The Libertarian Party Is Losing It

[dblack]

Nah. I’ve been far more substantive than anything on your posts. And that’s clear. You’re just dishonest.

Also, not all that expectedly, you remain off topic, ya troll.

Once again, ll assist a poor pathetic twat such as you:

The topic is the libertarian party supposedly “losing it.” What exactly have they “lost?” Did they (as a political party) ever “have” it?

Define the alleged “it.”

See. Topical. Not hard. Ffs, even a troll like you should be able to step up! Give it a try.

You manage to say nothing even when you type a lot. But the pretty insults are still there. You're good at those.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

But it gets rid of the spoiler effect

Exactly. No more minor party candidate having any relevance at all. They all get sucked up into the duopoly hegemony.

 

[BackAgain]

You manage to say nothing even when you type a lot. But the pretty insults are still there. You're good at those.

You still managed to say nothing. Not surprising. Your hypocrisy is already clear.
And, you remain studiously off topic.

 

[dblack]

Exactly. No more minor party candidate having any relevance at all. They all get sucked up into the duopoly hegemony.

It's the opposite, actually. With plurality voting, people are afraid to vote for minor party candidates because of the lesser of two evils threat. They think they have to vote for one of the major candidates or their vote will be wasted.

With RCV voters can rank their actual favorite first, without fear that it will help someone they really don't want to win. And those rankings will be recorded, and have an impact on future elections. With plurality voting we have no idea how many people prefer third party candidates, because most of them are scared into voting for one of the majors. With RCV we get a far more accurate reading. How are you seeing it exactly the opposite?

 

[Stormy Daniels]

It's the opposite, actually. With plurality voting, people are afraid to vote for minor party candidates because of the lesser of two evils threat. They think they have two vote for one of the major candidates or their vote will be wasted.

No, that describes majority voting. Simple plurality voting awards victory to whomever has the largest share of votes, even if it's less than a majority. In simple plurality voting, smaller party candidates have an equal avenue to success as the duopoly candidates (see Jessie Ventura).

And if anything, the spoiler effect you worry about has more to do with single seat elections.

 

[dblack]

No, that describes majority voting. Simple plurality voting awards victory to whomever has the largest share of votes, even if it's less than a majority. In simple plurality voting, smaller party candidates have an equal avenue to success as the duopoly candidates (see Jessie Ventura).

You're ignoring the impact of lesser of two evils voting. Under plurality voting, most people are scared away from minor party candidates.

And if anything, the spoiler effect you worry about has more to do with single seat elections.

??? What are you talking about? It's a direct consequence of plurality voting. I'm not sure how you steer around that.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

You're ignoring the impact of lesser of two evils voting

This demonstrates perfectly why rank choice voting is snake oil. Your entire idea is no different the bible thumpers who think you can reduce teen pregnancy and STDs with abstinence only sex ed and by taking condoms away. You're complaining about human nature and hoping to override it. When instead, you need to accept human nature and operate within it.

Rank choice voting doesn't do anything to prevent people from voting for lesser evils. In fact, it encourages essentially the same reasoning. Sure, people might not vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. But it won't stop them from voting for the two lesser of three evils. Your chief complaint remains.

It's not your place to tell other people they shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils, just like it's not your place to tell people if, when, with whom, or how to have sex. The correct solution is to make more options easily accessible, by making equitable victory available to non-duopoly candidates. Rank choice voting will only eliminate the smaller parties from having any identity of their own.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

??? What are you talking about? It's a direct consequence of plurality voting. I'm not sure how you steer around that.

No, it's not, and it's just plain dumb to claim that. Plurality voting allows smaller parties to be viable candidates.

Single seat elections are what leads to dual-party systems and negative-partisanship voting behaviors. If a jurisdiction can only elect one seat, the electorate tend to rally behind the candidate they believe has the best chance of beating the party that is most disliked.

 

[dblack]

This demonstrates perfectly why rank choice voting is snake oil. Your entire idea is no different the bible thumpers who think you can reduce teen pregnancy and STDs with abstinence only sex ed and by taking condoms away. You're complaining about human nature and hoping to override it. When instead, you need to accept human nature and operate within it.

I really am not tracking your logic here at all. Lesser-of-two-evils has nothing to do with human nature. It's a byproduct of plurality voting and the spoiler effect, where one side's votes can become split between multiple candidates. It's the reason Clinton won in '92 even though he didn't have majority support. He won because conservative votes were split between Bush and Perot. That can't happen with RCV.

Rank choice voting doesn't do anything to prevent people from voting for lesser evils. In fact, it encourages essentially the same reasoning.

How? Where are you getting this??

Sure, people might not vote for the lesser of two evils anymore. But it won't stop them from voting for the two lesser of three evils. Your chief complaint remains.

How? With RCV there's literally no reason to do that. You need to explain what you're getting at. It makes no sense whatsoever from what you've said so far.

It's not your place to tell other people they shouldn't vote for the lesser of two evils, just like it's not your place to tell people if, when, with whom, or how to have sex.

WTF???

The correct solution is to make more options easily accessible, by making equitable victory available to non-duopoly candidates.

What are you talking about? That's what RCV does.

Rank choice voting will only eliminate the smaller parties from having any identity of their own.

How??

 

[dblack]

No, it's not, and it's just plain dumb to claim that. Plurality voting allows smaller parties to be viable candidates.

How? That makes no sense whatsoever. It makes them perpetually un-viable.

Single seat elections are what leads to dual-party systems and negative-partisanship voting behaviors. If a jurisdiction can only elect one seat, the electorate tend to rally behind the candidate they believe has the best chance of beating the party that is most disliked.

It seems that you really don't understand what lesser-of-two-evils, or the spoiler effect is. I agree with you that multi-representative districts are a good idea - if that's what you're saying. They would neutralize gerrymandering and better represent states' interests. But --- There would be no need to game the system like this with RCV. All you need to do to defeat a candidate that most people don't like is for all those people to rank him dead last. That ensures that, even though they might disagree on who is best, they all agree on who is worst. And, we get to find out who people really support.

With plurality voting, people are frightened into claiming support for a candidate they don't like, because they're afraid another candidate might win. Their true preferences are not represented.

 

[dblack]

No, it's not, and it's just plain dumb to claim that. Plurality voting allows smaller parties to be viable candidates.

Single seat elections are what leads to dual-party systems and negative-partisanship voting behaviors. If a jurisdiction can only elect one seat, the electorate tend to rally behind the candidate they believe has the best chance of beating the party that is most disliked.

Alternate answer - more to the point. This is exactly the problem RCV solves. There's no need to rally behind the candidate they believe has the best chance of winning. They can just vote honestly.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Alternate answer - more to the point. This is exactly the problem RCV solves. There's no need to rally behind the candidate they believe has the best chance of winning. They can just vote honestly.

It "solves" it by fully eliminating smaller parties, as they'll lose all ability to have any significance to an election's outcome, and ultimately be absorbed by the hegemony of the two main parties.

 

[dblack]

It "solves" it by fully eliminating smaller parties, as they'll lose all ability to have any significance to an election's outcome, and ultimately be absorbed by the hegemony of the two main parties.

They'll have more significance. When a minor party gets a significant number of first place votes, the other parties will be looking for ways to attract those voters, because first place votes give them an advantage. Under the two party system, minor party candidates never get a significant number of votes, even if they have significant support. So their interests are largely ignored.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

When a minor party gets a significant number of first place votes

And that demonstrates why you're entirely off base. Whatever you think "significant" means, the fact is that smaller parties will NEVER be in the running with rank choice voting, because their votes will only be hijacked by whichever major party candidate the voter indicateds with their number 2 vote.

Your entire argument relies on the absurd premise that these smaller parties are more popular than the major parties. If what you say is true, then the solution you are seeking wouldn't be necessary in the first place. If, for example, the Green Party were more popular on the left than the Democrat party, then voter registration would reflect that. Mass organization would inevitably result, and this would ultimately translate into some form of regular electoral success and the eventual usurpation of the Democratic Party's position in the duopoly by the Green Party.

But that's not the case. The Democratic and Republican parties remain the two most popular choices among the electorate. All that will happen with rank choice voting is that votes for smaller parties will be ABSORBED by the larger two parties, and allow each party to avoid spoiler effects. Rank choice voting in 2000 wouldn't have done squat to give Nader a chance to win. All it would have done is to give Nader's votes to Gore.

The smaller parties will become nothing more than farm teams for the two main parties, and THAT will be the final nail in their coffins. People will hasten their disillusionment with smaller parties, and the ONLY people to retain interest in them will be zealots stubbornly clinging to a niche ideology.

The simple fact is that there's nothing we can do prevent our system from trending toward two major parties. The solution is to set a low bar to entry for smaller parties to enter the scene with alternative ideas, so that major parties can't simply rely on pre-existing size to suffocate out competition.

 

[dblack]

And that demonstrates why you're entirely off base. Whatever you think "significant" means, the fact is that smaller parties will NEVER be in the running with rank choice voting, because their votes will only be hijacked by whichever major party candidate the voter indicateds with their number 2 vote.

You clearly don't understand RCV. Seriously, you just keep making "black is white" claims. Just denying the facts about how RCV works.

Most opposition to RCV coms from two-party faithful, and boils down to "I think it might harm my party" or "it's a trick by the other side" - "so I oppose it". I'm beginning to suspect that's where you're coming from.

Your entire argument relies on the absurd premise that these smaller parties are more popular than the major parties.

No, it doesn't. Where did come up with that??

The simple fact is that there's nothing we can do prevent our system from trending toward two major parties.

That's not the goal of RCV. Australia uses it nation wide, and still maintains two strong parties. Again, you just to be propagating a lot of misinformation about ranked choice voting. Or you just don't understand it.

The solution is to set a low bar to entry for smaller parties to enter the scene with alternative ideas, so that major parties can't simply rely on pre-existing size to suffocate out competition.

What does that even mean?? Do you have an alternative solution in mind? What?