Is Either Party Considering Nominating a Good Candidate?

[Blaster]

I probably would be a great candidate. I'm good looking which would get the female vote.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Again, you clearly don't understand how it works. I don't know who has fed you this crap, but I can only assume it was partisans defending their turf.

This is really sad. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that what I'm saying is the natural and logical result of rank choice voting. The fact that Democrats are the main ones who have been pushing for it should tell you something. You're the one falling for partisan propaganda.

 

[Natural Citizen]

Are either of the major parties considering nominating someone who doesn't suck?

Nope.

Ultimately they're all on the same team with regard to most relevant matters of policy.

That's why they stick to trading Mickey Mouse insults back and forth on the idiot box rather than actually present their position on critical, relevant matters of policy.

And the cable news entertaiment platforms are basically their parking place/platform to do that. Those platforms are just extentions of the party-of-one anyway.

That's also why my pronouns are I/Me & Mine and They/Them.

Ha...

I'd go for a Paul/Massie ticket. Unfortunately, the so-called ''Majority'' hasn't pulled its collective head far enough out of its rear end to look and make an effort at an honest comparison between statesmanship and the clown show.

I think that in time, when the so-called ''Majority'' have nothing left to lose and must actually live with the dire consequences of participating in the political coercion, and only then, will it start to consider questioning these ''faces'' in some kind of meaningful, relevant way and for the betterment of their own proserity.

Until then, none of this stuff's my fault. I've been writing-in Ron Paul for years. lol...

 

[ozro]

The problem with that is - for most people "is working" equates with "it gets my party elected". 90% of the opposition to RCV is coming from partisans who don't want to give up their two-party, lesser-of-two-evils scam. Both sides think it's a trick by the other get a leg up.

As far as convincing people it's working, that's why we're doing it locally, where people aren't so caught up in the partisan circle jerk and can see the benefits first hand.

But you may be right. Most voters these days are stupid and easily frightened, so it won't be too hard for the major parties to fearmonger RCV the same way the fuck everything else up.

I think it is much simpler than that. Take California for an example. If ranked choice voting was working there, I wouldn't be seeing all these people moving from there to my area in AZ. All of them bitching about the shitty leaders and rigged elections fucking up the economy in California.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

However, ranked-choice voting makes it more difficult to elect moderate candidates when the electorate is polarized. For example, in a three-person race, the moderate candidate may be preferred to each of the more extreme candidates by a majority of voters. However, voters with far-left and far-right views will rank the candidate in second place rather than in first place. Since ranked-choice voting counts only the number of first-choice votes (among the remaining candidates), the moderate candidate would be eliminated in the first round, leaving one of the extreme candidates to be declared the winner.

The flaw in ranked-choice voting: rewarding extremists

 

[dblack]

This is really sad. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see that what I'm saying is the natural and logical result of rank choice voting.

You'll have to make your argument. So far, you haven't.

The fact that Democrats are the main ones who have been pushing for it should tell you something.

That's not true. I'm in no way a Democrat. I've never voted Democrat. Likely never will. So are lots of the people I work with.

You're the one falling for partisan propaganda.

Alright. You're clearly dug in. Take it easy!

 

[Stormy Daniels]

There is a major experiment in ranked-choice voting going on in Maine, where not that long ago independent candidates were regularly helping Republicans win office by pluralities. Unsurprisingly, Maine Republicans have been fighting the expansion of the system, which this November will include the presidential race.

Ranked-Choice Voting Would Prevent Minor-Party Spoilers

 

[dblack]

However, ranked-choice voting makes it more difficult to elect moderate candidates when the electorate is polarized. For example, in a three-person race, the moderate candidate may be preferred to each of the more extreme candidates by a majority of voters. However, voters with far-left and far-right views will rank the candidate in second place rather than in first place. Since ranked-choice voting counts only the number of first-choice votes (among the remaining candidates), the moderate candidate would be eliminated in the first round, leaving one of the extreme candidates to be declared the winner.

The flaw in ranked-choice voting: rewarding extremists

That article is wrong in nearly every way. But I'm sick of banging heads with partisans.

 

[Blues Man]

Are either of the major parties considering nominating someone who doesn't suck? eg someone besides Biden, Trump or Desantis?

Why are we stuck on suck?

We get the politicians we deserve

Perhaps if we Americans were better people we'd get better politicians.

 

[dblack]

We get the politicians we deserve

Perhaps if we Americans were better people we'd get better politicians.

That pretty much sums it up. Stupid partisan voters nominate stupid partisan candidates. And they'll fight tooth and nail to keep their little racket in place.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

That article is wrong in nearly every way. But I'm sick of banging heads with partisans.

You're a joke. You're the one sitting here saying trying to convince people to adopt a change in voting methods on the basis that it will help break up the hold of the two major parties. But you can't even provide a simple explanation as to how that's ever going to happen. Instead you simply whine that nobody gets you and that nobody has proven you wrong, so you must be right.

It's a fucking stupid idea. Either you're so ravenously stupid that you actually believe in this garbage, or you know damn well it's garbage but you're pushing it anyway because you've been bought by the Dems and you don't even know it.

 

[dblack]

You're a joke. You're the one sitting here saying trying to convince people to adopt a change in voting methods on the basis that it will help break up the hold of the two major parties. But you can't even provide a simple explanation as to how that's ever going to happen. Instead you simply whine that nobody gets you and that nobody has proven you wrong, so you must be right.

I never said it would break the two major parties. And that's not the reason to adopt it. In Australia, where RCV has been adopted nationwide, there are still two major parties dominating, but the tone of the elections is radically different. RCV punishes divisive douchebags. Unlike our current system, it actually lets voters vote against a candidate they don't like. That gives candidate a strong incentive to avoid inspiring hatred from their opponents;

It's a fucking stupid idea. Either you're so ravenously stupid that you actually believe in this garbage, or you know damn well it's garbage but you're pushing it anyway because you've been bought by the Dems and you don't even know it.

Every single criticism you've posted in this thread is straight from the RNC's phony talking points. i know. I read them. The only genuine opposition you've voiced is that you don't like it because you think it will give Democrats an edge. It won't. But I can't give a single fuck. Idiots like you are the problem. We simply have to steer around you.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

Unlike our current system, it actually lets voters vote against a candidate they don't like.

In our current system, almost all voting is against someone they don't like.

 

[miketx]

Are either of the major parties considering nominating someone who doesn't suck? eg someone besides Biden, Trump or Desantis?

Why are we stuck on suck?

Trump is a good candidate.

 

[dblack]

In our current system, almost all voting is against someone they don't like.

No. It's not. That's the problem. In our current system, you literally can't vote against someone. All you can do is pick one candidate and vote FOR them. That's it. Anything else is a bedtime story that idiots use to justify voting for shitty candidates. "I didn't really vote for Trump, I voted against Biden". Yeah, right. Your ballot says otherwise.

 

[Remodeling Maidiac]

Are either of the major parties considering nominating someone who doesn't suck? eg someone besides Biden, Trump or Desantis?

Why are we stuck on suck?

That will be up to the voters not the parties.

 

[Stormy Daniels]

No. It's not. That's the problem. You literally can't vote against someone. All you can do is pick one candidate and vote FOR them. That's it. Anything else is a bedtime story that idiots use to justify voting for shitty candidates. "I didn't really vote for Trump, I voted against Biden". Yeah, right. Your ballot says something else.

What kind of drivel is this!?!?!?!?!

How in the fuck is rank choice voting supposed to create some magical method whereby people are voting against someone beyond what already exists? You are literally making up garbage.

You really should start paying attention to Rachel Bitecofer. She's being doing work for years that explores how negative partisanship is the predominant factor in modern American voting behaviors. In 2016 the biggest factor in the Presidential election was the prevailing anti-Hillary vote. In 2020 the biggest factor was the prevailing anti-Donald vote. Americans vote against the person they most hate more than they vote for anything else.

I can't figure out is why in the world you or anyone would think that elections being defined by anti-votes is supposed to be beneficial in the first place. But, if that's really what you want, then you've already got it!

 

[dblack]

That will be up to the voters not the parties.

Nope. Just the party members.

 

[dblack]

What kind of drivel is this!?!?!?!?!

How in the fuck is rank choice voting supposed to create some magical method whereby people are voting against someone beyond what already exists? You are literally making up garbage.

If you rank a candidate last, you have voted against them. Under no circumstances will they get your vote. You're literally saying you want your vote to go to any of the other candidates except for the one you ranked last.

You really should start paying attention to Rachel Bitecofer. She's being doing work for years that explores how negative partisanship is the predominant factor in modern American voting behaviors. In 2016 the biggest factor in the Presidential election was the prevailing anti-Hillary vote. In 2020 the biggest factor was the prevailing anti-Donald vote. Americans vote against the person they most hate more than they vote for anything else.

So how do we know who they hated most? How do we know who they were voting against? I voted Libertarian in 2020. Who did I vote "against"?

People may think they're voting against someone, but in reality they're not. All that's recorded on the ballot is their support for whomever they voted for. The rest is delusion.

I can't figure out is why in the world you or anyone would think that elections being defined by anti-votes is supposed to be beneficial in the first place. But, if that's really what you want, then you've already got it!

Because most candidates suck and it's getting worse and worse every election. If we don't grow up and learn to say "no" to the hucksters, our country is done. I'd like to think voters will just wake up on their own, but I think it's going to take systemic changes.

 

[miketx]

Voting works now?