The Forward Party

[Oddball]

Or the people of Maine are simply more like left than right, and their values are better reflected in RCV. A libertarian in Texas would be 2nd every single time if voters were allowed to express it via a vote. Otherwise, we can never tell what voters really value. It's binary.

Right....And if a strong libertarian helped split up the vote, to the point that the (R) didn't get 50%, it's very likely that the (D) would be handed the election, as most libertarians I know of don't support republicans at all, for reasons that are all too obvious today.

 

[MinTrut]

Do you have an explanation of how it's a scam?

Read the thread Einstein.

It's a carnival distraction which will do jack all to address the ACTUAL problem, which is a criminal two party system keeping the rational will of The People as far away from power as possible.

Or is it "just because"?

Straw man.

mkay

Dood.

I get it.

You're a Democrat hack who LOVES the criminal two party system because it favors your chosen criminal gang. Thus you love RCV as the useless pretend *fix* it is.

 

[MinTrut]

That's exactly what RCV would accomplish.

Nope.

The parties would still be around, but people wouldn't be cowed by the lesser-of-two-evils threat.

Nonsense.

Baseless nonsense actually...

 

[MinTrut]

Not many people realize this.

And all his party has to "fix" this are half measures, nibbling on the margins, and pipe dreams about impossibilities (like lifer politicians willingly voting to shorten their careers).

^ Co-thread win.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

I get it....Flood the ballot with schmendrick jobbers who have no chance to win (probably funded by one or both of the majors), then kneecap the real winner because they didn't crack 50%, then hand the election over to the loser, because they got more 2nd or 3rd place votes

No room for shenanigans there......newp!

That can be fixed. Limit a runoff to 3 or 4 candidates.

 

[Oddball]

Nope.

Nonsense.

Baseless nonsense actually...

The mere act of casting a vote for a 2nd choice is the essence of the LO2E mindset.....A crying shame that dblack can't me made to realize this.

 

[MinTrut]

I think that many of them are. But I don't think ideology is a function of intelligence. They're mutually exclusive. Seriously, I look at ideology as more of an affliction. It can warp the perceptions, thought processes and behaviors of perfectly decent and intelligent people.

The irony!!!!

Some physicians are too narcissistic to heal themselves.

 

[Oddball]

That can be fixed. Limit a runoff to 3 or 4 candidates.

Though runoffs are less odious, they're still an invitation to jiggery-pokery....Look at what happened in Georgia.

 

[Bootney Lee Farnsworth]

Right....And if a strong libertarian helped split up the vote, to the point that the (R) didn't get 50%, it's very likely that the (D) would be handed the election, as most libertarians I know of don't support republicans at all, for reasons that are all too obvious today.

It doesn't split up the vote at all. It simply allows more that an binary choice to better express the will of the people.

Example:
How do you vote for a candidate who wants to end the war on drugs but also support an absolute 2A right?

Under the current system you have to choose one of those issues over the other.

The duopoly has mastered the art of dividing up the issues so they we are forced to pick one or the other.

 

[MinTrut]

Pipe down, cultist. You voted for the most radical, extreme leftist administration in American history. Our current food, fuel, and housing prices are your fault. Not to mention the state of the border, and the war in Europe your president started.

I thought be voted for deranged conservative/kleptocratic puppet Biden...?

 

[OKTexas]

Correct, it isn't accurate. I responded in post 5, and I tried to keep it real, real simple.

Not that it matters for you folks. You're going believe whatever your universe dictates.

Nope, I believe what the Constitution dictates. It's you commies that are off the rails.

.

 

[g5000]

Full retirement is already age 70.

Social Security eligibility is 63 years, which should be increased to 65.

Right now, normal SS eligibility starts at 67.5. It should be moved to 70.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

 

[g5000]

Great big statist faggot with list, with no real concrete answers about how they expect from Point A to Point B.

"I will repeal and replace Obamacare."

All during the 2016 campaign, I asked the tard herd where Trump's plan on how to get from Point A to Point B was. All I got was either stony silence or snark.

Even before that, since 2011, I asked this forum where the Republican replacement for Obamacare was. Again, stony silence and snark.
'
Did Trump ever produce one?

Nope. But the Trumptards sure got a big fat boner over his bullshit lie.

And thanks to Trump, Obamacare is now immortal.

This is what happens when you don't hold hucksters accountable for their lies.

 

[ding]

Right now, normal SS eligibility starts at 67.5. It should be moved to 70.

When you say normal SS eligibility starts at 67.5, do you mean full benefits are earned by waiting until 67.5? Because I can start drawing at 62 if I choose. Just at a reduced amount. Which would also affect my wife's draw when she became eligible.

 

[ding]

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

Screw that. I retired at 61.

 

[ding]

And thanks to Trump, Obamacare is now immortal.

Is that a bad thing?

I mean it was a really bad idea to tax citizens for not buying health insurance from 3rd parties. So much so that they never enforced it at all. As near as I can tell it turned into a nothing burger. It's only real claim to fame is ending the so-called "Cadillac" health care plans of unions and certain large corporations to avoid their paying billions in taxes.

 

[Toddsterpatriot]

Right now, normal SS eligibility starts at 67.5. It should be moved to 70.

We are living longer, we should be working longer.

67.

Benefits Planner: Retirement | Retirement Age and Benefit Reduction | SSA

When considering early retirement, it is important to understand that starting retirement benefits early will reduce your benefit. Use the Retirement age chart to determine your reduction if you begin receiving benefits before your full retirement age.

www.ssa.gov

 

[dblack]

No, they'll just be confused as fuck, and the ruling class (primarily leftists) will swoop in to feast on the carcass.

You really have no idea what you are talking about. RCV would be a significant blow to the stifling dominance of the two party shitshow. Voters would be able to vote for the candidates they truly believed in, as their first choice, without the fear that it might "help" some other candidate who terrifies them. That lame assed excuse goes away entirely with ranked choice voting.

Many voters like to tell themselves that they're not really voting for candidate x, they're voting against candidate y. But under our current system, you can't actually do that. All you can do is guess who has the best chance of beating the jerk you hate and vote for them.

With ranked choice voting you actually can vote against a despised candidate. By ranking a candidate dead last, you are, actually and literally, voting for every other candidate over them. It doesn't matter who is considered most likely to beat the jerk candidate, whoever it is will get your vote.

Moreover, the icing on the cake, we'd finally get a real read on what people value. Are libertarians really less that 1% of the voting public? Maybe, but I suspect it's a lot higher. And with RCV we'd finally find out.

 

[dblack]

Or the people of Maine are simply more like left than right, and their values are better reflected in RCV. A libertarian in Texas would be 2nd every single time if voters were allowed to express it via a vote. Otherwise, we can never tell what voters really value. It's binary.

Exactly.

 

[dblack]

Right....And if a strong libertarian helped split up the vote, to the point that the (R) didn't get 50%, it's very likely that the (D) would be handed the election, as most libertarians I know of don't support republicans at all, for reasons that are all too obvious today.

How exactly!? That literally can't happen under RCV. That's the whole fucking point.