Election Reform and the Spoiler Effect

[AzogtheDefiler]

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

It was about RCV and how you act like a sanctimonious troll when you post. Your entire argument is that the majority of the electorate is stupid. Yet you’re not exactly Duke U material. Are you, Joe?

 

[JoeB131]

It was about RCV and how you act like a sanctimonious troll when you post. Your entire argument is that the majority of the electorate is stupid. Yet you’re not exactly Duke U material. Are you, Joe?

Why would I be. I'm perfectly happy to have graduated from the university I did.

I did it while serving in the National Guard, working two minimum wage jobs, and having to contend with both of my parents going through terminal illnesses...

And I still graduated on time.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Why would I be. I'm perfectly happy to have graduated from the university I did.

I did it while serving in the National Guard, working two minimum wage jobs, and having to contend with both of my parents going through terminal illnesses...

And I still graduated on time.

You missed the pt entirely

 

[JoeB131]

You missed the pt entirely

Not at all.

The problem with "elite" universities is that they are dispensers of privilege.

Shit, Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard, and that guy's a fucking moron.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Not at all.

The problem with "elite" universities is that they are dispensers of privilege.

Shit, Bush graduated from Yale and Harvard, and that guy's a fucking moron.

He was a two term President. My point is the electorate isn’t “stupid”

Selfish? Yes

 

[dblack]

It was about RCV and how you act like a sanctimonious troll when you post. Your entire argument is that the majority of the electorate is stupid. Yet you’re not exactly Duke U material. Are you, Joe?

The only honest argument against RCV is that it undermines the entrenched parties' power to control who gets elected. Too bad.

 

[JoeB131]

He was a two term President. My point is the electorate isn’t “stupid”

Selfish? Yes

Nope, they are pretty stupid....

41% of them think Humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

Stupid.

 

[JoeB131]

The only honest argument against RCV is that it undermines the entrenched parties' power to control who gets elected. Too bad.

Except it doesn't really do that. The only place that is still kind of stuck with RCV is Alaska, where no one but Democrats or Republicans (mostly Republicans) get elected.

The problem isn't the two-party system. It's that in far too much of the country, it's a ONE party system. The primary becomes more important than the general election, even though only a fraction of the electorate participates in primaries.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

Nope, they are pretty stupid....

41% of them think Humans and dinosaurs co-existed.

Stupid.

I do not know one person who thinks that. Not one and I know at least 200 people pretty well. I have about 1k LinkedIn connections. Not one person. That poll is a lie.

No one on this board believes this either.

Got anything else?

 

[dblack]

Except it doesn't really do that.

Sure it does. You've made that point yourself. But honesty isn't exactly your strong suit.

The only place that is still kind of stuck with RCV is Alaska, where no one but Democrats or Republicans (mostly Republicans) get elected.

Yep. The only place that's actually seen it in action voted to keep it.

The problem isn't the two-party system.

Yeah. It really is. Entrenched parties that don't need to offer decent candidates to stay in power. That's what's going on.

 

[JoeB131]

I do not know one person who thinks that. Not one and I know at least 200 people pretty well. I have about 1k LinkedIn connections. Not one person. That poll is a lie.

I was at a company Six Sigma Course... in the middle of it, the instructor started talking about how Carbon 14 dating was inaccurate and humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Two of the attendees were scientists, and they just kind of snickered at it.

Did you ask all 1000 of your LinkedIn friends if humans and Dinosaurs co-existed?

 

[JoeB131]

Sure it does. You've made that point yourself. But honestly isn't exactly your strong suit.

Again, no Third party losers have won through RCV. SO it isn't really hurting the big parties.

Yep. The only place that's actually seen it in action voted to keep it.

Barely, because the Sugar Daddies spent millions propping it up. Next election, it will be gone.

Yeah. It really is. Entrenched parties that don't need to offer decent candidates to stay in power. That's what's going on.

Here's the real reason why parties don't offer decent candidates.

Who'd want to put their families through that? Biden's enemies attacked him through his son and daughter with the fake laptop and fake diary.

Trump isn't the president we need, but he's probably the one we deserve.

 

[dblack]

Again, no Third party losers have won through RCV. SO it isn't really hurting the big parties.

That's not the point, and you know it. It does hurt their ability to control who gets on the ballot, to control the primaries, etc... Which is why they're whining so much. It's why you're whining so much.

Next election, it will be gone.

It's certainly possible. The two-party death spiral has momentum on its side

Trump isn't the president we need, but he's probably the one we deserve.

Agreed. Or, well, he's the President you deserve.

 

[JoeB131]

That's not the point, and you know it. It does hurt their ability to control who gets on the ballot, to control the primaries, etc... Which is why they're whining so much. It's why you're whining so much.

I'm complaining because it undermines party cohesion by splitting the vote when the issue should have been decided in the primaries.

Primaries should be for deciding who is the best candidate.

NOW, if you wanted to make a rule that RCV could only field ONE candidate per party, I'd have no problem with that.

But what we are seeing is a clusterfuck where parties engage in fratricide.

It's certainly possible. The two-party death spiral has momentum on its side

I think it's more like, people don't like the confusion.

 

[dblack]

I'm complaining because it undermines party cohesion by splitting the vote when the issue should have been decided in the primaries.

Primaries should be for deciding who is the best candidate.

NOW, if you wanted to make a rule that RCV could only field ONE candidate per party, I'd have no problem with that.

But what we are seeing is a clusterfuck where parties engage in fratricide.

ie it diminishes the entrenched parties' power to control elections.

I think it's more like, people don't like the confusion.

Which is why you're trying to sew confusion regarding RCV.

 

[AzogtheDefiler]

I was at a company Six Sigma Course... in the middle of it, the instructor started talking about how Carbon 14 dating was inaccurate and humans and dinosaurs co-existed. Two of the attendees were scientists, and they just kind of snickered at it.

Did you ask all 1000 of your LinkedIn friends if humans and Dinosaurs co-existed?

One person. Lmao. I am a Six Sigma Black Belt. Not one of the 200 or so I know well thinks this. Do you know any that do? Outside your anecdotal example?

 

[JoeB131]

ie it diminishes the entrenched parties' power to control elections.

Well, when you can create a credible third party, get back to me.

Which is why you're trying to sew confusion regarding RCV.

Nope, it's a goofy convoluted system. This is why voters are rejecting it all over the country despite the funding of well-heeled sugar daddies.

One person. Lmao. I am a Six Sigma Black Belt.

Sure you are, buddy. Sure you are.

 

[dblack]

Well, when you can create a credible third party, get back to me.

You know damned well that the two party system is set up, deliberately, to squelch third parties. That's why you're here, posting in this thread.

 

[JoeB131]

You know damned well that the two party system is set up, deliberately, to squelch third parties. That's why you're here, posting in this thread.

Well, no, guy, it's more complicated than that.

I think the Electoral College sets up a situation where a two-party system is inevitable. Because even if a third party gained enough electoral votes to keep anyone from a majority, it would only result in the election being tossed into congress.

It started with the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.
Then the Democrats and the Whigs
Then the Democrats and the Republicans.

Even if a party dies, another one quickly rises to take its place.

Third parties fall into two categories of fail.

The first are the fringe movements, like the Libertarians and the Greens. They represent very little of the electorate, and they often let the perfect be the enemy of the good. .

The other are the Short Movements, where an issue comes up that the two main parties aren't addressing.

They only have a life-cycle of one to two elections. The Reform Party was a good example of this, where it did well for one election, a little less the next time and completely vanished. They often have charismatic leaders, but little legs beyond that one guy. Othe examples are John Anderson in 1980, George Wallace in 1968, or Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.

 

[dblack]

It started with the Federalists and Democratic-Republicans.
Then the Democrats and the Whigs
Then the Democrats and the Republicans.

Even if a party dies, another one quickly rises to take its place.

Third parties fall into two categories of fail.

Third parties don't get going at all. And it has nothing to do with merit. It takes a lot of money to overcome the structural hurdles. The last time it happened was with Perot, and after that Ds and Rs tightened everything up to ensure that it didn't happen again.