The Libertarian Party Is Losing It

[Couchpotato]

I don’t read the piece that way.

However, it is obviously true that some people are stupid. So complicating a simple ballot with this additional gibberish could confuse them quite a bit.

I don’t believe that’s what it says either.

Instead, f the artificial process of voting itself leads to some unwarranted advantage to an extreme candidate, it is the awarding of an unjust preference that is the problem.


As I said before, there are pros and cons.
And some of the arguments either way come with their own problems. But let’s simplify it. Over simplify it.

Three candidates. A, B and C. Each one votes for himself and don’t use the rank voting alternative option at all.

Now the general voters also weigh in. There are three non-candidates eligible voters and each shows up at the polling station. They are voters “”1,” “2” and “3.”

“1” votes for A but casts the alternative vote for C.
“2” votes for B but casts the alternative vote for C.
“3” votes for C but also chooses not to cast any alternative vote.
The tally of the votes doesn’t use Dominion .

Votes for A = two votes.
Votes for B = two votes.
Votes for C = two votes.

Oh oh. No one has the majority. However, by now using the alternative ranking, we see that

A has no alternative votes.
B has no alternative votes. But …
C does have some. He has the alternative vote of both A and B.

C wins the election.

Did the voters truly want C? Nope. In fact, all together A and B combined have 4 votes. But C got only 4, also. Yet C wins.

Why?

Your scenario only works if all three candidates get the exact same number of votes which is statistically very unlikely, but if they did under ranked choice C wouldnt win, as the alternative votes are only counted after the candidate with the least number of 1st place votes is eliminated. Since everyone has the same number of votes none of them would be eliminated and the alternate vote wouldnt be counted. Ranked choice just lets people cast that second vote without having to come back to the polls doesn't it? It's basically asking if your first choice werent there who would you vote for? You can choose to A not vote, or B vote for an alternative candidate. How is that any different than me coming back to the polls to cast that vote on a different day other than it being far more inconvenient and costing more money?

Are you sure you actually understand the system you're against?

 

[mamooth]

Libertarians are begging for more government subsidies again. Same old same old.

Hundreds of homes in Rio Verde Foothills are about to lose water; they won't be the last

Rio Verde Foothills residents are learning water isn't a guarantee in the desert, and realtors, developers, county officials are pointing fingers at each other.

www.12news.com

Rio Verde, Arizona. Created by libertarians to get away from those evil gubmint regulations. They found a sneaky way to bypass those evil gubmint laws that require new development to have a 100-year water source. Water rights cost money, so that let them build bigger and cheaper.

For 5 years, nearby Scottsdale subsidized them with discount government water, though no formal agreement was ever entered into. During the current drought, Scottsdale started running low themselves, so they stopped the water subsidies to Rio Verde. Libertarians howled. Sure, they could pay for a well, or buy tanked-in water from the private sector for more money, but like most liberatarians, they're addicted to gubmint subsidies.

 

[BackAgain]

Your scenario only works if all three candidates get the exact same number of votes which is statistically very unlikely, but if they did under ranked choice C wouldnt win, as the alternative votes are only counted after the candidate with the least number of 1st place votes is eliminated. Since everyone has the same number of votes none of them would be eliminated and the alternate vote wouldnt be counted. Ranked choice just lets people cast that second vote without having to come back to the polls doesn't it? It's basically asking if your first choice werent there who would you vote for? You can choose to A not vote, or B vote for an alternative candidate. How is that any different than me coming back to the polls to cast that vote on a different day other than it being far more inconvenient and costing more money?

Are you sure you actually understand the system you're against?

No. You miss the point it is an over simplified example. But in a larger field of candidates, the prospective complications can lead to much the same of worse problems

 

[dblack]

Oh no! The Libertarian party is losing it?

Who will we now elect to office?

A thoroughgoing piece of shit. Bet on it.

 

[Couchpotato]

No. You miss the point it is an over simplified example. But in a larger field of candidates, the prospective complications can lead to much the same of worse problems

How is it different than me coming back and voting for the candidate I like second best after the one I liked the best is eliminated because they didn’t get enough votes in the first election? That’s what we do now.

 

[dblack]

How is it different than me coming back and voting for the candidate I like second best after the one I liked the best is eliminated because they didn’t get enough votes in the first election? That’s what we do now.

It's not any different.

Partisans don't like RCV because it undermines their dominance by getting rid of the "lesser-of-two-evils" scam.

Fuck partisans.

 

[BackAgain]

How is it different than me coming back and voting for the candidate I like second best after the one I liked the best is eliminated because they didn’t get enough votes in the first election? That’s what we do now.

You vote twice?

 

[Couchpotato]

You vote twice?

I’m not sure I can discuss this with you. You appear wholly uninformed on the voting process and yet are somehow sure that RCV is a bad idea.

 

[BackAgain]

I’m not sure I can discuss this with you. You appear wholly uninformed on the voting process and yet are somehow sure that RCV is a bad idea.

I’m not at all uninformed. Indeed, you seem to be.

And I was pretty blunt in saying that, while I consider it an absurd idea, that there were pros and cons.

I’m very pleased to see that you are full of yourself though.

 

[Couchpotato]

I’m not at all uninformed. Indeed, you seem to be.

And I was pretty blunt in saying that, while I consider it an absurd idea, that there were pros and cons.

I’m very pleased to see that you are full of yourself though.

What do you think happened in Georgia in the Senate race just this past election?

 

[BackAgain]

What do you think happened in Georgia in the Senate race just this past election?

Let me guess. A candidate won?

Where do I pick up my prize?

 

[Couchpotato]

Let me guess. A candidate won?

Where do I pick up my prize?

There were three candidates. None of which got the majority of the vote so the candidate with least number of votes was eliminated and they had to hold another election. Then a candidate won. Now tell me how that process is different than everyone who wanted to choose a second choice did so at the first election instead of coming back on a different day and doing the same thing.

 

[EMH]

Libertarians are begging for more government subsidies again. Same old same old.

Hundreds of homes in Rio Verde Foothills are about to lose water; they won't be the last

Rio Verde Foothills residents are learning water isn't a guarantee in the desert, and realtors, developers, county officials are pointing fingers at each other.

www.12news.com

Rio Verde, Arizona. Created by libertarians to get away from those evil gubmint regulations. They found a sneaky way to bypass those evil gubmint laws that require new development to have a 100-year water source. Water rights cost money, so that let them build bigger and cheaper.

For 5 years, nearby Scottsdale subsidized them with discount government water, though no formal agreement was ever entered into. During the current drought, Scottsdale started running low themselves, so they stopped the water subsidies to Rio Verde. Libertarians howled. Sure, they could pay for a well, or buy tanked-in water from the private sector for more money, but like most liberatarians, they're addicted to gubmint subsidies.

Libertarianism = the exact opposite of Zionist Fascism


Even down to integrity, because Zionist Fascists have none...

 

[themirrorthief]

There's very little difference between the two at this moment in history....They're all becoming fundies that want to run your life and to fuck you in the ass for the rich.

get woke simple mind, the rich and powerful have always and will always control everything.....that is one thing that will never change....ever even Mao had people wipe his fat ass for him and we was the kind of communism

 

[jackflash]

I used to admire the Libertarian Party in some respects. In fact, in 2020 I voted for the Libertarian candidate because they have been more closely aligned with my beliefs than the two major parties.

There are some things with which I disagree strongly with the LP, but now they have really gone batshit insane.

To wit, this tweet:

For me the "Lp USA" lost it in 2013/2014 when they adopted a policy of; "pro choice on abortion". Murder is NEVER right under any situation, let alone butchering lil tykes in the womb.

I REALLY like your license plate a LOT!!!

 

[jackflash]

Ranked choice voting is the only way to break the iron grip of the duopoly.

As long as the statist left entertains the lefty ideology of non-constitutional one world big g'ment idolatry that freakin' RepubliCratic Duopoly Party(RCDP) will be the end of human life on good ole mutha earth for sure.

 

[John Edgar Slow Horses]

I like libertarians. They are so confusing. They are similar to fiercely independent house cats entirely existing on the system.

 

[Billiejeens]

I like libertarians. They are so confusing. They are similar to fiercely independent house cats entirely existing on the system.

Wow
That's pretty good.
You're certainly not wrong.

 

[dblack]

I like libertarians. They are so confusing. They are similar to fiercely independent house cats entirely existing on the system.

That's not libertarianism. There are many misconceptions about libertarianism, but one of the most popular is that we are "fiercely independent" and don't value community and support from others. Or that we look down on those in need.

That's simply not true. But I guess it makes a nice strawman.

 

[Dragonlady]

you might want to look at the constitution party,,
they havent lied cheated or stolen from us and seem to want to get back to a constitutional limited fed government

You cannot manage a sprawling nation of 360 million people with a constitutionally limited government. Your Founders wrote a Constitution for a small coastal nation with a vast diversity of climate and resources, and a population of fewer than 5 million people, no standing army, and no military goals.

While states' rights made a lot of sense in a peaceful agrarian nation where the weather went from 4 distinct seasons in the north, to semi-tropical in the south, a sprawling coast to coast nation of 360 million people, with world leadership ambitions needs a strong federal government to ensure equal rights for all citizens in all states.

There should be strong federal legislation governing voting rights, abortion rights, drug laws, public accommodations, gun rights, marriage rights and education. Your access to health care shouldn't be decided by a bunch of local white male theocrats who know nothing about women's health, biology, medicine, or birthing babies, because they've made a HUGE fucking mess of all of it.

You're spending all of your time and resources overcoming the damage being done by rich old white men across the nation. Now that they can no longer get away with gerrymandering, voter suppression or intimidation, they're trying to unseat, or refuse to seat elected representatives who want laws which reflect their constituents beliefs and requirements.

You were litigating minority rights and voting rights when I was a teenager. I'm 73, and you've managed to undo much of the Civil Rights Act, the Voting Rights Act, and you're trying to destroy public education, to ensure a permanent minority underclass, which has no votes or representation.

Red states starve black run cities, disinvesting in services, education and infrastructure as soon as the white population moves to the suburbs, until the quality of life is compromised, land then claim the Democrat run cities are "shit holes". Jackson Mississippi, like Flint Michigan before it, has a water crisis, because the white run Republican state house prevented them from building a new water treatment facility, and use any funds raised by these cities, for projects in the white suburbs.