JoeB131
Diamond Member
You mean 'actually letting people vote"?
Election Reform
- Thread starter P@triot
- Start date
-
- Tags
- election reform elections
You mean 'actually letting people vote"?
candycorn
Diamond Member
The video was helpful in confirming what I thought; in some cases many voters' 2nd choice ends up becoming the winner I think there is something wrong with that myself.
We tend to agree on most things. I’m surprised we don’t agree on this.
I started a thread on this a while back. If you’re interested, I explained the reasons I support this idea here:
CDZ - Ranked Voting
Ranked voting. Why are we not using this? If you don't understand how this works, here's a short video explaining this idea. In my opinion, this simple idea would fix many of the issues in our political system. It simply baffles me why we're not using this. Here are some of the benefits...www.usmessageboard.com
There’s also nice video that breaks down how it works.
- It averages your vote to a degree. Your vote for Jane Doe as you first choice is not as important (potentially) as 2 people voting for another candidate as their 2nd or third choice IF Jane Doe is neither one of them.
- It will increase the "my way or the highway" type of voting. Take 1960 for example--just so we can get the subject matter away from the current temperament. Nixon and Kennedy were probably two of the best men for the job. Change the election year to 1800 if you want; Jefferson and Burr. Two heavyweights to say the least. The message I'm trying to get across is that many who support Nixon or Kennedy or Burr or Jefferson will not rank the obviously well-qualified opponent as their second choice. Some will. But many will not. Like if we had RCV in 2020, would your second choice have been Donald Trump? Doubtful.
- With a "convenient" third party candidate or "safe" alternative to the other major party candidates, you may end up with a Lyndon LaRouche ascending to high office.
- It will all but do away with upset winners based on my analysis in the bullet point above.
- Cagey political parties will seed the field with multiple third party candidates to diffuse true third party candidates. The Alabama Senate race comes to mind. Tommy Tuberville is the actual GOP nominee. But, as a hedge, soft money from the GOP PACs finds it's way into the Sessions campaign. GOP voters are urged to vote for Tuberville first and Sessions 2nd. A true third party candidate doesn't usually get a sniff. This all but guarantees he won't. This is a flip-side of the 3rd bullet point.
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 15,442
- 5,233
- 210
Yeah, Republicans, "just charged," not convicted. Wow, even they couldn't save Trump for ya.Oh, by the way, don’t look now but 4 more were just charged in Hondo, TX...
Four people, including justice of the peace, arrested on 150 counts of voter fraud
HONDO, Texas (WOAI/KABB) An area Justice of the Peace has been arrested and accused of election fraud, along with three other people. Medina County, Texas Justice of the Peace Tomas Ramirez was arrested Feb. 11 after a Bandera Grand Jury indicted him and three others two days prior. Ramirez, a...foxsanantonio.com
XponentialChaos
Diamond Member
- Jul 25, 2018
- 31,859
- 11,574
- 1,285
The video was helpful in confirming what I thought; in some cases many voters' 2nd choice ends up becoming the winner I think there is something wrong with that myself.
We tend to agree on most things. I’m surprised we don’t agree on this.
I started a thread on this a while back. If you’re interested, I explained the reasons I support this idea here:
CDZ - Ranked Voting
Ranked voting. Why are we not using this? If you don't understand how this works, here's a short video explaining this idea. In my opinion, this simple idea would fix many of the issues in our political system. It simply baffles me why we're not using this. Here are some of the benefits...
There’s also nice video that breaks down how it works.
I'm a pass on RCV.
- It averages your vote to a degree. Your vote for Jane Doe as you first choice is not as important (potentially) as 2 people voting for another candidate as their 2nd or third choice IF Jane Doe is neither one of them.
- It will increase the "my way or the highway" type of voting. Take 1960 for example--just so we can get the subject matter away from the current temperament. Nixon and Kennedy were probably two of the best men for the job. Change the election year to 1800 if you want; Jefferson and Burr. Two heavyweights to say the least. The message I'm trying to get across is that many who support Nixon or Kennedy or Burr or Jefferson will not rank the obviously well-qualified opponent as their second choice. Some will. But many will not. Like if we had RCV in 2020, would your second choice have been Donald Trump? Doubtful.
- With a "convenient" third party candidate or "safe" alternative to the other major party candidates, you may end up with a Lyndon LaRouche ascending to high office.
- It will all but do away with upset winners based on my analysis in the bullet point above.
- Cagey political parties will seed the field with multiple third party candidates to diffuse true third party candidates. The Alabama Senate race comes to mind. Tommy Tuberville is the actual GOP nominee. But, as a hedge, soft money from the GOP PACs finds it's way into the Sessions campaign. GOP voters are urged to vote for Tuberville first and Sessions 2nd. A true third party candidate doesn't usually get a sniff. This all but guarantees he won't. This is a flip-side of the 3rd bullet point.
I'm going to focus my response on the Burr/Jefferson thing you brought up.
Jefferson and Burr were the two heavyweights and it seems that your argument is that a less-qualified person other than these two would end up as the winner under the RCV system. I believe that this is flawed and I'll explain why.
If the consensus is that Jefferson and Burr are the two strongest candidates, then I think it should be clear that they would get the majority of the support. Maybe neither above 50% in the 1st place votes, but still the top two. What would happen under RCV is that the candidate with the least amount of 1st place votes (in this case, likely a third party candidate) would be eliminated and have their votes redistributed among the top two heavyweight contenders.
Among the third party voters (people who preferred a 3rd party above both Jefferson and Burr), their second choice would be likely to swing the election in favor of either Jefferson or Burr, giving one of the two heavyweights over 50% and becoming the winner.
Just as an example, it might look like this:
1st round:
Jefferson: 45%
Burr: 42%
3rd Party: 13%
2nd round:
Jefferson: 54%
Burr: 46%
3rd Party: Eliminated
The point here is that the lowest candidate gets eliminated, not the heavyweight.
Of course this is all under the assumption that Jefferson wouldn't win straight-up on the primary votes and that this system would even work in conjunction with our electoral college which is a whole other discussion.
candycorn
Diamond Member
The video was helpful in confirming what I thought; in some cases many voters' 2nd choice ends up becoming the winner I think there is something wrong with that myself.
We tend to agree on most things. I’m surprised we don’t agree on this.
I started a thread on this a while back. If you’re interested, I explained the reasons I support this idea here:
CDZ - Ranked Voting
Ranked voting. Why are we not using this? If you don't understand how this works, here's a short video explaining this idea. In my opinion, this simple idea would fix many of the issues in our political system. It simply baffles me why we're not using this. Here are some of the benefits...
There’s also nice video that breaks down how it works.
I'm a pass on RCV.
- It averages your vote to a degree. Your vote for Jane Doe as you first choice is not as important (potentially) as 2 people voting for another candidate as their 2nd or third choice IF Jane Doe is neither one of them.
- It will increase the "my way or the highway" type of voting. Take 1960 for example--just so we can get the subject matter away from the current temperament. Nixon and Kennedy were probably two of the best men for the job. Change the election year to 1800 if you want; Jefferson and Burr. Two heavyweights to say the least. The message I'm trying to get across is that many who support Nixon or Kennedy or Burr or Jefferson will not rank the obviously well-qualified opponent as their second choice. Some will. But many will not. Like if we had RCV in 2020, would your second choice have been Donald Trump? Doubtful.
- With a "convenient" third party candidate or "safe" alternative to the other major party candidates, you may end up with a Lyndon LaRouche ascending to high office.
- It will all but do away with upset winners based on my analysis in the bullet point above.
- Cagey political parties will seed the field with multiple third party candidates to diffuse true third party candidates. The Alabama Senate race comes to mind. Tommy Tuberville is the actual GOP nominee. But, as a hedge, soft money from the GOP PACs finds it's way into the Sessions campaign. GOP voters are urged to vote for Tuberville first and Sessions 2nd. A true third party candidate doesn't usually get a sniff. This all but guarantees he won't. This is a flip-side of the 3rd bullet point.
I'm going to focus my response on the Burr/Jefferson thing you brought up.
Jefferson and Burr were the two heavyweights and it seems that your argument is that a less-qualified person other than these two would end up as the winner under the RCV system. I believe that this is flawed and I'll explain why.
If the consensus is that Jefferson and Burr are the two strongest candidates, then I think it should be clear that they would get the majority of the support. Maybe neither above 50% in the 1st place votes, but still the top two. What would happen under RCV is that the candidate with the least amount of 1st place votes (in this case, likely a third party candidate) would be eliminated and have their votes redistributed among the top two heavyweight contenders.
Among the third party voters (people who preferred a 3rd party above both Jefferson and Burr), their second choice would be likely to swing the election in favor of either Jefferson or Burr, giving one of the two heavyweights over 50% and becoming the winner.
Just as an example, it might look like this:
1st round:
Jefferson: 45%
Burr: 42%
3rd Party: 13%
2nd round:
Jefferson: 54%
Burr: 46%
3rd Party: Eliminated
The point here is that the lowest candidate gets eliminated, not the heavyweight.
Of course this is all under the assumption that Jefferson wouldn't win straight-up on the primary votes and that this system would even work in conjunction with our electoral college which is a whole other discussion.
If you have only 3 candidates...I can see your point. And currently there isn't much danger we'll have more than that. But if you have the GOP primary coming up for example...lets look at 2012:
All of the votes on the screen are first-choice votes, right?
Except for Paul, you essentially have four flavors of vanilla there (LOL). But it may not always be like that with a certain former incumbent running in an upcoming primary...but this is a good example. Paul got more votes than Santorum and Gingrich combined. But, as you may or may not agree, he was nuts. I doubt Santorum or Gringrich voters had a lot of Paul as their #2 guy. Maybe it was Romney but it may have been Huntsman.
As I understand it, Santorum and Gingrich would be out immediately regardless since they were not in the top 3.
So whoever voted for Santorum or Gingrich would have only their 2nd choice votes counted and distributed between (for the most part) Huntsmann and Romney. Huntsmann would have to get nearly 100% of those to break his way for him to win which would not have happened in 2012. In 2020 with a very polarizing candidate? Who knows. Lets leave alone how the polarizing candidate's mindless supporters would react.
RCV isn't the worst idea ever and I don't even know if you're prescribing it for all elections. I will say that the thought of a lot of people's 2nd choice taking office is anti-democratic in my view. Maybe it's my conditioning, but I'm still a pass on it. If it were instituted tomorrow here though...I wouldn't take to the streets to oppose it.
Whatever system we have...it has to work in all conditions, climates, and plan for every eventuality. In a large field, it seems as though you could have some upset winners and some VERY upset losers.
XponentialChaos
Diamond Member
- Jul 25, 2018
- 31,859
- 11,574
- 1,285
The video was helpful in confirming what I thought; in some cases many voters' 2nd choice ends up becoming the winner I think there is something wrong with that myself.
We tend to agree on most things. I’m surprised we don’t agree on this.
I started a thread on this a while back. If you’re interested, I explained the reasons I support this idea here:
CDZ - Ranked Voting
Ranked voting. Why are we not using this? If you don't understand how this works, here's a short video explaining this idea. In my opinion, this simple idea would fix many of the issues in our political system. It simply baffles me why we're not using this. Here are some of the benefits...
There’s also nice video that breaks down how it works.
I'm a pass on RCV.
- It averages your vote to a degree. Your vote for Jane Doe as you first choice is not as important (potentially) as 2 people voting for another candidate as their 2nd or third choice IF Jane Doe is neither one of them.
- It will increase the "my way or the highway" type of voting. Take 1960 for example--just so we can get the subject matter away from the current temperament. Nixon and Kennedy were probably two of the best men for the job. Change the election year to 1800 if you want; Jefferson and Burr. Two heavyweights to say the least. The message I'm trying to get across is that many who support Nixon or Kennedy or Burr or Jefferson will not rank the obviously well-qualified opponent as their second choice. Some will. But many will not. Like if we had RCV in 2020, would your second choice have been Donald Trump? Doubtful.
- With a "convenient" third party candidate or "safe" alternative to the other major party candidates, you may end up with a Lyndon LaRouche ascending to high office.
- It will all but do away with upset winners based on my analysis in the bullet point above.
- Cagey political parties will seed the field with multiple third party candidates to diffuse true third party candidates. The Alabama Senate race comes to mind. Tommy Tuberville is the actual GOP nominee. But, as a hedge, soft money from the GOP PACs finds it's way into the Sessions campaign. GOP voters are urged to vote for Tuberville first and Sessions 2nd. A true third party candidate doesn't usually get a sniff. This all but guarantees he won't. This is a flip-side of the 3rd bullet point.
I'm going to focus my response on the Burr/Jefferson thing you brought up.
Jefferson and Burr were the two heavyweights and it seems that your argument is that a less-qualified person other than these two would end up as the winner under the RCV system. I believe that this is flawed and I'll explain why.
If the consensus is that Jefferson and Burr are the two strongest candidates, then I think it should be clear that they would get the majority of the support. Maybe neither above 50% in the 1st place votes, but still the top two. What would happen under RCV is that the candidate with the least amount of 1st place votes (in this case, likely a third party candidate) would be eliminated and have their votes redistributed among the top two heavyweight contenders.
Among the third party voters (people who preferred a 3rd party above both Jefferson and Burr), their second choice would be likely to swing the election in favor of either Jefferson or Burr, giving one of the two heavyweights over 50% and becoming the winner.
Just as an example, it might look like this:
1st round:
Jefferson: 45%
Burr: 42%
3rd Party: 13%
2nd round:
Jefferson: 54%
Burr: 46%
3rd Party: Eliminated
The point here is that the lowest candidate gets eliminated, not the heavyweight.
Of course this is all under the assumption that Jefferson wouldn't win straight-up on the primary votes and that this system would even work in conjunction with our electoral college which is a whole other discussion.
If you have only 3 candidates...I can see your point. And currently there isn't much danger we'll have more than that. But if you have the GOP primary coming up for example...lets look at 2012:
View attachment 466307
All of the votes on the screen are first-choice votes, right?
Except for Paul, you essentially have four flavors of vanilla there (LOL). But it may not always be like that with a certain former incumbent running in an upcoming primary...but this is a good example. Paul got more votes than Santorum and Gingrich combined. But, as you may or may not agree, he was nuts. I doubt Santorum or Gringrich voters had a lot of Paul as their #2 guy. Maybe it was Romney but it may have been Huntsman.
As I understand it, Santorum and Gingrich would be out immediately regardless since they were not in the top 3.
So whoever voted for Santorum or Gingrich would have only their 2nd choice votes counted and distributed between (for the most part) Huntsmann and Romney. Huntsmann would have to get nearly 100% of those to break his way for him to win which would not have happened in 2012. In 2020 with a very polarizing candidate? Who knows. Lets leave alone how the polarizing candidate's mindless supporters would react.
RCV isn't the worst idea ever and I don't even know if you're prescribing it for all elections. I will say that the thought of a lot of people's 2nd choice taking office is anti-democratic in my view. Maybe it's my conditioning, but I'm still a pass on it. If it were instituted tomorrow here though...I wouldn't take to the streets to oppose it.
Whatever system we have...it has to work in all conditions, climates, and plan for every eventuality. In a large field, it seems as though you could have some upset winners and some VERY upset losers.
Seems like we agree on how it works but still disagree on how useful it would be. That’s fine.
Of the many reasons I personally love it, is because I think it gives voters a voice to go for who they LIKE rather than having to play defense voting for the lesser of two evils.
Take the Republican primary example you brought up. Suppose you have a Republican voter who loves Santorum and agrees with you that Rand Paul is crazy. They might be inclined to not vote for Santorum and instead choose to vote Romney in order to keep Paul out.
Another example. Suppose you supported the Green Party in 2016 but knew they had no chance of winning so you instead voted for Clinton. You couldn’t risk throwing your vote away so you go with the “safe” option to guard against what you hate.
RCV eliminates all of that. You vote for what you LIKE and you don’t have to worry about throwing your vote away since you aren’t. You can favor your favorite candidate as unlikely as they are and still play defense with the safe pick. It’s the best of both worlds.
And I think that’s part of the problem. We’re all essentially forced to go with the duopoly because it’s currently not possible for any other voices to emerge in our political climate.
That’s my $0.02 anyway. But it’s cool if we disagree on it.
candycorn
Diamond Member
The video was helpful in confirming what I thought; in some cases many voters' 2nd choice ends up becoming the winner I think there is something wrong with that myself.
We tend to agree on most things. I’m surprised we don’t agree on this.
I started a thread on this a while back. If you’re interested, I explained the reasons I support this idea here:
CDZ - Ranked Voting
Ranked voting. Why are we not using this? If you don't understand how this works, here's a short video explaining this idea. In my opinion, this simple idea would fix many of the issues in our political system. It simply baffles me why we're not using this. Here are some of the benefits...
There’s also nice video that breaks down how it works.
I'm a pass on RCV.
- It averages your vote to a degree. Your vote for Jane Doe as you first choice is not as important (potentially) as 2 people voting for another candidate as their 2nd or third choice IF Jane Doe is neither one of them.
- It will increase the "my way or the highway" type of voting. Take 1960 for example--just so we can get the subject matter away from the current temperament. Nixon and Kennedy were probably two of the best men for the job. Change the election year to 1800 if you want; Jefferson and Burr. Two heavyweights to say the least. The message I'm trying to get across is that many who support Nixon or Kennedy or Burr or Jefferson will not rank the obviously well-qualified opponent as their second choice. Some will. But many will not. Like if we had RCV in 2020, would your second choice have been Donald Trump? Doubtful.
- With a "convenient" third party candidate or "safe" alternative to the other major party candidates, you may end up with a Lyndon LaRouche ascending to high office.
- It will all but do away with upset winners based on my analysis in the bullet point above.
- Cagey political parties will seed the field with multiple third party candidates to diffuse true third party candidates. The Alabama Senate race comes to mind. Tommy Tuberville is the actual GOP nominee. But, as a hedge, soft money from the GOP PACs finds it's way into the Sessions campaign. GOP voters are urged to vote for Tuberville first and Sessions 2nd. A true third party candidate doesn't usually get a sniff. This all but guarantees he won't. This is a flip-side of the 3rd bullet point.
I'm going to focus my response on the Burr/Jefferson thing you brought up.
Jefferson and Burr were the two heavyweights and it seems that your argument is that a less-qualified person other than these two would end up as the winner under the RCV system. I believe that this is flawed and I'll explain why.
If the consensus is that Jefferson and Burr are the two strongest candidates, then I think it should be clear that they would get the majority of the support. Maybe neither above 50% in the 1st place votes, but still the top two. What would happen under RCV is that the candidate with the least amount of 1st place votes (in this case, likely a third party candidate) would be eliminated and have their votes redistributed among the top two heavyweight contenders.
Among the third party voters (people who preferred a 3rd party above both Jefferson and Burr), their second choice would be likely to swing the election in favor of either Jefferson or Burr, giving one of the two heavyweights over 50% and becoming the winner.
Just as an example, it might look like this:
1st round:
Jefferson: 45%
Burr: 42%
3rd Party: 13%
2nd round:
Jefferson: 54%
Burr: 46%
3rd Party: Eliminated
The point here is that the lowest candidate gets eliminated, not the heavyweight.
Of course this is all under the assumption that Jefferson wouldn't win straight-up on the primary votes and that this system would even work in conjunction with our electoral college which is a whole other discussion.
If you have only 3 candidates...I can see your point. And currently there isn't much danger we'll have more than that. But if you have the GOP primary coming up for example...lets look at 2012:
View attachment 466307
All of the votes on the screen are first-choice votes, right?
Except for Paul, you essentially have four flavors of vanilla there (LOL). But it may not always be like that with a certain former incumbent running in an upcoming primary...but this is a good example. Paul got more votes than Santorum and Gingrich combined. But, as you may or may not agree, he was nuts. I doubt Santorum or Gringrich voters had a lot of Paul as their #2 guy. Maybe it was Romney but it may have been Huntsman.
As I understand it, Santorum and Gingrich would be out immediately regardless since they were not in the top 3.
So whoever voted for Santorum or Gingrich would have only their 2nd choice votes counted and distributed between (for the most part) Huntsmann and Romney. Huntsmann would have to get nearly 100% of those to break his way for him to win which would not have happened in 2012. In 2020 with a very polarizing candidate? Who knows. Lets leave alone how the polarizing candidate's mindless supporters would react.
RCV isn't the worst idea ever and I don't even know if you're prescribing it for all elections. I will say that the thought of a lot of people's 2nd choice taking office is anti-democratic in my view. Maybe it's my conditioning, but I'm still a pass on it. If it were instituted tomorrow here though...I wouldn't take to the streets to oppose it.
Whatever system we have...it has to work in all conditions, climates, and plan for every eventuality. In a large field, it seems as though you could have some upset winners and some VERY upset losers.
Seems like we agree on how it works but still disagree on how useful it would be. That’s fine.
Of the many reasons I personally love it, is because I think it gives voters a voice to go for who they LIKE rather than having to play defense voting for the lesser of two evils.
Take the Republican primary example you brought up. Suppose you have a Republican voter who loves Santorum and agrees with you that Rand Paul is crazy. They might be inclined to not vote for Santorum and instead choose to vote Romney in order to keep Paul out.
Another example. Suppose you supported the Green Party in 2016 but knew they had no chance of winning so you instead voted for Clinton. You couldn’t risk throwing your vote away so you go with the “safe” option to guard against what you hate.
RCV eliminates all of that. You vote for what you LIKE and you don’t have to worry about throwing your vote away since you aren’t. You can favor your favorite candidate as unlikely as they are and still play defense with the safe pick. It’s the best of both worlds.
And I think that’s part of the problem. We’re all essentially forced to go with the duopoly because it’s currently not possible for any other voices to emerge in our political climate.
That’s my $0.02 anyway. But it’s cool if we disagree on it.
I think you're right...we'll agree to disagree.
I'll just weigh in on the scenario above....
I think elections are where you vote for who you want to represent you. RCV seems to (by both of our scenarios) add a degree of strategy to the casting of a ballot that shouldn't be there...
Chillicothe
Platinum Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 11,182
- 7,139
- 938
The only thing that makes the Fox story linked by poster 'Grumblenuts' is that it focuses on 'Republicans' doing a "Steal".
In the climate and zeitgeist created by Don Trump since May of 2020 it has interest only in the vein of "Man Bites Dog".
Meaning, this minor vote fraud has existed in America for decades, if not generations.
It is minor.
And it is done by both Republicans and Democrats.
And it, no doubt, occurred in 2020 by both sides.
Again.
It is wrong. And needs be found, investigated, and prosecuted.
But that won't stop it completely.
Hell, it hasn't so far.
But most importantly, we need remember, this is .......retail.
Not wholesale.
It has never been wholesale.
It wasn't wholesale in 2020....despite Don Trump's self-interested whining, despite the fringie-elements of his constituency adopting it as a Holy Jihad
Fraud happened.
Was it determinative in any election?
Not according to William Barr.
Not according to the long established processes and election infrastructure of 50 states.
Not according to the narrow determinations of over 60+ courts, and near 100 judges.
Not according to multiple, audits, re-counts, hand counts, and reviews.
It is the 'background' fraud that occurs in every election.
It is 'shop-lifting' at the Dollar Store.
NOT knocking off Fort Knox.
So sayeth, Captain Obvious.
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 15,442
- 5,233
- 210
Actually? It wasn't me who linked it. I quoted and responded to the one who did.
Also, for as long as we continue to allow (encourage?) billionaires to buy up and control vital sectors of our economy, including voting machines which Republicans(?, right wing radicals?) have used to at least try and control elections from their first day of existence, already costing us decades of legal battles and ant-trust actions to beat back at great public expense,.. no! Sorry. Just because Joe Biden clearly won this election despite all of that.. this time.. no! Fuck no! We are not done. Our elections are not secure or sufficiently disconnected from the reach of powerful special interests with well compensated hackers at their disposal. The machines have to go. Period. Hand marked. Hand counted. Paper ballots. All three. Absolutely required. No more excuses. Let's git 'er done!
(Mail ins obviously no problem. Given: one eligible voter per vote checking firmly in place).
Last edited:
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 15,442
- 5,233
- 210
Damned straight, sparky. It handles our main problem, which is nearly always having nothing but a narrow range of horrible candidates to choose from.. because.. least worst selection has been baked in from day one. A republic. Not simply a democracy since the holders of capital, land, slaves ("The Haves") were all about retaining, protecting, and adding to their personal wealth and power.. no one else's.. They, "the Founders" themselves, being a bunch of snooty opportunists and scoundrels for the most part. Precious few you'd really wish to vote "for" given decent variety and half a chance.
Now we've progressed to being allowed to have one black, male President who posed zero actual threat to any white men of means. To the contrary, he just continued doing their bidding for the most part. Safe! Still a bit scary there for quite a while so.. TV Clown for payback! Now safe, boring Biden again.. No women Presidents yet. No! Never!
I hope Harris does assume the title just to scare the piss out of our owners.. Then maybe.. Just perhaps.. The People will finally tire of being owned and controlled by jerkoffs like Jeff Bezos, or like Donald Trump for that matter, and grab their pitchforks. The revolution ain't gonna be pretty but shall remain required nonetheless, imo. It appears that you disagree from your sig and that's fine. I just find never being able to actually vote "for" a "viable" Presidential candidate criminally unjust. None of us "People" are ever truly being represented. None being served but the billionaires in this.. the richest country in the world. Catering to the greediest is killing us all off. Rapidly.
XponentialChaos
Diamond Member
- Jul 25, 2018
- 31,859
- 11,574
- 1,285
In my opinion, the degree of strategy in voting is already there.
Think of the 2016 election. I don’t know about you, but Hillary Clinton sure as hell wasn’t my top choice. Donald Trump certainly wasn’t every Republican’s first choice either. Many of us held our noses and voted for them anyway because we hated the other option more.
Look at what the result to it was. Many Democrats voted Hillary anyway but many Bernie bros just stayed home feeling disenfranchised from the whole situation.
The strategy in voting is already there. Anytime you tell yourself “Well I guess option A is better than B but I’m not crazy about either one”, you’re strategizing. Some of choose to play along with the rules and others just stay home when they don’t like their options. RCV is what eliminates that strategizing element. You can vote for what you LIKE without wasting your vote.
Imagine in 2016 if Bernie bros were allowed to vote Bernie as their top option in RCV. He may or may not win, but you would get more voter turnout and more secondary votes would go to Hillary, potentially flipping the entire election. Similar with Republicans who favored Cruz or Kasich over Trump and chose to stay home.
More voter turnout. Less voter apathy. Less strategizing in my opinion. But it’s fine to agree to disagree.
candycorn
Diamond Member
I would argue that what you're describing with HRC isn't strategy (Harris was my first choice but I voted for Biden in the Primaries and of course Biden/Harris in the general), it's acceptance. Additionally, it would take some structural changes to the voting systems but parties will begin to strategize more as well. I heard a story--not sure how true it was--about the guy running against Graham in SC was actually bucking up the third party candidate as a way of splitting the vote between Graham and that candidate. This was one candidate in one election. Can you imagine th entire RNC or DNC getting behind a 3rd party candidate (via soft money of course)?
InspectorDetector
Platinum Member
- Mar 3, 2021
- 911
- 1,061
- 898
Hmm....Allow mail in ballots universally. Really? With the exception of overseas military service members, is it REALLY that hard to get off your dead ass, go to a polling g place, present your photo ID and cast your ballot?
I know, I know....not everyone can afford a FREE Photo ID. According to liberals, Poor would be excluded from the FREE voter ID....Bull shit. Absolute bull shit, and incredible bull shit.
XponentialChaos
Diamond Member
- Jul 25, 2018
- 31,859
- 11,574
- 1,285
Maybe I misunderstood your point on strategy. Sorry if I did.
Unfortunately, I can’t imagine one of the two parties getting behind a 3rd party candidate. Not with the way our system is set up.
The first person who comes to mind is Howard Schultz. (I know I keep referencing the 2016 election, but it’s still fresh in my mind lol)
I remember that he was considering throwing his hat in the ring for the presidential election as an independent to counter Trump as a sensible business man. He was immediately blasted by Democrats because he would actually pull votes away from Hillary.
I think about this and I think about how fucked up our election process is. When a candidate gets criticized for running because he’s likable and might actually get some support.
candycorn
Diamond Member
I'll 100% agree with your view on Schulz. That he would peel votes away from the Democrats, to me, is crap. Here's an idea...try to appeal to Schulz voters and perhaps they won't leave you.
You'll never see the GOP openly endorse a Libertarian candidate. What you will see--I think anyway-- is soft money being directed to flow to the libertarian candidates. Relative to RCV.... I can see such a slogan...."I may not be your first choice...." on TV and Radio courtesy of a 501-3C "People for American Values" which has the proverbial office in a strip center next to a nail salon and a check cashing place but has hundreds of millions of dollars in cash mysteriously.
That strategy by a political party is all about depriving your main opposition candidate of being the second choice.
Chillicothe
Platinum Member
- Feb 14, 2021
- 11,182
- 7,139
- 938
Well, if 5 states now have ONLY mail-in voting.
And it, evidently, works well......then couldn't that be a model?
Perhaps, THAT tactic would be less expensive, more secure, easier to monitor and manage?
On a personal note: In my opinion, those tactics that allow for MORE Americans to legitimately participate in our elections......is a good thing.
And that is the goal, the North Star, that should guide our American culture, an our election officials.
XponentialChaos
Diamond Member
- Jul 25, 2018
- 31,859
- 11,574
- 1,285
I agree about the GOP not openly backing a libertarian. Looks like we found some common ground after all.
We still disagree obviously but we do have some common ground. Next we’ll have to argue football teams. Just kidding.
Anyway it was nice talking to you.
JoeB131
Diamond Member
Some people can't get off of work.
Some people can't get reliable transportation.
Some people don't have ID.
The government has no problem collecting information by mail when you are paying taxes or sending in Census information. They should have no problem with you voting by mail.
Grumblenuts
Gold Member
- Oct 16, 2017
- 15,442
- 5,233
- 210
Keystone stop: Pennsylvania blocks stricter voter ID
On politics, culture, media, race, world affairs and various emperors' wardrobes
short-sharp-shock.blogspot.com
InspectorDetector
Platinum Member
- Mar 3, 2021
- 911
- 1,061
- 898
Some people can't get off of work.
Some people can't get reliable transportation.
Some people don't have ID.
(1) It is a federal law that your "work" MUST give you time off to vote
(2) Every city in the country has some sort of public transportation
(3) The photo ID would be FREE. No cost to those who can afford cell phones, big screen TVs, etc........
Similar threads
