, and voted to keep RCV, so it's not all doom and gloom.

Well not quite. Last thing I got was that "No" was leading by 192 votes with 7800 votes to count.

Again, given that the RCV Sugar Daddies spent millions, this shouldn't be a surprise.

We'll get rid of it next time, probably after Alaskans have another confusing election.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

JoeB131

Harris only lost because the country is racist and hates women. You truly are a pathetic troll.

You lost another debate. dblack smashed you despite his overt TDS.

 

[JoeB131]

JoeB131

Harris only lost because the country is racist and hates women. You truly are a pathetic troll.

You lost another debate. dblack smashed you despite his overt TDS.

Not hardly. I don't even think you understood what the argument was about, Kobold.