Third-Party Group No Labels Votes To Field A Presidential Candidate

I know how it works. One of the 2 major parties will ultimately win.
That depends on how people vote.
The ballots that don't have any major party vote end up "exhausted", that is the next candidate on their list is already eliminated.
That's not what an "exhausted" ballot is. An exhausted ballot is one where the voter failed to rank all the candidates, and all that are left are candidates they didn't rank. Which is exactly the same as the voter not showing up to the runoff election.
The ballots that have major party c`andidates somewhere on the list get assigned to that candidate until one of them is over 50% and he wins.
No, that's not how it works. The ballots get assigned to the candidates as ranked by the voter.
If you just have to have a winner with a majority because you think it bestows some kind of extra "legitimacy" ...
That's not what it's about. The majority isn't always right, and approval of 51% of voters doesn't legitimize anything. What RCV does is eliminate the spoiler effect. It takes away the "lesser-of-two-evils" nonsense and lets people vote honestly. And that's what scares the two-party drones. Lesser-of-two-evils is all they know. They've long ago given up on trying to nominate good candidates. All they have to do is convince voters that the "other guy" is worse.
I know how math works. We don't need funky counting games to figure out who got the most votes in an election. RCV is just a way to give the loser a chance to win, because he has more #2 ranks than the guy that actually won.
You just claimed above that RCV guarantees that the major parties win. What gives?

You seem to be grasping for objections.
 
It seems to be only Republicans proclaiming the glory of No Labels, just as it's only Republicans proclaiming the glory of Kennedy.

Thus, I don't see them taking voters from Democrats.
If you mean RFK jr, he is a far better democrat than biden or the other leftwing political hacks that libs would replace him with
 
I don't want to see a president elected by a minority of the voters. Bush Jr. and Trump were and they were disasters.
Dont overlook Obama and biden

They were clearly national disasters
 
Ranked choice voting guarantees the duopoly is never defeated. Minor party candidate's votes are just assigned to one of the major parties, so even if that person did not receive a majority (or even a plurality), he can still win by taking the votes from other candidates. I hate RCV.

Runoffs are more fair to the voter because a ballot cannot be "exhausted" due to ranking, every vote is counted, and it guarantees a winner by majority vote. It may not be as convenient for the State to hold a runoff election, but it is a better representation of the will of the electorate.
I think you have it backwards. It is RCV that ensures every vote is counted. In a runoff, only the top 2 candidates would make the 2nd round and any votes for the 3rd, 4th, 5th, etc., would be ignored. With RCV you get to essentially vote 5 times if there are 5 candidates and each vote counts in the final tally. For a runoff to achieve the same result you'd have to have a multiple runoffs if there were 5 candidates with only one being eliminated each time.
 
Dont overlook Obama and biden

They were clearly national disasters
That can be debated but at least they were the choice of the majority of voters. Minority rule only works for a time and breeds resentment and calls for change. Trump was a minority choice but managed to appoint 3 to SCOTUS to swing that balance. How many calls have there been on the Left to redress that balance?
 
That can be debated but at least they were the choice of the majority of voters
Sure, if you want hand over the fate of the entire nation to California and New York along with a few other states

I dont
 
Sure, if you want hand over the fate of the entire nation to California and New York along with a few other states

I dont
So you want the people of California and New York along with a few other states to hand over their fate to a few farmers in Wyoming?

Doesn't sound democratic to me.
 
So you want the people of California and New York along with a few other states to hand over their fate to a few farmers in Wyoming?

Doesn't sound democratic to me.
Its more than farmers in Wyoming

Its a majority of the states with various interests
 
Read the title on the door again

Its The United STATES of America
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
 
We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.
The constitution incudes states rights
 
So you want the people of California and New York along with a few other states to hand over their fate to a few farmers in Wyoming?

Doesn't sound democratic to me.
The system was set up not to be a democracy, even if it does have some aspects of democracy. The Founding Fathers understood that people in rural areas have very different values from people in urban areas. Rural states simply would not have joined the Union knowing that they'd be forever disenfranchised by the numerical superiority of urbanites. They had, and have, no interest in being under the thumb of people with an alien value system. You can sing the praises of democracy all you want, but people in the permanent minority can see what a disaster it would be for them.
 
The system was set up not to be a democracy, even if it does have some aspects of democracy. The Founding Fathers understood that people in rural areas have very different values from people in urban areas. Rural states simply would not have joined the Union knowing that they'd be forever disenfranchised by the numerical superiority of urbanites. They had, and have, no interest in being under the thumb of people with an alien value system. You can sing the praises of democracy all you want, but people in the permanent minority can see what a disaster it would be for them.
I don't disagree that minority rights deserve protection but as it is now the majority are subservient to the minority and that is not a key to long-term stability. The tree that won't bend will break.
 
I don't disagree that minority rights deserve protection but as it is now the majority are subservient to the minority and that is not a key to long-term stability. The tree that won't bend will break.
I agree, although we may disagree on who this minority is. Politicians actually do the will of the donor class. Regardless of who you vote for the donor class calls the shots. Democracy is just a way of conning the masses into thinking that they have a voice in government.
 
I agree, although we may disagree on who this minority is. Politicians actually do the will of the donor class. Regardless of who you vote for the donor class calls the shots. Democracy is just a way of conning the masses into thinking that they have a voice in government.
We get the government we deserve. We don't want to fund elections so we have a donor class that will. We just want a free lunch and then get upset when we find the people paying for that lunch are writing the menu.
 

Forum List

Back
Top