Is Either Party Considering Nominating a Good Candidate?

[dblack]

They are choosing third party not democrat party but their vote goes to the democrat party you dumbass leftist

Uh. What? If you vote third party your vote doesn't "go" to anyone other than the candidate you vote for. What are you talking about?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Because that's not how it works. With RCV a candidate can't win with 48% of the vote. It doesn't seem like you've read up on it.

No, they win with 51% of the vote. After they've stolen the extra votes based second choice votes.

 

[Dont Taz Me Bro]

They are choosing third party not democrat party but their vote goes to the democrat party you dumbass leftist

Their vote goes to the third party candidate

 

[d0gbreath]

Great thinkers never throw their hat into the ring, nor would they touch the oval office with a 1000 foot pole.

Therefore we elect the lesser of the two evils. It has always been that way.

 

[Harpy Eagle]

Thing is name an independent who votes with the Republicans?

In 2016 when Trump won independents voted 46% for him vice 42% for Hillary.

 

[dblack]

No, they win with 51% of the vote. After they've stolen the extra votes based second choice votes.

Only if every single Green voter chose the Dem as their second place vote (which is by no means a given). And if they did, then that would mean more people preferred the Democrat to the Republican, so the Democrat would win. That's how elections are supposed to work. Would you prefer a scheme where a candidate can win, even if most of the voters don't like them? That's how it works now, but how is that better?

The cool thing, from the third-party voter perspective, is that there is a solid record of how many people preferred the Greens over Democrats, and that WILL have an influence.

I've worked with activist libertarians (big and little "L") for most of my life. And there is a consistent phenomenon where polling suggest that 15-20% of voters support libertarian policies. Yet the election rolls around and we get 1% of the vote. That clearly doesn't reflect reality. With RCV, there's no excuse for libertarian voters to not vote for a libertarian candidate as their first choice, and we would, finally, get an accurate read on how many voters preferred libertarians over Republicans.

Sorry to say, but I think you're just responding to RCV from the perspective of a duopoly partisan looking to protect the status quo. You guys love lesser-of-two-evils because it means you don't need to front a good candidate. All you need to do is demonize the 'other' one. So, you're right in one respect, RCV is a direct threat to the that shitshow. But that's the point.

 

[dblack]

Great thinkers never throw their hat into the ring, nor would they touch the oval office with a 1000 foot pole.

Therefore we elect the lesser of the two evils. It has always been that way.

And it's high time it changed.

 

[d0gbreath]

And it's high time it changed.

I don't see how that could ever happen. We don't have a law that we can use to force great thinkers to run for election.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Only if every single Green voter chose the Dem as their second place vote (which is by no means a given)

That's a good point. I mean, people whose first choice was a Dem will probably pick the Republican as their second choice.

 

[dblack]

That's a good point. I mean, people whose first choice was a Dem will probably pick the Republican as their second choice.

So what is your point exactly? Republicans can currently win elections with a minority of the vote, and you'd like to preserve that?? If that's the argument you're making then I have no respect for your argument, and you're right to be afraid of RCV. You're just the kind of partisan we're trying to undermine.

 

[dblack]

I don't see how that could ever happen. We don't have a law that we can use to force great thinkers to run for election.

Ranked choice voting is bringing sanity back to elections. It's a grassroots effort so far, but we're having success all over the country.

 

[d0gbreath]

Ranked choice voting is bringing sanity back to elections. It's a grassroots effort so far, but we're having success all over the country.

Are y'all writing in candidates that aren't running? If not, it's the same pool of dummies that run in the primaries.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

So what is your point exactly? Republicans can currently win elections with a minority of the vote, and you'd like to preserve that?? If that's the argument you're making then I have no respect for your argument, and you're right to be afraid of RCV. You're just the kind of partisan we're trying to undermine.

My point is that rank choice voting SERVES the two major parties by turning everyone else into AAA farm teams for them. Rank choice voting will eliminate smaller parties identities, and redefine them in terms of the two major parties in the minds of the public.

 

[ozro]

New York, Illinois, California, Colorado, new Mexico among other states have some form of ranked choice voting.
I just don't see how it is working in those places.
Sorry, I'm not for it.

 

[dblack]

My point is that rank choice voting SERVES the two major parties by turning everyone else into AAA farm teams for them.

And you're dead wrong on that. You're clearly just defending your party (or at least you think you are) and don't understand how RCV actually works.

Rank choice voting will eliminate smaller parties identities, and redefine them in terms of the two major parties in the minds of the public.

No it won't. It will give an accurate read on their real support and have no impact whatsoever on the your precious party. Other than taking away the fearmongering and divisive campaigning. Is that the party you're defending?

 

[dblack]

New York, Illinois, California, Colorado, new Mexico among other states have some form of ranked choice voting.
I just don't see how it is working in those places.
Sorry, I'm not for it.

Why not?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

And you're dead wrong on that. You're clearly just defending your party (or at least you think you are) and don't understand how RCV actually works.

No it won't. It will give an accurate read on their real support and have no impact whatsoever on the your precious party. Other than taking away the fearmongering and divisive campaigning. Is that the party you're defending?

Jesus, you're being stupid. I have no party at this point. The Republicans rank lunatics. I want to see real options come back to the landscape. New options. And that is why I oppose this.

The simple fact of the matter is that everyone who champions the cause of rank choice voting, not one of you can actually articulate how in the hell it's supposed to do a damn thing except lump together one candidate's votes into another candidate's votes.

And that's why Democrats have begun pushing for it. They're so butthurt about Jill Stein allegedly being a spoiler who stole the election from Hillary Clinton that they want to eliminate that possibility ever again. Rank choice voting is designed to KILL alternate parties.

 

[ozro]

Why not?

In order to make a change, you have to convince the rest of us. So it is up to you to convince us it IS working.
Not the other way around

 

[dblack]

Jesus, you're being stupid. I have no party at this point. The Republicans rank lunatics. I want to see real options come back to the landscape. New options. And that is why I oppose this.

Again, you clearly don't understand how it works. I don't know who has fed you this crap, but I can only assume it was partisans defending their turf.

The simple fact of the matter is that everyone who champions the cause of rank choice voting, not one of you can actually articulate how in the hell it's supposed to do a damn thing except lump together one candidate's votes into another candidate's votes.

I could, but if you've read the websites promoting it, they do a better job. Have you?

And that's why Democrats have begun pushing for it. haven't. The mainstream party opposes it, just like Republicans.

No, they haven't.

They're so butthurt about Jill Stein allegedly being a spoiler who stole the election from Hillary Clinton that they want to eliminate that possibility ever again.

Ok.

Rank choice voting is designed to KILL alternate parties.

Again, you don't seem to understand it. It's weird too. You're essentially just saying black is white. Why?

 

[dblack]

In order to make a change, you have to convince the rest of us. So it is up to you to convince us it IS working.
Not the other way around

The problem with that is - for most people "is working" equates with "it gets my party elected". 90% of the opposition to RCV is coming from partisans who don't want to give up their two-party, lesser-of-two-evils scam. Both sides think it's a trick by the other get a leg up.

As far as convincing people it's working, that's why we're doing it locally, where people aren't so caught up in the partisan circle jerk and can see the benefits first hand.

But you may be right. Most voters these days are stupid and easily frightened, so it won't be too hard for the major parties to fearmonger RCV the same way the **** everything else up.