Texas republicans tried to get all libertarian candidates removed from the ballot

[Tom Paine 1949]

The discussion of the 50 different state electoral systems in regard to “major party” primary elections is complex. There are open, closed, and many intermediate systems, and complex rules regarding which parties may be deemed major parties. This discussion is NOT the same as whether ranked choice voting is preferable to “first past the post” voting, which can be used in municipal, state and Federal elections (not just primaries!) and is used widely elsewhere (even in choosing the winners of Academy Awards).

The OP discussion is about Texas and Libertarians, and so this is not the place to go into depth about the open/closed primary issue or the separate issue of RCV.

I try not to look at this issue from a narrow partisan perspective, as I fear flacaltenn has done. I have already covered these issues enough here. People can do their own research. States adopting new voting systems can provide testing grounds, and the results need to be objectively studied. Special interests can sometimes push even Democratic-sounding measures. Both forms of primary elections have been ruled Constitutional.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

I said flacaltenn ‘s view sounded a bit partisan to me (especially his broad criticisms of European systems and of RCV as Democratic Party instigated), but I admit here he seems only to be presenting a passionate non-partisan view … that Texas election reformers need to pay attention to:

We're complicating the FUCK out of the election process by NOT requiring the PARTIES to do their OWN primaries. They insist on organizing politics by parties -- LET THEM NOMINATE their own damn candidates with state conventions or Mail balloting or whatever.

 

[dblack]

... especially his broad criticisms of European systems and of RCV as Democratic Party instigated

This I really don't get. Outside of kneejerk paranoia, I don't see how they've decided RCV is a partisan wedge.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

This I really don't get. Outside of kneejerk paranoia, I don't see how they've decided RCV is a partisan wedge.

There's a lot of distrust and fear that RCV will be abused. I don't know how we build confidence, but the duopoly will go to war with us before they give in on RVC. Maybe they are behind the lack of confidence. They love the lesser-of-two-evils "choice."

 

[dblack]

There's a lot of distrust and fear that RCV will be abused. I don't know how we build confidence, but the duopoly will go to war with us before they give in on RVC. Maybe they are behind the lack of confidence. They love the lesser-of-two-evils "choice."

Indeed. The primary thing RCV changes is the lesser-of-two-evils conceit. But both majors parties now rely on LO2E. They're terrified of running on their merits, because the have so few.

 

[dblack]

... the Libertarian or other 3rd party isn't gonna win on the 1st round in a FREE FOR ALL- ALL HANDS ON DECK primary.

So what? What does that mean?

If the top 3 or 4 go on to the general -- they only have to had gotten 25 or 30% of the vote. After all the "rankings" but they had to beat maybe 6 or 8 other people in the FIRST round of ranking to survive. And that splits all the 3rd party candidates AGAINST one another.

No, that's just not how it works.

You seem like an intelligent person, but you're missing it on this issue. You're complaining about aspects of RCV that aren't even real.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

lesser-of-two-evils conceit

There is very little that pisses me off more than politicians telling me I have no choice but to vote for them because the other criminal is worse. It literally makes me murderous. I may need a padded cell next time I hear one of those assholes tell me I have no choice.

 

[dblack]

There is very little that pisses me off more than politicians telling me I have no choice but to vote for them because the other criminal is worse. It literally makes me murderous. I may need a padded cell next time I hear one of those assholes tell me I have no choice.

I always have the choice to spit on the ground and walk away.

 

[flacaltenn]

You have to ask for the parties ballot which I think should change also. If I want to vote for a (R) governor but a (D) senator in the primaries as an (I), I should be able to.

Good point. But tossing these party functionary primaries TOGETHER into a unified primary ballot is actually a major step BACKWARDS in terms of voter choice. Because the STATE then determines the rules for WHO gets ON the final General ballot. And if the Repubs want to give their party members MORE CHOICE than the Dems usually give in primaries -- that GUARANTEES vote splitting which favors the party who offered the FEWER CHOICES. The leftist KNOW THIS -- that's why Cali LOVES to 30 or 40 candidates on a Jungle unified primary ballot and can GUARANTEE slots for at LEAST one dem or maybe 2 to SURVIVE to go to the general election.

It's full of ways to EXPLOIT what should BE a party process. I've taken on a new job of AIDING Independent candidates to effectively debate and message -- and its my belief, that ONLY electing people who DECLARE as Independents and DONT NEED PRIMARIES -- can return cesspools of party corruption like the US Congress back to a deliberative body. Back to a place where DEBATE and original thinking is honored more than loyalty and obedience to the 4 Party chieftains that RUN EVERY ASPECT of that place today.

 

[whitehall]

The Texs court didn't say the GOP candidates were wrong, only too late to register their complaint.

 

[flacaltenn]

There is very little that pisses me off more than politicians telling me I have no choice but to vote for them because the other criminal is worse. It literally makes me murderous. I may need a padded cell next time I hear one of those assholes tell me I have no choice.

You really do not HAVE a choice because the "brand name" parties are giving us WORSE AND WORSE choices every cycle. And "incumbents" have learned how to be "unremovable". More and more the parties aren't EVEN RUNNING a candidate in a lot of "lost cause" races. Then NOBODY HAS ANY CHOICE.. Other than to take hard looks at Independents and 3rd parties who have to exhaust themselves just to get ON a ballot or 50 STATES worth of ballots.

To get better choices -- you've got to get rid of the TOXIC environment of an UNSTABLE 2 party choice. NO ONE in US Congress can speak their mind s unless they REFUSE to be allegiant to the party leaders. And if they DO assert any Independence like Sanders, Joe Lieberman, and recently Manchin and Sinema or Repubs like Massie or even useless RINOs like Cheney and Kinzinger or TRUE STARS like Tulsi Gabbard -- they get the FULL FREE ATTTENTION of the public and media just for BEING contrarians and interesting.

 

[flacaltenn]

So what? What does that mean?

No, that's just not how it works.

You seem like an intelligent person, but you're missing it on this issue. You're complaining about aspects of RCV that aren't even real.

Of course my example is a real example of how RCV does NOTHING TO AVOID "vote splitting". Because vote splitting potential is FUNDAMENTALLY a function of HOW MANY CANDIDATES the 2 brand name parties entice and support to run. The party that "preselects" the FEWEST is gonna prevail in Jungle or full open primaries REGARDLESS of the method used.

And the LEFTISTS KNOW THIS. That's why they are the LARGEST supporters of "jungle primaries" and RCV. It was a key strategy in turning Cali into a perpetual ONE PARTY STATE. Because the more the Republicans get fired up to RUN more choices -- it's like the "tar baby" in the brier patch result where the HARDER YOU TRY -- the more you become immobilized. Look at the candidate list for Gavin Newsome recall. Even if the recall vote had SUCCEEDED -- they were virtually guaranteed that the Repubs would SPLIT THEIR vote over 20 ways and ASSURE THEIR candidates made the cut for a run-off.

https://elections.cdn.sos.ca.gov/statewide-elections/2021-recall/certified-list.pdf

What good is RCV when there are NINE Democrats running but over TWENTY Repubs?

And the end result is GONNA BE winners with EXTREMELY SMALL vote totals.

 

[Tom Paine 1949]

Actually, I believe that party “smoked filled rooms” so typical of the past, where party bosses determined everything including choosing candidates, are mostly today … a thing of the past.

There are many reasons this is the case. Urban “Tammany Halls” barely exist as they once did. Of course every state and region still has powerful vested interests and even a distinct political culture. On many levels “Dark Money” rules. It is even worse since the Supreme Court’s “Citizen’s United” decision. While the internet has allowed for a new kind of fundraising for challengers, the corrupting impact of pure money in politics has never been stronger.

With weakened party loyalty, and more “independent” and angry potential voters seemingly ready “to throw the bums out,” other problems can arise. Talented media manipulators, or cunning and ambitious grifters, or men who have “name recognition” but no experience governing whatever, begin to see themselves sitting in the White House or Congress. Mind-numbing “celebrity culture” sets the stage for demagogues to emerge, even outside of the “Establishment” or any party’s control.

The Trump primary victory in 2016 showed how easily a slew of established “party leaders” could be defeated by a cunning demagogue with a few “MAGA” slogans. But lasting reforms and real change require much more than anything Trump fanatics (on one side) or Bernie Sanders (on the other) or a very few anti-war politicians or “Libertarians” can possibly offer.

The building of real organized coalitions that can become social movements raising common economic demands is – unfortunately — extremely difficult without a large organized working class or “farmer / labor” type groups with millions of members.

One of the country’s most pressing needs, to my mind, is just to overcome the madness and paranoia and regionalism tearing the country apart, to weaken the voices of petty partisanship and demonization, and help end the “civil war” talk that most ordinary Americans hate and fear.

When we talk “electoral reforms” or “good government” reforms we should not be talking about “revolution” or “soviets” — we need simply to aim at breaking up partisan deadlock and the “demonization” of fellow citizens.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

--- Libertarians are the only RINOs here ---

Mike Bordes: Free staters and Libertarians are the only RINOs here – The Laconia Daily Sun | Prometheism Transhumanism Post Humanism

www.euvolution.com

And simultaneously, you’re only hope.

 

[Hutch Starskey]

In Virginia they are dem shills....Go figure.

Just goes to show that they are mere political sell-swords/shills for Ds or Rs and should be treated as such as far as working against them to see that they have no voice......Large L Libertarians are beyond contempt.

In reality, they’re you’re salvation.
Without independents. You’re done.

 

[dblack]

Of course my example is a real example of how RCV does NOTHING TO AVOID "vote splitting".

I dunno what to say. You've just got your facts wrong. RCV completely eliminates vote splitting. That's the entire point.

Take a classic example of vote splitting: the '92 presidential race. Perot attracted votes that probably would have gone to Bush if Perot wasn't in the race. With RCV, it wouldn't matter that Perot was in the race too. Most of his voters would have picked Bush as their second choice, and Bush would have won rather than Clinton.

Because vote splitting potential is FUNDAMENTALLY a function of HOW MANY CANDIDATES the 2 brand name parties entice and support to run. The party that "preselects" the FEWEST is gonna prevail in Jungle or full open primaries REGARDLESS of the method used.

Again, that's just not how it works. The number of candidates doesn't influence the vote splitting potential because there is no vote splitting potential.

And the LEFTISTS KNOW THIS. That's why they are the LARGEST supporters of "jungle primaries" and RCV. It was a key strategy in turning Cali into a perpetual ONE PARTY STATE. Because the more the Republicans get fired up to RUN more choices -- it's like the "tar baby" in the brier patch result where the HARDER YOU TRY -- the more you become immobilized. Look at the candidate list for Gavin Newsome recall. Even if the recall vote had SUCCEEDED -- they were virtually guaranteed that the Repubs would SPLIT THEIR vote over 20 ways and ASSURE THEIR candidates made the cut for a run-off.

Again, just not what's going on. I've been involved with RCV for years. It's not the Democrats trying to trick you.

What good is RCV when there are NINE Democrats running but over TWENTY Repubs?

It prevents the Republicans being from being screwed over with vote splitting because they have so many candidates.

And the end result is GONNA BE winners with EXTREMELY SMALL vote totals.

Sorry. I hate to keep repeating myself, but you don't seem to have a basic grasp of how RCV works.

 

[flacaltenn]

Take a classic example of vote splitting: the '92 presidential race. Perot attracted votes that probably would have gone to Bush if Perot wasn't in the race. With RCV, it wouldn't matter that Perot was in the race too. Most of his voters would have picked Bush as their second choice, and Bush would have won rather than Clinton.

You're talking about use of RCV in races whittled DOWN from 10 or 40 candidates to a final TWO (or very occassionlly a final 3 or 4 if you count Libertarians and Greens. Dont need RCV on PRES races because the REAL GOALLINE IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE --- NOT absolute votes. If you TOSS out Perot in your example -- it's LIKE HE NEVER RAN. And that's why the 2 PRIVILEGED parties LOVE this concept.

Even in THOSE cases -- when the Greens and Libertarians predictably get TOSSED OUT on first or second iteration -- the CONSEQUENCE OF THAT is the total VOTE COUNT goes down. It's like the NEW BARRIER for a majority win gets lower to the ground and THOSE VOTES didn't COUNT TOWARDS THE MAJORITY GOALLINE. That's absurd in itself - if the advertising is that it MAKES EVERY VOTE count.

 

[TemplarKormac]

The courts quickly shut them down.

Why did they do this? Obviously to corner the conservative vote. Still think republicans care about democracy? No. All they care about is winning.

Republican effort to remove Libertarians from November ballot rejected by Texas Supreme Court

On Aug. 8, a group of Republican candidates asked the Supreme Court to remove 23 Libertarian opponents from the ballot, saying they did not meet eligibility requirements. The Republicans included Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and others in congressional and state legislative races.

www.texastribune.org

“On Aug. 8, a group of Republican candidates asked the Supreme Court to remove 23 Libertarians from the ballot, saying they did not meet eligibility requirements. The Republicans included Lt. Gov. Dan Patrick and others in congressional and state legislative races.

State law requires Libertarian candidates to pay filing fees or gather petition signatures, the amount of each depending on the office sought. The Libertarian Party has been challenging that law in federal court, arguing it is unfair because the fees do not go toward their nomination process like they do for Democrats and Republicans.

Republicans also tried and failed to kick a group of Libertarian candidates off the ballot in 2020. In that case, the state Supreme Court said the GOP waited until after the deadline to challenge candidate eligibility. This time, the Republicans filed their challenge before that deadline but apparently still did not satisfy the court’s preference to deal with election challenges as soon as the alleged issues arise.”

You wouldn't know a true libertarian if one bit you in the nads, Billy.

 

[Billy000]

You wouldn't know a true libertarian if one bit you in the nads, Billy.

Well either way, TK, I don’t need to. The facts speak for themselves.

 

[dblack]

You're talking about use of RCV in races whittled DOWN from 10 or 40 candidates to a final TWO (or very occassionlly a final 3 or 4 if you count Libertarians and Greens. Dont need RCV on PRES races because the REAL GOALLINE IS THE ELECTORAL COLLEGE --- NOT absolute votes. If you TOSS out Perot in your example -- it's LIKE HE NEVER RAN. And that's why the 2 PRIVILEGED parties LOVE this concept.

Even in THOSE cases -- when the Greens and Libertarians predictably get TOSSED OUT on first or second iteration -- the CONSEQUENCE OF THAT is the total VOTE COUNT goes down. It's like the NEW BARRIER for a majority win gets lower to the ground and THOSE VOTES didn't COUNT TOWARDS THE MAJORITY GOALLINE. That's absurd in itself - if the advertising is that it MAKES EVERY VOTE count.

Pretty much everything you're saying here is exactly the opposite of the truth. You clearly have no idea how RCV works. I don't know where you're getting this shit from, but it's probably from people who have a vested interest in maintaining the two-party shitshow.