Other party candidates and ranked choice voting (1 Viewer)

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
1,341
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
Does anyone know much about Libertarian candidate Jo Jorgensen? I can't find much on him her. Does anyone know much about him her and his her platform?


EDITED: thread title to include discussion on any other party candidates, to vote or note vote for other party candidates, and ranked choice balloting. Those issues have been raised in this thread and I think they are important things to discuss.
 
Last edited:

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
432
Reaction score
1,783
Age
35
Location
Louisiana
Offline
I can't find much on him. Does anyone know much about him and his platform?
Jo Jorgensen is female; she has been a libertarian for a long time and run in prior elections dating at least back to the early 90s. Here's the libertarian platform:


I know little else about her, but there are plenty of policies in the Libertarian platform that I have zero problem with (while there are also some I strongly disagree with). I mainly just don't like the idea of votes being thrown away to a non-competitive third party in an election with such dramatic implications for the long-term health of democracy.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #3
OP

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
1,341
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
Jo Jorgensen is female; she has been a libertarian for a long time and run in prior elections dating at least back to the early 90s. Here's the libertarian platform:


I know little else about her, but there are plenty of policies in the Libertarian platform that I have zero problem with (while there are also some I strongly disagree with). I mainly just don't like the idea of votes being thrown away to a non-competitive third party in an election with such dramatic implications for the long-term health of democracy.
Thanks for the correction and the link. I did a search for the 2020 libertarian candidate and got her name with a photo of some guy next to it. None of the links really said much. I hadn't thought of just searching for the libertarian platform.

I found an NPR interview in which she said this about being opposed to state issued stay at home orders:
... they asked people, should we be opening up the economy, something like 60 to 80% of the people said no, it's too soon. We should still stay at home. OK, so that just shows that people have enough common sense to stay at home without the government telling them to.

I agree, most people are sensible and considerate which is reflected in the 60 to 80% response. However, she seems to overlook the flip side is that 20 to 40% of the population indicated they were not willing to be sensible and considerate. They didn't have the common sense to stay at home with the government telling them to, so her own stats invalidate her point.

I agree with individual liberty up to the point that an individual's actions can cause harm to others. We don't have the liberty to drive on any side of the street that we want. We don't have the liberty to burn stuff anywhere we want. We don't have the liberty to defecate where ever we want. Heck we don't even have the liberty to be nude where ever we want.

We all accept these restrictions on our personal liberties as part of the cooperative public good, including Jo Jorgensen. So I find it bizarre that putting temporary restrictions on people's movements in response to a deadly pandemic is an unacceptable imposition on personal liberty.

The priorities seem all out of whack to me.

The good news is that it seems like she is more likely to siphon votes away from Trump than from Biden.
 
Last edited:

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
432
Reaction score
1,783
Age
35
Location
Louisiana
Offline
We all accept these restrictions on our personal liberties as part of the cooperative public good, including Jo Jorgensen. So I find it bizarre that putting temporary restrictions on people's movements in response to a deadly pandemic is an unacceptable imposition on personal liberty.
Agreed. It's healthy to question or challenge government actions that infringe on personal liberties, lest they take advantage when people are scared and let their guard down, but in the face of complex global health challenges, it's too simplistic to expect government not to take actions that are temporarily restrictive of our normal ideals of individual liberty. We should continue to conduct balancing tests to ensure the restriction is appropriately responsive to the threat, but to remove restrictions entirely is to ensure many more people die than necessary.
 

Infoman

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 1, 2019
Messages
232
Reaction score
176
Location
Ya mama house
Offline
I mainly just don't like the idea of votes being thrown away to a non-competitive third party in an election with such dramatic implications for the long-term health of democracy.

This... This attitude right here is why we are continually and perpetually stuck with the same archaic and utterly corrupt and useless divisionary 2 party system we have today... and "we just must choose a lesser of 2 evils depending on what I think is evil"...

Since I live in Louisiana... and my electoral college vote will be "Red" despite my personal vote... I will always vote 3rd party when there is a choice between 2 terrible candidates... just like I did in 2016.... and just like it is again this year.

As long as this short-sighted attitude exists... we will keep getting the garbage each party throws at us (decides is best for us) and no real choices worth choosing... just the illusion of that notion... and some fake sense of a "lesser of 2 evils"...

I am opting out of that notion for good... so should everyone else... or just continue reap what you sew.

At some point... we have to change this divisionary dynamic of a 2 party system... or watch the country we love burn because of it...
 
Last edited:

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
906
Reaction score
2,037
Age
44
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
@Infoman

I had voted for a 3rd party Candidate every election. Always for the Green Party candidate until Jill Stein. Mainly because Ralph Nader and i agree in most areas.

I voted for Hillary because she was the one who I felt was best for America, not just me personally.

Despite my misgivings with her, she was the best of all of the four candidates. I am not selfish enough to be a Libertarian, and the Green Party has lost its way in my opinion.

I will vote for Joe Biden this election, not because he is a Democrat, or even the Dem I voted for in the primary. He wasn’t. but because of the options he is the most suited for the job. By quite some in my opinion.

Again I don’t line up with most of the Libertarian policies, and the ones I do are for selfish, personal reasons. Not what I think is best for America.

I believe Joe to be competent and compassionate and will fill his cabinet with capable individuals. Again what is best for America. In my opinion if you are voting for who you think is best for you, then you are doing a disservice as a citizen of the United States
 

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
432
Reaction score
1,783
Age
35
Location
Louisiana
Offline
This... This attitude right here is why we are continually and perpetually stuck with the same archaic and utterly corrupt and useless divisionary 2 party system we have today... and "we just must choose a lesser of 2 evils depending on what I think is evil"...

Since I live in Louisiana... and my electoral college vote will be "Red" despite my personal vote... I will always vote 3rd party when there is a choice between 2 terrible candidates... just like I did in 2016.... and just like it is again this year.

As long as this short-sighted attitude exists... we will keep getting the garbage each party throws at us (decides is best for us) and no real choices worth choosing... just the illusion of that notion... and some fake sense of a "lesser of 2 evils"...

I am opting out of that notion for good... so should everyone else... or just continue reap what you sew.

At some point... we have to change this divisionary dynamic of a 2 party system... or watch the country we love burn because of it...

Beating your chest about corruption in the two party system and short-sightedness of the sheep who buy into it sounds great, but in the end, you're not effecting meaningful revolutionary change by voting for a candidate that will win precisely zero states. The current political situation is far too dire to take ideological stands that will have no practical impact in the voting booth.

If you think my position is that the party I plan to vote for is simply "the lesser of two evils," then you've gravely misunderstood it. I align with the Democratic party on most of its platform. And although Biden wasn't my first choice, I think he will make a good president. But in addition to that, the long-term, and likely short-term, health of our democracy hangs in the balance in 2020, and whether you like it or not, the only practical opportunity you have to meaningfully participate in shaping its future is by voting for one of the two parties that can win.

If you want a political revolution, then build a coalition that can win the next election. But don't chastise me for not sharing your view that I should throw my vote away in this election in protest of the current system. It isn't practical, and it falsely assumes our democracy will still be here once your point is made. The history of other fallen democracies is *screaming* at you that voting for non-competitive parties doesn't work out the way you think it does, especially when one of the major parties is controlled by authoritarians and their enablers. And keep in mind how much better off we are because of all the votes Jill Stein got in 2016.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #8
OP

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
1,341
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
This... This attitude right here is why we are continually and perpetually stuck with the same archaic and utterly corrupt and useless divisionary 2 party system we have today... and "we just must choose a lesser of 2 evils depending on what I think is evil"...

Since I live in Louisiana... and my electoral college vote will be "Red" despite my personal vote... I will always vote 3rd party when there is a choice between 2 terrible candidates... just like I did in 2016.... and just like it is again this year.

As long as this short-sighted attitude exists... we will keep getting the garbage each party throws at us (decides is best for us) and no real choices worth choosing... just the illusion of that notion... and some fake sense of a "lesser of 2 evils"...

I am opting out of that notion for good... so should everyone else... or just continue reap what you sew.

At some point... we have to change this divisionary dynamic of a 2 party system... or watch the country we love burn because of it...
The real problem is actually the first-past-the-post ballot which only allows us to vote for our top choice. The current one choice voting system is designed to render any third party vote meaningless and allow government control by people who don't have a majority of citizen support.

If we used multiple choice ballots, then people could vote a third party candidate as their top choice and then vote the major party candidates in order of preference of second and third choice. That way we'd all have a voice no matter how we voted. If our top choice was a third party candidate who was the first eliminated, then we'd still get our second choice counted. If necessary, our third and successive choices would also be counted.

Every person's vote would count with a multiple choice ballot. If we want to break the two party system deadlock, we need to push for changing our voting system instead of railing against our fellow citizens for how they vote.
 

SaintForLife

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 5, 2019
Messages
2,150
Reaction score
1,513
Location
Madisonville
Offline
If a party's candidate can get on the ballot in all states or something near that they should be allowed to be in the Presidential debates.

The people who claim voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away help contribute to the corrupt 2 party system that prevents our country from properly addressing critical issues. The corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates doesn't want the public to hear from other parties because it could show the public how the 2 party system promotes power over the citizen's needs.



 

tomwaits

Active member
Joined
Dec 12, 2019
Messages
21
Reaction score
28
Age
45
Location
Blackhawk, TX
Offline
She has received a lot of backlash with small "l" libertarians because she was trying to pander to the woke left crowd and was not pushing more important libertarian messaging. The big "L" Libertarian party is kind of a dumpster fire, so just like all political parties I guess.

In short, she is better than Trump and Harris (let's stop pretending Biden will have much to do with the presidency if elected) but a lot of libertarians are disappointed in how she squandered her candidacy.

A lot of libertarians understand that the libertarian candidate is not going to be elected and the point of running is to help change people's minds to see how liberty is a better option than statism. If she had come out and had a strong message, say about the lockdowns being unlawful and tyrannical, she could have received more press coverage than her weak messaging she has gone with.

Its a shame Jacob Hornberger didn't get the nomination, he would have been a better communicator of liberty ideas.
 

GMRfellowtraveller

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
1,495
Age
54
Location
new orleans
Offline
This... This attitude right here is why we are continually and perpetually stuck with the same archaic and utterly corrupt and useless divisionary 2 party system we have today... and "we just must choose a lesser of 2 evils depending on what I think is evil"...

Since I live in Louisiana... and my electoral college vote will be "Red" despite my personal vote... I will always vote 3rd party when there is a choice between 2 terrible candidates... just like I did in 2016.... and just like it is again this year.

As long as this short-sighted attitude exists... we will keep getting the garbage each party throws at us (decides is best for us) and no real choices worth choosing... just the illusion of that notion... and some fake sense of a "lesser of 2 evils"...

I am opting out of that notion for good... so should everyone else... or just continue reap what you sew.

At some point... we have to change this divisionary dynamic of a 2 party system... or watch the country we love burn because of it...
and we get a 3rd party and the complaints will be about 'the lesser of 3 evils' and if a 4th party...

work for ranked choice voting first
then develop grass roots candidates

whining about 3rd party only for presidential campaigns in the last 4 months of the cycle yields predictable results

(yes i know you don't only whine for 4 months out of every 4 years)
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #12
OP

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
1,341
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
If a party's candidate can get on the ballot in all states or something near that they should be allowed to be in the Presidential debates.

The people who claim voting 3rd party is throwing your vote away help contribute to the corrupt 2 party system that prevents our country from properly addressing critical issues. The corrupt Commission on Presidential Debates doesn't want the public to hear from other parties because it could show the public how the 2 party system promotes power over the citizen's needs.
I share the same beliefs regarding the problem of the 2 party domination of our political choices. Both parties win elections by appealing to a narrow "base" of voters. That inherently leads to our elected officials only looking out for the interests of a narrow "base" of our population.

Unfortunately, as long as our ballot is a one choice ballot, we have no chance of breaking that domination. The best and most feasible first step is to push for ranked choice ballots in the states we live in. Maine has already moved to that system.

Ranked choice vote also diminishes the influence of corporate money and gerrymandering. Under a ranked choice ballot system candidates are forced to appeal to as many people as possible, instead of just a "base" of voters. They would all have to truly appeal to and represent a true majority of voters to win an election.
 
  • Thread Starter
  • Thread starter
  • #13
OP

LA - L.A.

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,136
Reaction score
1,341
Location
Studio City, CA
Offline
and we get a 3rd party and the complaints will be about 'the lesser of 3 evils' and if a 4th party...

work for ranked choice voting first
then develop grass roots candidates

whining about 3rd party only for presidential campaigns in the last 4 months of the cycle yields predictable results

(yes i know you don't only whine for 4 months out of every 4 years)
Candidates who aren't running under one of the 2 parties can't win by playing by the 2 parties' ballot rules.

We need to change the ballot rules first, then we can actually compete with candidates from the 2 parties or force the candidates from those 2 parties to be more represenative of a majority of us.

Keep in mind that anyone who represents a majority of us will not give any of us everything we want. We will all have to be willing to meet each other halfway and reach compromises.
 

Taurus

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
689
Reaction score
1,535
Age
53
Location
Yacolt, WA
Offline
Thanks for the correction and the link. I did a search for the 2020 libertarian candidate and got her name with a photo of some guy next to it. None of the links really said much. I hadn't thought of just searching for the libertarian platform.

I found an NPR interview in which she said this about being opposed to state issued stay at home orders:


I agree, most people are sensible and considerate which is reflected in the 60 to 80% response. However, she seems to overlook the flip side is that 20 to 40% of the population indicated they were not willing to be sensible and considerate. They didn't have the common sense to stay at home with the government telling them to, so her own stats invalidate her point.

I agree with individual liberty up to the point that an individual's actions can cause harm to others. We don't have the liberty to drive on any side of the street that we want. We don't have the liberty to burn stuff anywhere we want. We don't have the liberty to defecate where ever we want. Heck we don't even have the liberty to be nude where ever we want.

We all accept these restrictions on our personal liberties as part of the cooperative public good, including Jo Jorgensen. So I find it bizarre that putting temporary restrictions on people's movements in response to a deadly pandemic is an unacceptable imposition on personal liberty.

The priorities seem all out of whack to me.

The good news is that it seems like she is more likely to siphon votes away from Trump than from Biden.

As is the failing of a lot of Libertarian ideas, she overlooks the fact that unless the government is telling you to stay home, your employer will for damn sure tell you to come to work.
These policies don't exist in a vaccum.
 

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
906
Reaction score
2,037
Age
44
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
The Libertarian mantra of “I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it is peaceful“ might work in a home or even a small town. But it is absolutely unworkable in a society. Oh and decrying end of taxes and central government well, I wish I didn’t have to pay them either but I like having my kids go to school, my waste water treated and yeah the interstates are pretty important too.

Moreover, the idea that everything was just great in this country until the 20th century (except for you know slavery) and then socialism and imperialism ruined everything is such a rudimentary and frankly dim witted ethos its no wonder they are not taken seriously.

I say Libertarians are selfish because I can’t think of anything more selfish than “I get mine and you get yours.”

I am for going back to the tax rates if the 1950’s. Where people in the top 2% pay over 50% in taxes- and that would include myself. I am for taking the earnings cap off SS. A UBI. Universal healthcare. These are all things that would not benefit me at all, and in some cases would be a detriment. But they would have a most certain positive affect on society. A society that I absolutely benefit from; and would stand to benefit even greater were it a healthier society.

And spare me the free market nonsense. We have seen just how adept the free market is at handling nation sized problems with the pandemic. I shudder at the thought if the government hadn’t footed the bill for the research. I am sure Pfizer wouldn’t have charged thousands per inoculation either
 

The moose

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
1,361
Reaction score
1,217
Age
52
Location
New Orleans
Offline
The Libertarian mantra of “I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it is peaceful“ might work in a home or even a small town. But it is absolutely unworkable in a society. Oh and decrying end of taxes and central government well, I wish I didn’t have to pay them either but I like having my kids go to school, my waste water treated and yeah the interstates are pretty important too.

Moreover, the idea that everything was just great in this country until the 20th century (except for you know slavery) and then socialism and imperialism ruined everything is such a rudimentary and frankly dim witted ethos its no wonder they are not taken seriously.

I say Libertarians are selfish because I can’t think of anything more selfish than “I get mine and you get yours.”

I am for going back to the tax rates if the 1950’s. Where people in the top 2% pay over 50% in taxes- and that would include myself. I am for taking the earnings cap off SS. A UBI. Universal healthcare. These are all things that would not benefit me at all, and in some cases would be a detriment. But they would have a most certain positive affect on society. A society that I absolutely benefit from; and would stand to benefit even greater were it a healthier society.

And spare me the free market nonsense. We have seen just how adept the free market is at handling nation sized problems with the pandemic. I shudder at the thought if the government hadn’t footed the bill for the research. I am sure Pfizer wouldn’t have charged thousands per inoculation either


You see the problem is you see logically.

From your post you obviously believe the we as a nation are only as strong as our weakest link in the chain.

I wholeheartedly agree.
 

Ayo

Spirit Grocer
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
895
Reaction score
2,308
Location
Toronto
Offline
We have several parties here and I'm convinced, after seeing it in action, that it's not what is going to fix the US's ills.

Ranked choice voting. Campaign reform (including funding). I think these will have a greater impact on political representation than we currently have.
 

RobF

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
504
Reaction score
1,680
Location
Warrington, UK
Offline
We have several parties here and I'm convinced, after seeing it in action, that it's not what is going to fix the US's ills.
Likewise, in the UK, we have multiple parties that have significant support, and debates that feature the leaders of those parties.

And I cannot stress enough that having multiple parties can make the situation worse. In a first past the post voting system, the more candidates you have, the lower the level of support a party can win and still claim victory. If you have just two candidates for a seat, one of them needs to get more than half the vote to win. If you have three, one of them can get just over a third of the vote and still win. Four, just over a quarter, and so on.

I don't want to say third parties can never offer a meaningful alternative under FPTP - in the UK, the Scottish National Party became dominant in Scotland over Labour and the Conservatives following the 2015 general election, and there's an excellent Green Party Member of Parliament for Brighton - but it's far more typical for parties to siphon votes from other parties they share principles or policies with, resulting in neither gaining enough votes to win representation, and enabling a party with minority support to gain majority rule, even though a majority may have preferred either of the other candidates.

Voters who share those principles or policies and want to see them represented in Parliament are essentially systematically forced to vote tactically, for their second (or later) choice candidates. Occasionally candidates will even voluntarily stand down in order to stop their candidacy having the effect of allowing a candidate they strongly oppose winning with minority support as a result of their running.

I also don't want to say third parties can't influence the major parties; the running of a third party candidate may force another party to adopt some of their platform to an attempt to prevent them siphoning votes from them... but where these are desirable platforms, this is often in a token form (for example, the presence of a Green Party may encourage other parties to adopt environmental policies, but these are all too frequently lip service only), and this same factor can bring undesirable platforms, such as populist nationalism and extremism, into the mainstream.

Two party dominance is baked into a FPTP system. Which two parties they are might vary regionally, and there might occasionally be dramatic shifts, but the system itself drives polarisation. The drive to vote for the 'least worst' candidate is systemic. Voting for third party candidates won't fix that. The winning party doesn't really care if some people vote third party; they may even welcome it where that's what's handing them their victory.

Ranked choice voting. Campaign reform (including funding). I think these will have a greater impact on political representation than we currently have.
Absolutely.

Systemically, FPTP drives voting tactically. But we can do that and campaign for electoral reform at the same time. Doing neither is an exercise in futility.
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

Advertisement

General News Feed

Fact Checkers News Feed

Sponsored

Top Bottom