Party Loyalty is Poison

[dblack]

Im saying that that is the reality.

It's the reality because of plurality voting and the election regulations, many passed in response to Perot's campaign to prevent it from happening again.

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

Yeah. They would. That's why the two party drones always show up to these threads trying to scare people away.

 

[BrokeLoser]

It's the reality because of plurality voting and the election regulations, many passed in response to Perot's campaign to prevent it from happening again.

Yeah. They would. That's why the two party drones always show up to these threads trying to scare people away.

Why/how to you suppose our voting system worked well enough to build the greatest, most exceptional, richest, most powerful nation on the planet in a very short 150 years?
Did the system time out?
What changed?
Why would such a system be so undesirable now?

 

[Seymour Flops]

It's the reality because of plurality voting

Sure. Vote for the candidate that you want to win.

Most of what you propose would seem pretty gimmicky to Americans. In the unlikely event that a longshot managed to win an election under one of those plans, that election would seem as suspect as the worst examples of gerrymandering.

Can you share some example of ranked choice, or one of the other options being used successfully?

and the election regulations, many passed in response to Perot's campaign to prevent it from happening again.

If that's true, I disagree with that.

Yeah. They would. That's why the two party drones always show up to these threads trying to scare people away.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Twoparties hack, dblack. You are adding to the reputation of third parties being havens for kooks when you say things like that.

I didn't see a single post that came even close to trying to "scare" people. Other than those who fear honest debate.

Are you envisioning that if we had ranked choice voting, that more non-Twoparties parties would appear, or that we would not need parties anymore?

Perot had a party, and so did Oliver.

 

[JoeB131]

Yes, 6% black slaves in New York vs 35% black slaves in Georgia

So I stand by my point that black slaves contributed to building America, but were far less important in the North than what whites did

Point was, there were a substantial population of slaves in NY State.

In fact, Slavery didn't end in NY State until - wait for it - 1827.

When Did Slavery End in New York? - Historical Society of the New York Courts

This article was written by Craig A. Landy, a partner at NYC firm Peckar & Abramson, PC. Mr. Landy talks more extensively about this … More When Did Slavery End in New York? »

history.nycourts.gov

 

[dblack]

Sure. Vote for the candidate that you want to win.

Most of what you propose would seem pretty gimmicky to Americans.

Especially if your parties tell them so. Which is what's going on now.

In the unlikely event that a longshot managed to win an election under one of those plans, that election would seem as suspect as the worst examples of gerrymandering.

Most of the proposals to replace plurality voting with RCV also include changing to multi-rep districts districts to do away with gerrymandering.

Can you share some example of ranked choice, or one of the other options being used successfully?

You can google. There are plenty. And even more screeds from two-party goons claiming otherwise.

If that's true, I disagree with that.

It's true.

Not everyone who disagrees with you is a Twoparties hack, dblack.

When it comes to the topic of election reform, most of them are.

You are adding to the reputation of third parties being havens for kooks when you say things like that.

And you are adding to the reputation of the duopoly opposing anything that would threaten its dominance.

I didn't see a single post that came even close to trying to "scare" people.

I have. Most like this one, were people like you start spreading lies about the reforms.

Other than those who fear honest debate.

You should try it. Rather than starting out lying about how alternative voting systems work.

Are you envisioning that if we had ranked choice voting, that more non-Twoparties parties would appear, or that we would not need parties anymore?

There are already "non-twoparties parties". But it would give those parties more of a voice, and a chance to build momentum. Even if they don't win, their first place votes would be counted and noticed. They'd have a shot at building a base and becoming "viable". And even if that never happens, their ideas have a chance to influence the other parties.

Let's say, for example, a third party scored 30% of the first place votes in an election. Regardless of whether these parties win, the major parties will take notice of the result and do what they can to address the preferences of those voters, likely by co-opting the smaller party's ideas. But that's a win.

Most importantly, all of the systems I'm advocating for would do away with the lesser-of-two-evils idiocy and the fear-mongering that goes with it. The threat usually leveled by the Ds and Rs - "Vote for us or the other side will win!!! And the other side is evil!!!!" becomes meaningless. Voters will be able to express their true opinions without worrying that they'll "help" a candidate that they're afraid of.

But I suppose you oppose all of that too.

 

[JoeB131]

I've explained it to you. So I know your question is disingenuous. But for the sake of others here, voting systems like Approval voting or Ranked Choice voting or Score voting let you vote against candidates. In Approval voting this is down by simply voting "no" for the candidate in question. In RCV, you rank the candidate last - meaning your vote goes to whoever has the best of beating them. Score voting is similar. It's not rocket science, Joe. I suspect even you could understand if you cared enough to try.

I understand it perfectly fine.

Rank Clusterfuck Voting doesn't work because no one gives much thought to their second choice.

The only reason why Commie Jihadi came out on top was because he and Loonar Lander cross-endorsed each other. But 20% didn't want either one of these guys.

What would have been better is a runoff between the top two vote-getters. That's what we've been doing in Chicago for the last 20 years or so, and it works out pretty well.

 

[dblack]

I understand it perfectly fine.

Of course, of course.

You're late. Where you been? You here to tag-team with the Republicans again?

 

[Seymour Flops]

Especially if your parties tell them so. Which is what's going on now.

Most of the proposals to replace plurality voting with RCV also include changing to multi-rep districts districts to do away with gerrymandering.

But who is making these proposals and are "the parties" even hearing them? Which party has argued most strenuously against RCV, etc.? My observation is that they don't even mention it.

You can google. There are plenty. And even more screeds from two-party goons claiming otherwise.

When you say that, it makes me think you are hiding that there are none. But . . . I'll ask trusty AI!

There you go! You should lead with that. Tell us how people in those countries are better off.

It's true.

When it comes to the topic of election reform, most of them are.

I think they are happy with our whoever gets the votes wins system and don't even think about that kind of election reform.

And you are adding to the reputation of the duopoly opposing anything that would threaten its dominance.

Now you sound like someone working a table at a college multi-party recruitment event.

I have. Most like this one, were people like you start spreading lies about the reforms.

Now you sound paranoid. Me disagreeing with you, or seeing things differently is not "spreading lies." Jeebus!

You should try it. Rather than starting out lying about how alternative voting systems work.

See above.

There are already "non-twoparties parties". But it would give those parties more of a voice, and a chance to build momentum. Even if they don't win, their first place votes would be counted and noticed. They'd have a shot at building a base and becoming "viable". And even if that never happens, their ideas have a chance to influence the other parties.

Let's say, for example, a third party scored 30% of the first place votes in an election. Regardless of whether these parties win, the major parties will take notice of the result and do what they can to address the preferences of those voters, likely by co-opting the smaller party's ideas. But that's a win.

Yeah, I can see that. Except . . . well, for example, I assume you put one of those third parties as your first (and only) choice. If you could have listed three in ranked order, which would they have been? Answer in regards to the presidential election, since we all were eligible to vote in that one.

Point being, that whichever of the Twoparties you put as your second or third choice, that was who you really voted for in the race to be president. Any others, even if they were your first or second choice, you only voted for them to have more of a voice, and a chance to build momentum, plus having their first place votes be counted and noticed.

Where you face an uphill battle is that this applies to the pesidency, but also to state governor's races, mayoral, and even the far downballot all the way down to the proverbial Dog Catcher.

Why not gain attention for your party by running yourself for a low-level judgeship or magistrate, or Municipal Water Manager, etc? If enough of your party did that instead of ranting on message board that the system is against you, you could start getting noticed, and have a chance to show off your administrative abilities.

Most importantly, all of the systems I'm advocating for would do away with the lesser-of-two-evils idiocy and the fear-mongering that goes with it. The threat usually leveled by the Ds and Rs - "Vote for us or the other side will win!!! And the other side is evil!!!!" becomes meaningless. Voters will be able to express their true opinions without worrying that they'll "help" a candidate that they're afraid of.

But I suppose you oppose all of that too.

No, I'd love that.

But none of those systems would do away with those evils. It would just add a few more words to your quote:

"Vote for us or the other side will win!!! And the other side is evil!!!! - and don't vote for those other guys as your first choice because that just helps the evil side win!!!!!!!!!"

Most people would vote (D) or (R) as their first choice and throw a second or third choice bone to the other parties. People who complain about the Twoparties would vote for their party but carefully pick the (R) or (D) that will be best for them personally as their second choice.

In fact . . . now that I think of it . . . A Ranked Choice Voting system would give a Libertarian or Greenie or Whatever the Ross Perot Party is called now, who hates both parties an out. They can vote for the lessor of two evils while throwing the party they love a bone.

No meat on the bone, though. That would go to (D) or (R).

Just out of curiosity, could just anyone get on the ballot by asking, or would there be requirements like signatures on a petition?

Bottom line is that it is our system of Democratic Republicanism, with such a strong executive, that encourages political parties. The Founders knew it would and warned against it. But they did not advise us on how to prevent it. If your ideas would have prevented it, they likely would have designed the system that way anyway.

I really think you should "google" (or even study up on) parliamentary systems. Start with the UK and Canada.

To me, the Parliamentary system is like the Metric System. It is obviously superior and we'd be much better off with it. But Americans don't like it without really thinking it through, and we don't like change, so we never made the switch.

 

[Mac-7]

Point was, there were a substantial population of slaves in NY State.

In fact, Slavery didn't end in NY State until - wait for it - 1827.

When Did Slavery End in New York? - Historical Society of the New York Courts

This article was written by Craig A. Landy, a partner at NYC firm Peckar & Abramson, PC. Mr. Landy talks more extensively about this … More When Did Slavery End in New York? »

history.nycourts.gov

6% is way less than substantial

At best its honorable mention

 

[JoeB131]

Of course, of course.

You're late. Where you been? You here to tag-team with the Republicans again?

Well, unlike you, I work for a living.

Which is why I realize that Third Parties are all clowns, and we don't need bad voting systems to make them feel special.

But who is making these proposals and are "the parties" even hearing them? Which party has argued most strenuously against RCV, etc.? My observation is that they don't even mention it.

Actually, it kind of the opposite. Whenever RCV is put on the ballot - it usually loses, despite having deep pocketed investors footing the bill.

It barely squeaked by in Alaska this time, because some rich people outspent the opponents something like 10-1.

Everywhere else it lost.

Hopefully, after this ******* disaster, NYC will smarten up and dump it as well.

 

[dblack]

Well, unlike you, I work for a living.

?? You don't know a ******* thing about me. Suck a tailpipe.

 

[dblack]

Actually, it kind of the opposite. Whenever RCV is put on the ballot - it usually loses, despite having deep pocketed investors footing the bill.

It barely squeaked by in Alaska this time, because some rich people outspent the opponents something like 10-1.

Everywhere else it lost.

Hopefully, after this ******* disaster, NYC will smarten up and dump it as well.

D's and Rs agree! We should only be allowed to elect Ds and Rs.

Imagine that.

What a ******* joke.

 

[JoeB131]

?? You don't know a ******* thing about me. Suck a tailpipe.

Hit a nerve, did I?

You were here posting at 9:17 AM, 9:36 AM, 2:15, 2:48, 2:51, 3:21, and 4:07.

It must be nice to not have a job, and complain how much the system you suck off of sucks.

D's and Rs agree! We should only be allowed to elect Ds and Rs.

Imagine that.

What a ******* joke.

Naw, the joke is the Libertarian Party, usually getting >1%, thinking they are making a contribution.

 

[dblack]

But who is making these proposals and are "the parties" even hearing them? Which party has argued most strenuously against RCV, etc.? My observation is that they don't even mention it.

When you say that, it makes me think you are hiding that there are none. But . . . I'll ask trusty AI!

View attachment 1135165
There you go! You should lead with that. Tell us how people in those countries are better off.

I think they are happy with our whoever gets the votes wins system and don't even think about that kind of election reform.

Now you sound like someone working a table at a college multi-party recruitment event.

Now you sound paranoid. Me disagreeing with you, or seeing things differently is not "spreading lies." Jeebus!

See above.

Yeah, I can see that. Except . . . well, for example, I assume you put one of those third parties as your first (and only) choice. If you could have listed three in ranked order, which would they have been? Answer in regards to the presidential election, since we all were eligible to vote in that one.

Point being, that whichever of the Twoparties you put as your second or third choice, that was who you really voted for in the race to be president. Any others, even if they were your first or second choice, you only voted for them to have more of a voice, and a chance to build momentum, plus having their first place votes be counted and noticed.

Where you face an uphill battle is that this applies to the pesidency, but also to state governor's races, mayoral, and even the far downballot all the way down to the proverbial Dog Catcher.

Why not gain attention for your party by running yourself for a low-level judgeship or magistrate, or Municipal Water Manager, etc? If enough of your party did that instead of ranting on message board that the system is against you, you could start getting noticed, and have a chance to show off your administrative abilities.



No, I'd love that.

But none of those systems would do away with those evils. It would just add a few more words to your quote:

"Vote for us or the other side will win!!! And the other side is evil!!!! - and don't vote for those other guys as your first choice because that just helps the evil side win!!!!!!!!!"

Most people would vote (D) or (R) as their first choice and throw a second or third choice bone to the other parties. People who complain about the Twoparties would vote for their party but carefully pick the (R) or (D) that will be best for them personally as their second choice.

In fact . . . now that I think of it . . . A Ranked Choice Voting system would give a Libertarian or Greenie or Whatever the Ross Perot Party is called now, who hates both parties an out. They can vote for the lessor of two evils while throwing the party they love a bone.

No meat on the bone, though. That would go to (D) or (R).

Just out of curiosity, could just anyone get on the ballot by asking, or would there be requirements like signatures on a petition?

Bottom line is that it is our system of Democratic Republicanism, with such a strong executive, that encourages political parties. The Founders knew it would and warned against it. But they did not advise us on how to prevent it. If your ideas would have prevented it, they likely would have designed the system that way anyway.

I really think you should "google" (or even study up on) parliamentary systems. Start with the UK and Canada.

To me, the Parliamentary system is like the Metric System. It is obviously superior and we'd be much better off with it. But Americans don't like it without really thinking it through, and we don't like change, so we never made the switch.

It's like you just randomly pick talking points and lies to fling against the wall and see if they stick. You and Joe should trade notes. Or, I guess maybe you already do.

 

[dblack]

Hit a nerve, did I?

Yeah. And I know I that's all your after, so I shouldn't give you your trollish satisfaction. But you really are a ****.

 

[JoeB131]

Yeah. And I know I that's all your after, so I shouldn't give you your trollish satisfaction. But you really are a ****.

You started it by wondering why I wasn't posting here all day like you were. (Because I'm out there working for a living, duh.)

So let me guess, you are on a disability, right?

 

[dblack]

You started it by wondering why I wasn't posting here all day like you were. (Because I'm out there working for a living, duh.)

So let me guess, you are on a disability, right?

Piss off, troll

 

[dblack]

... they can vote for the lessor of two evils while throwing the party they love a bone.

LOL - congratulations. You've discovered the entire point of RCV!

And it's a feature, not a bug. Voters don't have to pretend that the "lessers" actually represent their preference. Yet they can still vote against the candidates the really don't like at all.

 

[dblack]

I really think you should "google" (or even study up on) parliamentary systems. Start with the UK and Canada.

To me, the Parliamentary system is like the Metric System. It is obviously superior and we'd be much better off with it. But Americans don't like it without really thinking it through, and we don't like change, so we never made the switch.

We went over that. I agree. How do you propose we get from here to there?

 

[Seymour Flops]

LOL - congratulations. You've discovered the entire point of RCV!

And it's a feature, not a bug. Voters don't have to pretend that the "lessers" actually represent their preference.

That seems like a lot of trouble to go through, just so that the small number of third party voters can feel less marginalized when they go to the polls.

Yet they can still vote against the candidates the really don't like at all.

But, most third party voters would say that they really don't like either of the two party candidates at all.

If they really mean that, then they would still only vote for the candidate of the Libertarian Party, and not a Democrat, Republican, Green, or Ross Perot Party, not even as a second choice.

If they do vote for the (D) or (R), then again I say, that is their real vote, because that is the one that will count - just as much as if a dedicated (D) had cast a vote against the evil Orange Man.

We went over that. I agree. How do you propose we get from here to there?

To a parliamentary system in the U.S.? We don't get from here to there, IMO.

I don't believe that Americans will ever accept it. My theory is that a parliamentary system must evolve, often out of a Monarchy.

If the Monarch is still around as a figurehead, as in the UK, so much the better.

He or she is a living reminder that the British people were once truly ruled by an absolute power, backed by the armed might of the nobility, and that Parliament now provides the wall of separation between ceremonial royalty and government chosen by the people.

They'll never accept RCV, either. I assume this is just a debate for the sake of debating. There are no serious proposals for this being considered as far as I know.