Party Loyalty is Poison

[Dirk the Daring]

Show me where GOD created a world hell bent on supporting any political party.
How about no other Gods before me?

The problem I see in regards to parties is that the benefit of the country is always second to the benefit of the party.

 

[BrokeLoser]

Holler at me the next time a presidential election is decided by one vote. Like I said earlier, my area's leaning is already pre-determined.

You’re missing the point big-time. Anytime you have a choice to make, to pick between two things there will always be something better about one of the two things. You will never find the perfect candidate, you will only find one better than the others so in effect even if we have 17 parties you fence-sitters would vote for the lesser of evils as well…
This is the part where say “not really, I don’t have to vote for anybody…I’ll just let America shove whoever they want down my throat and I’ll that let that make sense in my head somehow.”

 

[Seymour Flops]

Unfortunately, with our current system, you can't vote against a candidate. All you can do is vote FOR one candidate. With other voting systems you can do this, but two party goons resist change to those systems. Gotta wonder why.

What system allows voters to vote against a candidate?

 

[dblack]

What system allows voters to vote against a candidate?

RCV, Approval voting, Score voting.... I'm sure that are others.

 

[Seymour Flops]

RCV, Approval voting, Score voting.... I'm sure that are others.

I will agree to disagree with your claim that those methods include voting against acandidate.

I'll observe this: ranked choice voting gives a feel good moment to voters who want to vote for a nonviable candidate as a statement of disatisfaction with the 2 parties, but also have their vote go to their choice for "lesser ofvtwo evils."

Approval voting is virtually the same.

Score voting is interesting. If you are ideologically alligned with a third party, how much of your score would you give to the third party and how much to the lesser of two evils?

The winner would be the party whose reluctant supporters were smart enough to throw away the least amount of their score.

 

[dblack]

I will agree to disagree with your claim that those methods include voting against acandidate.

I figured as much.

You're wrong, but I'm sure you don't care. You seem mostly invested in protecting the status quo.

 

[Seymour Flops]

I figured as much.

You're wrong, but I'm sure you don't care. You seem mostly invested in protecting the status quo.

I prefer not to live in an imaginary and counter-factual world.

Instead of spending time and money running for POTUS every 4 years, whatever party you are enamored with should focus on local races. Local victories could be a start point for state candidates and then grow from there.

A third party lawmaker who managed to win the governors race would have a chance to demonstrate the practical benefits of his ideology.

You cannot seriously expect people to get out and vote for a presidential candidate they only heard of six months ago.

 

[dblack]

I prefer not to live in an imaginary and counter-factual world.

No. You prefer that your precious party maintains it entrenched position. You're exemplifying the topic of the thread.

 

[Seymour Flops]

No. You prefer that your precious party maintains it entrenched position. You're exemplifying the topic of the thread.

You offer no viable or realistic alternative. You're whining, nothing more.

 

[dblack]

I will agree to disagree with your claim that those methods include voting against acandidate.

You're not disagreeing. You're lying. You're trying to misrepresent alternative voting systems because they might undermine the duopoly's hold on things.

I'll observe this: ranked choice voting gives...

It gives you the chance to vote against a candidate, by ranking every other candidate above them. That means that, no matter who the final two candidates are, your vote will go against the candidate your ranked last. Plurality voting doesn't let you do that.

Approval voting is virtually the same.

No, it's quite different. It literally lets you vote "no" for the candidate you oppose.

Score voting is interesting. If you are ideologically alligned with a third party, how much of your score would you give to the third party and how much to the lesser of two evils?

Dunno. But you give the person you are voting against a zero.

All of these allow you to vote against a specific candidate. Plurality voting doesn't allow that.

 

[Mac-7]

Show me where GOD created a world hell bent on supporting any political party.
How about no other Gods before me?

America is a country not a false God

And no one except you said otherwise

 

[Seymour Flops]

It gives you the chance to vote against a candidate, by ranking every other candidate above them. That means that, no matter who the final two candidates are, your vote will go against the candidate your ranked last. Plurality voting doesn't let you do that.

Oh.

By that logic, you are also voting FOR whichever of the Twoparties you rank next to last.

No, it's quite different. It literally lets you vote "no" for the candidate you oppose.

The ballot literally says "no?"

Dunno.

But that matters because that would actually affect the outcome.

But you give the person you are voting against a zero.

Which i did in 2024, by giving Trump a yes, therefore Biden a no - or zero score under your system.

All of these allow you to vote against a specific candidate. Plurality voting doesn't allow that.

But what good does that do other than feel good?

Although i'd rather see anti Trumpers think they can vote "no" than see them firebomb police cars.

You should read up on parliamentary democracy.

 

[dblack]

Oh.

By that logic, you are also voting FOR whichever of the Twoparties you rank next to last.

You can rank multiple candidates last, by not ranking them at all.

The ballot literally says "no?"

Yes.

Which i did in 2024, by giving Trump a yes, therefore Biden a no - or zero score under your system.

No. You voted for Trump. If you want to say that not voting for Biden was voting "against" him, then you're voting "against" all other candidates, an entirely different proposition.

 

[Dirk the Daring]

You’re missing the point big-time. Anytime you have a choice to make, to pick between two things there will always be something better about one of the two things. You will never find the perfect candidate, you will only find one better than the others so in effect even if we have 17 parties you fence-sitters would vote for the lesser of evils as well…
This is the part where say “not really, I don’t have to vote for anybody…I’ll just let America shove whoever they want down my throat and I’ll that let that make sense in my head somehow.”

How is that different from letting the two parties shove whoever THEY want down my throat? I didn't like Obama, McCain, Romney, Hillary, or Trump, so why would I vote for them? The last president that I enthusiastically voted for was GWB and even that turned into a colossal chit show. I quit looking for a 'perfect' candidate a long time ago, I would happily settle for a GOOD candidate.

I will admit that I was impressed with CANDIDATE Trump back in 2016, as he was correctly pointing out that much of the 'economic success' that Obama was touting was largely metric driven. But I just hated the optics of voting for what I equated to, and I don't think I'm wrong on this, a used car salesman. Then approximately 2 minutes after being sworn in, Trump's tune changed that suddenly we had the best economy in the world and it was his doing. I was happy to have not voted for him in the first place and there was no way I was going to vote for him given a second opportunity.

 

[Seymour Flops]

You can rank multiple candidates last, by not ranking them at all.

Oh yeah.

I did that to Harris, Stein and Oliver in 2024

Yes.

Really? Surprising.

No. You voted for Trump. If you want to say that not voting for Biden was voting "against" him, then you're voting "against" all other candidates, an entirely different proposition.

Yes, exactly. I meant Harris, though. See above.

But what counted was the vote for Trump.

Same under the ideas that you propose. What would count is the vote you cast for the viable candidate. The others are more statements than votes.

 

[dblack]

Same under the ideas that you propose.

No, it's not. The ideas I proposed allow a voter to vote against specific candidate. Plurality voting doesn't.

What would count is the vote you cast for the viable candidate. The others are more statements than votes.

Ahh.. now we're getting to the core of your objection. Let's not play games. "Viable", in the two party system, means a Democrat or a Republican. The only way to vote against a Democrat is to vote for a Republican, and vice versa. That's what you're defending. That's what you want to maintain.

 

[BrokeLoser]

No, it's not. The ideas I proposed allow a voter to vote against specific candidate. Plurality voting doesn't.

Ahh.. now we're getting to the core of your objection. Let's not play games. "Viable", in the two party system, means a Democrat or a Republican. The only way to vote against a Democrat is to vote for a Republican, and vice versa. That's what you're defending. That's what you want to maintain.

Viable means voting for a candidate with a real chance to win. I wanted to see a Tucker Carlson / Stephen Miller ticket in 2024 but there was no such ticket and it would have been stupid to write them in…See the point?

 

[Seymour Flops]

No, it's not. The ideas I proposed allow a voter to vote against specific candidate. Plurality voting doesn't.

Yes, you are correct if the ballot really has the word no on it. I still don't see the benefit other than the feel good. "Woo hoo I stuck it to that b******!" That is really your idea of election reform?

Does a viable candidate lose a yes vote for every no vote or any other consequence of no vote?

Ahh.. now we're getting to the core of your objection. Let's not play games. "Viable", in the two party system, means a Democrat or a Republican. The only way to vote against a Democrat is to vote for a Republican, and vice versa. That's what you're defending. That's what you want to maintain.

Im saying that that is the reality. Also, that the changes you recommend would not change that reality.

I don't defend it, i recognize it as reality.

Let a candidate with good enough ideas, and good enough communication skills and enough resources, draw a chunk of voters away from the two parties.

Ross Perot came close.

Then I would have a chance i have a chance to vote for someone who is not the lesser of two evils and have my vote mean something.

Realistically, though that person would probably be the lesser of three evils.

WHAMP WHAMP

A parliamentary system would give minority parties much more of a voice than they have .ow which is effectively zero. Yet you do not advocate that.

I've learned that it is very typical for democrats and "not democrats" to only advocate ideas which would not be effective even for their stated goals.

 

[dblack]

A parliamentary system would give minority parties much more of a voice than they have .ow which is effectively zero. Yet you do not advocate that.

I do actually. But that's not going to happen until we can elect decent leaders. Your precious two party system makes that nearly impossible.

 

[BrokeLoser]

How is that different from letting the two parties shove whoever THEY want down my throat? I didn't like Obama, McCain, Romney, Hillary, or Trump, so why would I vote for them?

There is no difference…and that’s kinda the point…You will end up with one of the two candidates shoved down your throat either way…Why wouldn’t you want to help make sure that at least the better of the two is running your country?

The last president that I enthusiastically voted

Maybe that’s the problem…You need to be enthusiastic about a candidate…all politicians suck because they have to play the game or they can’t win…Normal people can’t get their head around the politic-ing part of politics.

I quit looking for a 'perfect' candidate a long time ago, I would happily settle for a GOOD candidate.

Can you tell us what the policies of a “good” candidate would look like..Are those policies sellable, desirable, viable and sustainable?

I will admit that I was impressed with CANDIDATE Trump back in 2016, as he was correctly pointing out that much of the 'economic success' that Obama was touting was largely metric driven. But I just hated the optics of voting for what I equated to, and I don't think I'm wrong on this, a used car salesman. Then approximately 2 minutes after being sworn in, Trump's tune changed that suddenly we had the best economy in the world and it was his doing.

You were mad that a politician was politic-ing?

I was happy to have not voted for him in the first place and there was no way I was going to vote for him given a second opportunity.

Was the other option better?

You have to admit the position you and dblack take is bizarre as all hell…it looks good and noble on paper and in message board forums but in practice it’s actually quite nonsensical and indefensible when logically dissected.