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:

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
1,438
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
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.

I'm all for ranked choice. I think Maine does that, not sure what other states.
Also get rid of lobbyists, special interest groups, gerrymandering. Make voting a national holiday, and give people more accessible abilities to vote (setting up more places for them to go in person). Also not a fan of "polling monitors" which can be argued is usesd as voter intimidation
 

Devildog

Huge Member
Joined
Sep 30, 2019
Messages
167
Reaction score
403
Age
47
Location
DFW
Offline
I'm all for ranked choice. I think Maine does that, not sure what other states.
Also get rid of lobbyists, special interest groups, gerrymandering. Make voting a national holiday, and give people more accessible abilities to vote (setting up more places for them to go in person). Also not a fan of "polling monitors" which can be argued is usesd as voter intimidation

But muh freedum!
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
753
Reaction score
728
Age
58
Location
Alabama
Offline
I'm all for ranked choice. I think Maine does that, not sure what other states.
Also get rid of lobbyists, special interest groups, gerrymandering. Make voting a national holiday, and give people more accessible abilities to vote (setting up more places for them to go in person). Also not a fan of "polling monitors" which can be argued is usesd as voter intimidation
I think ranked choice voting would be great. I agree with most of the rest of what you said, except getting rid of lobbiests and special interest groups. With the other measures in place, those are important elements of a democracy.
Election Day should be an election weekend when most people are off. For those that work on a weekend, the election polling place hours should remain open at least 12 hours each day to help them. If that isn’t enough, then employers should be required to give their employees 2 hours off to vote.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
1,438
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
I think ranked choice voting would be great. I agree with most of the rest of what you said, except getting rid of lobbiests and special interest groups. With the other measures in place, those are important elements of a democracy.
Election Day should be an election weekend when most people are off. For those that work on a weekend, the election polling place hours should remain open at least 12 hours each day to help them. If that isn’t enough, then employers should be required to give their employees 2 hours off to vote.

I'm aware of some benefit to lobbyists.... but when I was typing it, I was thinking about the corporations that can, and have, heavily influenced politicians (usually in favor of their corporations and not the customers). It is really disturbing how much power and influence money can buy.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
753
Reaction score
728
Age
58
Location
Alabama
Offline
I'm aware of some benefit to lobbyists.... but when I was typing it, I was thinking about the corporations that can, and have, heavily influenced politicians (usually in favor of their corporations and not the customers). It is really disturbing how much power and influence money can buy.
I would favor banning foreign lobbyists including lobbies from corporations with headquarters abroad.
 

Yggdrasill

Well-known member
Joined
Aug 12, 2020
Messages
198
Reaction score
288
Age
59
Location
Seattle
Offline
Ranked choice voting is the number one election reform that we could implement in the US. In addition to all the reasons already suggested, I would add that it would allow for more moderate candidates to emerge as well as encourage more voter participation, not only in terms of voting but in terms of thoroughly researching candidates. You kind of have to in order to truly rank your choices.
 

MT15

Well-known member
Joined
Mar 13, 2019
Messages
4,439
Reaction score
7,373
Location
Midwest
Offline
I also like the early voting options. There should be a one-month (or more) period with voting available in grocery stores, public libraries, etc. They do that in some states now, and it takes a lot of pressure off for people who cannot get there on one certain day. Have some weekend hours and evening hours also. It should be convenient and easy to vote.
 

Krodwhodat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
65
Reaction score
102
Age
47
Location
Connecticut
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

and everything you said is opinion which is why we have elections and why people can vote third party if they want. No vote is a wasted vote because we all share different opinions. The waste are the ridiculous amount of people who stay home and don’t vote but again it’s an opinion and their right.
 

Krodwhodat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
65
Reaction score
102
Age
47
Location
Connecticut
Offline
I'm aware of some benefit to lobbyists.... but when I was typing it, I was thinking about the corporations that can, and have, heavily influenced politicians (usually in favor of their corporations and not the customers). It is really disturbing how much power and influence money can buy.
I look at it from a different direction, it’s really disturbing that we keep putting people in office that are putting money and power ahead of what their job should be. We shouldn’t have to tell elected officials to do the right thing. The quality of politicians is more detrimental than lobbyists or corporations
 

CoolBrees

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 29, 2019
Messages
848
Reaction score
1,948
Age
44
Location
Portland, Oregon
Offline
@Krodwhodat -

Actually that isn’t my opinion of Libertarian policy. The quote Regarding doing what you want and the ideas about America pre-20th century were taken directly from the Future of Freedom website. The founder is Jacob Hornberger who ran twice as the Libertarian candidate, including this year, and was promoted as the preferable, and most Libertarian candidate by a poster here. I researched their platform and I refuted it.

If you care to tell me why I am misguided in thinking that Libertarianism believes “I should be able to do whatever I want as long as it is peaceful“, take it up with Mr Hornberger- their his words.

The sections regarding my personal beliefs of taxation etc were my opinion but I made no comment that tried to make it be taken differently.

I agree completely regarding those who don’t vote being the problem btw. Especially when they complain about the current state of affairs
 

Krodwhodat

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 5, 2019
Messages
65
Reaction score
102
Age
47
Location
Connecticut
Offline
The sections regarding my personal beliefs of taxation etc were my opinion but I made no comment that would be taken differently.

I agree completely regarding those who don’t vote being the problem btw. Especially when they complain about the current state of affairs
That’s what I was talking about meaning personal beliefs, it wasnt a negative comment just my reasoning for third party votes. And if 100% of eligible voters voted I would be more excited about that than who won. I think that could legitimately put a third party in play or at least wake up the other two.
 

zztop

Well-known member
Joined
Feb 5, 2020
Messages
1,149
Reaction score
1,438
Age
121
Location
in a van down by the river
Offline
I look at it from a different direction, it’s really disturbing that we keep putting people in office that are putting money and power ahead of what their job should be. We shouldn’t have to tell elected officials to do the right thing. The quality of politicians is more detrimental than lobbyists or corporations

I agree with you, ideally. The only thing I can think of is instilling term limits, but I know a lot don't like that idea. And there is no guarantee that the people replacing the old wouldn't just do the same thing. I for one welcome our future robot overlords
 

Denzien

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
23
Reaction score
29
Age
41
Location
Austin, TX
Offline
Ranked Choice Voting is an incremental improvement to any voting system over FPTP, and is the system I support the most. Maybe because I invented it during a thought experiment while I was driving to work 8 years ago while trying to solve the spoiler effect, before I discovered that it had already been invented.

Given that I came up with it though, that probably means there are problems with it ... and it does have, and raise, several issues that more complex systems have attempted to solve - though the difference between systems is often 80% on how the algorithm is implemented.

The primary issue that I'm aware of is illustrated with the following scenario:
There are 3 candidates - A, B, and C.
40% of voters vote A, C
40% of voters vote B, C
20% of voters vote C, x

Candidate C is eliminated in the first round, leaving candidates A and B to split the votes from those who voted for candidate C as their primary candidate.

This is still clearly better than FPTP because candidate C voters still have their votes counted for the final round. However, objectively, candidate C had a higher voter approval and is possibly the best compromise candidate.

Approval voting was invented to help eliminate this issue by not ranking the candidates - you simply vote for the candidates you are fine with. In this system, total votes for each candidate are tallied and the winner is whoever had the most with no runoffs at all. In the scenario above, candidate C would be the immediate winner.

The problem I can see with approval voting is that everyone you approve of has the same weight in the election. What if there are two candidates you don't like, but you definitely have a preference between them? In approval voting, you would just not vote for either one. In RCV, you could at least put the better of the two you dislike last.

STAR voting sort of merges these two systems into the most complex one yet. In this system, you assign a value to each candidate. You can assign the same value to different candidates if you don't have a preference, and voila! Now you can rank your approvals.


There are lots of other systems, some use the exact same voting methods as one of the above, but calculate the winner differently.

------

Each of these systems has its flaws, which I've only barely touched on. But I feel like most people who disapprove of moving away from FPTP see the flaws in the suggested system(s) and say, "Wow, only 80% effective? I'll just stick with the 40% effective thing I already know."
Just like how libertarians see a LP candidate and say, "Wow, they said something that's non-libertarian! I'll go vote for this other person who said one thing that vaguely sounded libertarian instead!"

Frankly, and this is just my opinion, I feel like politics is getting worse. The state of the country is getting worse. The government is getting increasingly intrusive. I can tell you it's not because of the Green Party or the Libertarian Party, because it's been the Democrats and Republicans running this thing for 150 years or so. If you think things are getting better, well, then just keep doing what you're doing. I'm going to do something different.
 

TaylorB

Well-known member
Joined
Oct 20, 2019
Messages
427
Reaction score
1,756
Age
35
Location
Louisiana
Offline
Ranked Choice Voting is an incremental improvement to any voting system over FPTP, and is the system I support the most. Maybe because I invented it during a thought experiment while I was driving to work 8 years ago while trying to solve the spoiler effect, before I discovered that it had already been invented.

Given that I came up with it though, that probably means there are problems with it ... and it does have, and raise, several issues that more complex systems have attempted to solve - though the difference between systems is often 80% on how the algorithm is implemented.

The primary issue that I'm aware of is illustrated with the following scenario:
There are 3 candidates - A, B, and C.
40% of voters vote A, C
40% of voters vote B, C
20% of voters vote C, x

Candidate C is eliminated in the first round, leaving candidates A and B to split the votes from those who voted for candidate C as their primary candidate.

This is still clearly better than FPTP because candidate C voters still have their votes counted for the final round. However, objectively, candidate C had a higher voter approval and is possibly the best compromise candidate.

Approval voting was invented to help eliminate this issue by not ranking the candidates - you simply vote for the candidates you are fine with. In this system, total votes for each candidate are tallied and the winner is whoever had the most with no runoffs at all. In the scenario above, candidate C would be the immediate winner.

The problem I can see with approval voting is that everyone you approve of has the same weight in the election. What if there are two candidates you don't like, but you definitely have a preference between them? In approval voting, you would just not vote for either one. In RCV, you could at least put the better of the two you dislike last.

STAR voting sort of merges these two systems into the most complex one yet. In this system, you assign a value to each candidate. You can assign the same value to different candidates if you don't have a preference, and voila! Now you can rank your approvals.


There are lots of other systems, some use the exact same voting methods as one of the above, but calculate the winner differently.

------

Each of these systems has its flaws, which I've only barely touched on. But I feel like most people who disapprove of moving away from FPTP see the flaws in the suggested system(s) and say, "Wow, only 80% effective? I'll just stick with the 40% effective thing I already know."
Just like how libertarians see a LP candidate and say, "Wow, they said something that's non-libertarian! I'll go vote for this other person who said one thing that vaguely sounded libertarian instead!"

Frankly, and this is just my opinion, I feel like politics is getting worse. The state of the country is getting worse. The government is getting increasingly intrusive. I can tell you it's not because of the Green Party or the Libertarian Party, because it's been the Democrats and Republicans running this thing for 150 years or so. If you think things are getting better, well, then just keep doing what you're doing. I'm going to do something different.
To be honest, I'd never known there was significant support for systems other than FPTP until I read recent threads on this board. I appreciate the informative post on these other systems, as a lot of this info is new to me.

Many of the people on this board have shown interest in alternatives to the current system as far as tallying votes is concerned. I certainly understand the frustration with the status quo, and wonder if implementing these new voting systems would help to provide meaningful alternatives to the two-party system. I've stated the reasons I'm voting for a major party in 2020, but again, I certainly get why people want to just start over.

You thinking you'd invented the wheel reminded me of the 2015 race for Louisiana governor when I *thought* I had the unique idea to be able to either cast a vote *for* or a vote *against* a candidate. David Vitter was on the ballot in the jungle primary against John Bel Edwards (D), Scott Angelle (R), and Jay Dardenne (R). I generally like JBE and Jay, and think Vitter is a bottom-feeder. I remember wanting to cast a negative vote for Vitter in the primary and thinking that he could actually carry something close to 35-40% of *negative* votes to eliminate him as a candidate to get the other two Rs in a run-off against JBE. As much as I disliked the politics of the other 2 Rs, I generally thought they were decent human beings that would be much better for the state than Vitter (again, these were my thoughts in 2015).

Anyway, that was my first brush with the idea of an unconventional vote-tallying method -- naively thinking at the time that my idea was new and unique -- and I still think there's a lot of merit to reconsidering how we tally votes. I feel very strongly about the health of democracy being at stake in the 2020 election, and think the best option on the menu at this moment in history is to choose the democrat in the presidential election. But clearly this unique situation in history has compelled a lot of productive discourse and re-thinking of the status quo, and I think it would serve our democracy well in the future if we got more serious about it. We absolutely would be better off if there were broader diversity of competition among the political parties and I am glad so many people bring smart ideas to the table about how to make that happen.
 

Lapaz

Well-known member
Joined
Sep 28, 2019
Messages
753
Reaction score
728
Age
58
Location
Alabama
Offline
So I just read that New York, for the first time , will be using ranked choice voting in June’s primary elections for mayor and other top municipal posts.
I love that a couple of states have gone away from First to Post, since this means that these states should have more moderate candidates, but since New York usually has liberal representatives, this will shift the balance more to the right. It needs to be done at the national level to keep the balance of opinions fairly centric, rather than skewed right.
 

Denzien

Active member
Joined
Aug 4, 2020
Messages
23
Reaction score
29
Age
41
Location
Austin, TX
Offline
I love that a couple of states have gone away from First to Post, since this means that these states should have more moderate candidates, but since New York usually has liberal representatives, this will shift the balance more to the right. It needs to be done at the national level to keep the balance of opinions fairly centric, rather than skewed right.
If the U.S. is, indeed, a series of petri dish for ideas, then it makes sense that such a change would start locally and spread from there.

I think the first few elections after a switch won't really change anything - maybe even for decades or an entire generation. People will need time to adjust to the freedom of being able to vote for everyone they like and to break out of the two party mindset. Or they will have to die before any real progress is made. Either way, the sooner we start the better.
 

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