Is it time for a legitimate third party?

[LibertyKid]

As we can see below, Transphobia is your only motivation. Like all bigots, you try to rationalize it, but you really can't.

As we can see, you mischaracterizing people, whom you don't know, is all you have. We can discuss third parties as you proposed earlier.

 

[JoeB131]

And that's the part of the problem.

No, it's not a problem at all. The reason why you guys think it's a problem is that you don't respect policy and governance as legitimate professions. You think Joe the Plumber is just a valid expert on government as someone who has worked for the EPA for 30 years. That's how you get Trump saying that windmills are killing the whales, and this is taken seriously by... anyone.

That goes for any president and his staff

And that would normally be fine, except you get a guy like Trump who thinks he knows more about War than the Generals and more about disease than the Doctors. Dr Fauci has been around since the Reagan years. The reason why other diseases weren't the cluster that Covid was that those presidents had the good sense to respect his expertise.

And there is nothing wrong with that. Shouldn't we see cyclical turnaround of politicians coming out of local and state, then maybe if elected going to washington, then after a set time, if they are elected, come back to the local gov't? Too many career politicians who are imbedded deep into the D.C. who love the "lifestyle" and will say and do anything to maintain that lifestyle.

Again, we have career change opportunities. They are called "elections". The fact that 96% of incumbents are returned to office is because the people who vote for them think they are doing a good job.

Regarding RCV, the concern I see (and I'm just now educating myself on this) is a lack of choices (currently) which is due to the amount of money one needs to have upfront to campaign and have a legit voice. Plus, the media would have to be absolutely fair and unbiased so they would give all choices a voice to be heard.

yes, running campaigns are expensive. But they also show a level of commitment. If that many people are opening their wallets for a candidate, it usually means he or she is pretty good. The problem in recent years is that the sensible campaign limits that were put into place after Watergate to keep rich people from having too much influence have been slowly eroded.

if the Media was fair and unbiased, they would have called Trump out for his insanity years ago. Instead, they try to be "fair" and we have a guy who is in clear mental decline who has a pretty good chance of getting elected again despite his last term being a ******* disaster.

 

[JoeB131]

As we can see, you mischaracterizing people, whom you don't know, is all you have. We can discuss third parties as you proposed earlier.

I think I can tell who you are by your transphobic posts. You spend a lot of time worrying about people you almost never encounter and aren't bothering you.

 

[dblack]

Yes, that's the point. They get involved. That's why they get a bigger say.

The problem with "Ranked Choice Voting" is that's how Eric Adams got in, even though only 30% of the mere 800K who voted in the primary wanted him. It took 8 rounds to get him over 50%, that's how few people wanted him as their second, third, fourth, fifth, sixth choice. And look how wonderful he turned out!

LOL - yes, yes. The Republicans have little stories like this too. RCV is why Sarah Palin lost, doncha know. Not because she's a divisive *****. But because RCV is a trick by the "other side".

The fact that both of the entrenched shit parties are against RCV - and for same debunked reasons - is telling.

Harris vs Trump? It's ******* embarrassing.

Fortunately, RCV is happening, whether the two-party goons want it or not. Your insane Punch and Judy show is coming to an end. Whether it ends by reform, or whether it goes down in flames with the whole country, is the only remaining question.

 

[GMCGeneral]

are you assuming a "centrist " rhird party?

i'd expect we really need a party to the left of democrats , maybe a bull moose style progressive party?:

Nahh we got that now as the DemocRAT party is full blown Marxist just like you want it. We need to ensure a more Conservative government to keep you animals on a tight leash.

 

[LibertyKid]

I think I can tell who you are by your transphobic posts. You spend a lot of time worrying about people you almost never encounter and aren't bothering you.

Again, you have no clue how close I am to the issue. Stop ASSuming little man.

 

[JoeB131]

LOL - yes, yes. The Republicans have little stories like this too. RCV is why Sarah Palin lost, doncha know. Not because she's a divisive *****. But because RCV is a trick by the "other side".

The fact that both of the entrenched shit parties are against RCV - and for same debunked reasons - is telling.

They are against it because it's confusing and because no one really gives much thought to their second or third choice. A MUCH better system would be to have runoff elections of the top two if no one got 50%.

The fact that it took 8 rounds of ballot eliminating before the guy who only got 30% of the vote won, and he turned out to be a complete ******* disaster.


Sarah Palin lost because she spent the last few years clowning herself, but she actually was governor and had a following.

Harris vs Trump? It's ******* embarrassing.

No, Trump is embarrassing, but he's the result of a culture that mistakes celebrity for merit.

Harris is just fine. If she loses, that's a problem with us as a country that we don't take this process seriously enough.

Fortunately, RCV is happening, whether the two-party goons want it or not. Your insane Punch and Judy show is coming to an end. Whether it ends by reform, or whether it goes down in flames with the whole country, is the only remaining question.

Actually, it's way too confusing, and it's only a matter of time before voters demand we go back to the old system.

That said, I would have no problem.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, you have no clue how close I am to the issue. Stop ASSuming little man.

I doubt if you had trans people in your life, you'd be this much of an asshole.

 

[dblack]

Actually, it's way too confusing, and it's only a matter of time before voters demand we go back to the old system.

Again, the same line we get from Republicans. You all are in lock step once again. Imagine that.

 

[JoeB131]

Again, the same line we get from Republicans. You all are in lock step once again. Imagine that.

You miss the point.

If we had ranked choice ballots, most of us wouldn't give a lot of thought to our third choice. We go in with our first choice and that's it.

So you get a situation like NYC, where 70% didn't want Eric Adams, and it took 8 rounds to get him above 50%.

 

[LibertyKid]

No, it's not a problem at all. The reason why you guys think it's a problem is that you don't respect policy and governance as legitimate professions. You think Joe the Plumber is just a valid expert on government as someone who has worked for the EPA for 30 years. That's how you get Trump saying that windmills are killing the whales, and this is taken seriously by... anyone.

What level of experience, education, and professionalism should one have then to enter into federal politics?

And that would normally be fine, except you get a guy like Trump who thinks he knows more about War than the Generals and more about disease than the Doctors.

I don't think Trump knows more than generals, but as any sitting president would, they surround themselves with people who do.

Dr Fauci has been around since the Reagan years. The reason why other diseases weren't the cluster that Covid was that those presidents had the good sense to respect his expertise.

Okay.

Again, we have career change opportunities. They are called "elections". The fact that 96% of incumbents are returned to office is because the people who vote for them think they are doing a good job.

I would argue that most people don't know incumbents and vote party lines, regardless of 'who'. This is due to civil and political laziness and ignorance.

yes, running campaigns are expensive. But they also show a level of commitment.

But at what expense? We are saying that one has to have garnered the trust and loyalty of the rich? The same people you rally against. Perhaps, and maybe this is one way I will agree to a socialized process, where campaign funds are equally dispersed among the top 4 candidates at certain levels of elected office, if not all of them. This is a shift and would require fleshing out a lot of details.

if the Media was fair and unbiased, they would have called Trump out for his insanity years ago.

They were.

Instead, they try to be "fair" and we have a guy who is in clear mental decline who has a pretty good chance of getting elected again despite his last term being a ******* disaster.

That's your opinion. 50% of the country disagree with you.

 

[dblack]

You miss the point.

If we had ranked choice ballots, most of us wouldn't give a lot of thought to our third choice.

Most of us don't give a lot of thought to the two "choices" we get now.

We go in with our first choice and that's it.

So, worst case scenario, it will be as bad as it is now. But for those who do give a shit, and a thought, about their vote, they can express their actual values instead of being forced to choose between giant douche and turd sandwich.

So you get a situation like NYC, where 70% didn't want Eric Adams, and it took 8 rounds to get him above 50%.

So who did they want instead? Did any candidate get more than fifty percent of fist place votes? No. If they did, they would have won.

This is the same empty "argument" Republicans are trotting out.

Do you have the same objections to runoff elections in states like Georgia?

 

[JoeB131]

What level of experience, education, and professionalism should one have then to enter into federal politics?

My opinion, at least a Master's degree. Also, you should be cutting your teeth on lower offices before going the big time.

I don't think Trump knows more than generals, but as any sitting president would, they surround themselves with people who do.

Trump thinks he does. That's the problem.

I would argue that most people don't know incumbents and vote party lines, regardless of 'who'. This is due to civil and political laziness and ignorance.

Oh, it's much worse than that. Because of Gerrymandering, only about 40 House seats are going to be competitive this year.

But at what expense? We are saying that one has to have garnered the trust and loyalty of the rich? The same people you rally against. Perhaps, and maybe this is one way I will agree to a socialized process, where campaign funds are equally dispersed among the top 4 candidates at certain levels of elected office, if not all of them. This is a shift and would require fleshing out a lot of details.

Quite the contrary, if we didn't have stupid decisions like Citizen's United gutting campaign finance laws, the rich wouldn't be able to dump millions into the process. It would just be small donors.

We tried Public funding of campaigns. It doesn't really work because the main parties forgo the limits, and the third parties usually don't get enough votes to qualify.

Again, I find it ironic that the Libertarian Party's great goal in life is to hit 5% and get some of that sweet, sweet Federal cash. Talk about people who have lost the plot.

That's your opinion. 50% of the country disagree with you.

50% of the country are racists, misogynists, homophobes, and transphobes. The question is, will they destroy the country to satisfy their own hatreds.

The ironic thing is that I don't expect great things from Harris. She'll be hemmed in by a GOP Senate, SCOTUS and MAYBE the house.

 

[JoeB131]

So, worst case scenario, it will be as bad as it is now. But for those who do give a shit, and a thought, about their vote, they can express their actual values instead of being forced to choose between giant douche and turd sandwich.

Or they'll just ***** about having three bad choices.

So who did they want instead? Did any candidate get more than fifty percent of fist place votes? No. If they did, they would have won.

This is the same empty "argument" Republicans are trotting out.

Do you have the same objections to runoff elections in states like Georgia?

No, I think that's actually the way to do it. Everyone gets a bit of a say in the first round, but you refine the argument between the two top getters in the second.

This is also the way we do for Chicago Mayor.

 

[dblack]

Or they'll just ***** about having three bad choices.



No, I think that's actually the way to do it. Everyone gets a bit of a say in the first round, but you refine the argument between the two top getters in the second.

RCV is no different. It just avoids the expense and headache of running another election. The "refining" thing is an excuse. Same one the Republicans are using. It's like you guys are getting your talking points from the same place.

 

[JoeB131]

RCV is no different. It just avoids the expense and headache of running another election. The "refining" thing is an excuse. Same one the Republicans are using. It's like you guys are getting your talking points from the same place.

No, actually, it is a problem, because if you were one of the ones who voted for #3 who was eliminated, you weren't given a choice. The issues may have switched entirely.

Take, for instance, Chicago's recent race. The top four contenders were.

1) Lori Litefoot, the incumbent Mayor
2) Jesus Garcia and his Porn Star Mustache
3) Paul Vallas, the prior School chief. Heavily backed by the Fascist Order of Police (FOP)
4) Brandon Johnson, the former Chicago Teacher's Union head.

Now, Lori unloaded most of her ammo on Garcia, and in a split decision, Vallas and Johnson came up higher.

Simply put, when it became those two guys, the narrative of the race changed from a referendum on Litefoot (who frankly gathered a whole lot of animus because of how she handled Covid) to crime and how to run the schools.

In short, the focus was more down to the vision of these two men, who were now in a sharper contrast because they didn't have to deal with professional clown Willie Wilson

As opposed to NY, where the election was decided by people who checked Adams as their fifth choice and probably never knew what hit them.

 

[dblack]

No, actually, it is a problem, because if you were one of the ones who voted for #3 who was eliminated, you weren't given a choice.

What does that even mean? Do you understand how ranking works? If #3 is eliminated, your vote goes to the next candidate in your rankings.

This has become a side discussion, so rather than derail this thread further, I started another: Election Reform and the Spoiler Effect