The Libertarian Party Is Losing It

[dblack]

Zzz



You’re a void.

 

[BackAgain]

One of the best analyses about the numerous problems with the “ranked choice voting” scheme goes back to 2019.

Asswipes like dblockkhead will dismiss it because “Heritage” or because of who wrote it. But he won’t refute the criticism or any part of the analysis. He can’t.

 

[dblack]

One of the best analyses about the numerous problems with the “ranked choice voting” scheme goes back to 2019.

Asswipes like dblockkhead will dismiss it because “Heritage” or because of who wrote it. But he won’t refute the criticism or any part of the analysis. He can’t.

The fact that it scares the two party twits tells me it's an improvement. The supposed "problems" (unquoted and unlinked) are excuse making. They don't like it because it threatens their fear mongering game.

 

[dblack]

The fact that it scares the two party twits tells me it's an improvement. The supposed "problems" (unquoted and unlinked) are excuse making. They don't like it because it threatens their fear mongering game.

Ranked choice voting is just run-off elections, like we've been doing for years in states like Texas, Georgia, North Carolina, Mississippi, etc ..... The only difference is, rather than forcing everyone to vote again, you cast your votes for the runoff election at the same time you vote for the first round (that's what the ranking part is doing), so we avoid the cost and trouble of doing it all over again. That's it. Nothing nefarious.

That means you can actually pick the candidate you think is best, instead of playing the lesser-of-two-evils game, and still be fully confident that, if your first choice doesn't win, your vote will go to your second choice. That means if you don't like Trump, but you think Biden is by far the worst, you can vote for the candidate you actually think is best, but still rank Trump above Biden so that, if all else fails and it comes down to Trump vs Biden in the end, Trump will get your vote and not Biden. You can vote for RFK as your first choice, for example, rank Trump third and put Biden dead last where he belongs.

Why ranked-choice voting is a win for Republicans

Ranked-choice voting is simply a better and easier way to handle our crowded presidential primary field than traditional plurality voting. It is an idea whose time has come.

thehill.com

 

[dblack]

Keep an eye on who is railing against ranked choice voting.

As ranked choice voting gains momentum, parties in power push back • Missouri Independent

Ranked choice voting has become increasingly popular and now Democrats and Republicans in power are pushing back.

missouriindependent.com

D.C. Democratic Party Sues To Keep Ranked Choice Voting And Open Primaries Off The Ballot

Local Democratic Party leaders oppose a ballot initiative that would bring ranked choice voting and open primaries to the city.

dcist.com

The Democrats Trying to Overturn an Election

The nation’s largest city overwhelmingly approved a referendum to adopt ranked-choice voting a year ago. Now some elected leaders are trying to delay the reform.

www.theatlantic.com

Sisolak, Rosen and other top Democrats oppose ranked-choice voting measure - The Nevada Independent

Cannizzaro shares the same concerns, stating that amending the state constitution could pose risks and hinder potential fixes if problems arise.

thenevadaindependent.com

 

[BackAgain]

The fact that it scares the two party twits tells me it's an improvement. The supposed "problems" (unquoted and unlinked) are excuse making. They don't like it because it threatens their fear mongering game.

“Scares.” You idiot. Nobody said anything about fear.

Not all objections are predicated on fear.

And no good argument is ever predicated on your dishonesty.

 

[BackAgain]

Ranked Choice Voting Is a Bad Choice

You will not believe what “reformers” have devised to tinker with and manipulate our elections. It is called ranked choice voting (or “instant runoff voting”)—but it is really a scheme to disconnect elections from issues and allow candidates with marginal support from voters to win elections...

www.heritage.org

A clear and fairly concise set of objections to the imbecility of “pranked choice voting.”

Like an intelligent people are going to embrace another gimmick favored by the leftards.

 

[BackAgain]

Another good article. Educate yourself. It won't hurt. Honest.

https://www.cato.org/commentary/why-conservatives-shouldnt-fear-ranked-choice-voting

lol. Dumbblack appears to be talking to itself

 

[dblack]

Ranked Choice Voting Is a Bad Choice

You will not believe what “reformers” have devised to tinker with and manipulate our elections. It is called ranked choice voting (or “instant runoff voting”)—but it is really a scheme to disconnect elections from issues and allow candidates with marginal support from voters to win elections...

www.heritage.org

A clear and fairly concise set of objections to the imbecility of “pranked choice voting.”

Like an intelligent people are going to embrace another gimmick favored by the leftards.

Thanks for posting this. It's a good summation of the bogus "arguments" that the two-party goons are using to try to scare voters away from positive reform. Let's wade through it:

Rigging the System​

We do not often agree with former California Governor Jerry Brown Jr. (D), but he was right in 2016 when he vetoed a bill to expand ranked choice voting in his state, saying it was “overly complicated and confusing” and “deprives voters of genuinely informed choice.”

Such a system would present many opportunities to rig the electoral system.

The first of many unsupported claims.

Think about what ranked choice voting destroys. It destroys your clear and knowing choices as a political consumer. Let us call it the supermarket contemplation. In reality, you are choosing one elected official to represent you, just like you might choose one type of steak sauce to buy when you are splurging for steaks. At the supermarket you ponder whether to buy A1, Heinz 57, HP, or the really cheap generic brand you have never tried.

In the real world, you compare price, taste, mood, and maybe even the size of the bottle and then decide on your steak sauce. You know nothing about the generic brand, so you rank it last among your choices, while A1 is ranked a distant third. In your mind, it comes down to Heinz or HP, and you choose the Heinz. You buy that bottle and head home to the grill.

Now imagine if, instead, you had to rank-order all the steak sauces—even the ones you dislike—and at checkout the cashier swaps out your bottle of Heinz 57 with the cheap generic you ranked dead last. Why? Well, the majority of shoppers also down-voted it, but there was no clear front-runner, so the generic snuck up from behind with enough down ballot picks to win. In fact, in this ranked choice supermarket, you might even have helped the lousy generic brand win.

A pretty horrible analogy (we don't all have to agree on one kind of steak sauce), but observe what they really want to preserve: They want you limited to two kinds of steak sauce. Why? What if you like Worcestershire? Too bad. The two-party fans want you limited to two choices. That's a theme you'll see repeated throughout this article.

Ballot Exhaustion​

How could this happen? Because of a phenomenon known as ballot exhaustion. A study published in 2015 that reviewed 600,000 votes cast using ranked choice voting in four local elections in Washington State and California found that “the winner in all four elections receive[d] less than a majority of the total votes cast.”

Going back to our original example of the 2008 presidential election, not all voters are going to rank all five presidential candidates on their ballot. Many voters may only list their top two or three candidates, particularly when there are candidates on the ballot for whom they would never even consider voting.

Thus, if a voter only ranks two of the five candidates and those two are eliminated in the first and second rounds of tabulation, their choices will not be considered in the remaining rounds of tabulation. This ballot exhaustion leads to candidates being elected who were not the first choice of a majority of voters, but only a majority of “all valid votes in the final round of tallying.” Thus, “it is possible that the winning candidate will fall short of an actual majority,” eliminating the “influence [of many voters] over the final outcome.”

As has been pointed out, RCV is essentially a system runnoff elections, without all the hassle. Ballot exhaustion happens when people refuse to rank candidates who end up as finalists. It's the same thing as voters not showing up to a runoff in states that use the old style runoffs, and it's actually more likely to happen in those systems. When voters refuse to rank two or more candidates, they're essentially saying, "if it comes down to these candidates, I don't care which one wins". Nothing is exhausted, voters just didn't have a preference between those candidates.

This was something Sarah Palin complained about after losing in Alaska. The irony there is, she actually told voters not to rank. She essentially said, "if there's a runoff, don't bother voting". And was then dumb enough to complain about it afterwards.

So, while it is possible for voters who have no preference to not get their votes counted in the final round (What's supposed to be counted anyway? Their non-preference???), the only reason exhaustion is even possible is because there are multiple rounds. In a normal, plurality election, every single vote that isn't for one of the two dominant parties is exhausted out of the gate. Did Perot voters have a preference between Clinton and Bush? Probably, but we'll never know because those voters' preferences were ignored. Their votes were "exhausted".

Cautionary Examples​

Another example of this problem is demonstrated by what happened in Australia (which uses ranked choice voting) in the 2010 election. The liberal Labor Party won the Australian House despite receiving only “38 percent of first-place votes on the initial ballot, while the second-place Liberal-National coalition [the center right choice] captured 43 percent” of first-place votes.

In other words, more voters wanted a center-right government than a left-wing government, but ranked choice made sure that did not happen.

Yep. Another great example of RCV working as intended. Without RCV, the center-right candidate would have won, even though a majority of voters opposed them. This phenomenon is known as the "spoiler effect". It happens when opposition to a candidate is divided among multiple candidates. In the above case, there were multiple liberal candidates. But after those with lesser support were eliminated, a majority of voters preferred the remaining liberal candidate.

Again, this is what happened with Perot. Most people assume that, if Perot voters have been forced to choose, they would have chosen Bush over Clinton. If their preferences had been taken into account, if we had used RCV for that election, Bush would have beat Clinton, because in reality a majority of voters preferred a conservative.

Ranked choice obscures true debates, true issue-driven dialogues between and among candidates, and eliminates genuine binary choices between two top-tier candidates.

How? This is just another unsupported claim.

You never really know who will be running against whom in the final vote count with ranked choice. Your votes are thrown into a fictional fantasy in which no one knows which candidate is really a substitute for another candidate who may not survive the initial rounds. It is all a numbers gimmick. You, as a voter, are not given the opportunity to make the final decision between competing substitutes.

As Professor James G. Gimpel, an expert on voter behavior, testified in a recent case challenging Maine’s ranked choice voting law, “unlike ordinary elections and ordinary runoffs, voters are required to make predictions about who will be left standing following an initial tabulation of the votes.”

This is just factually incorrect. They're not asked to make any predictions. All they have to do is rank the candidates in the order of their preference. People can handle this.

Clarity Obstruction and Disenfranchisement​

Ranked choice destroys clarity of political debate and forces voters to cast ballots in hypothetical future runoff elections. When we have Republicans versus Democrats versus Greens and Libertarians, we know who is running against whom and what the actual distinctions are between the candidates on issues. Second- or third-choice votes should not matter in America; they do not provide the mandate that ensures that the representatives in a republic have the confidence and support of a majority of the public in the legitimacy of their decisions.

Not only is ranked choice voting too complicated, it disenfranchises voters, because ballots that do not include the two ultimate finalists are cast aside to manufacture a faux majority for the winner. But it is only a majority of the voters remaining in the final round, not a majority of all of the voters who actually cast votes in the elections.

I really have no idea what they're trying to say here, other than "voters should be limited to two choices, because they're too stupid to handle more". Again, their main goal is made clear. The two parties want you limited to a choice between the two parties. Shocker, eh?

Of course, had that election been between just those two candidates in the first place, that same voter would have heard debates, listened to the issues discussed, and made an informed choice between those two. With ranked choice voting, a candidate whose support was too marginal to get into public debates may end up winning—eliminating the process that informs the electorate and forcing average American voters into the world of mixed strategy game theory, where they are forced to try to predict the probability that particular candidates that they favor or do not favor will survive multiple rounds of vote tabulation.

Same story. We should only have two choices. They're sure beating that drum.

Tactical Gimmickry​

Ranked choice voting also provides voters with an incentive to tactically game the system and falsify their preferences for candidates.

For example, if enough Ross Perot voters had listed George H. W. Bush as their second choice over Bill Clinton in 1992, Bush might have won that presidential election instead of Clinton. Since Perot came in third in the race, his votes with Bush as the second choice would have counted for Bush in the second round of vote tabulation.

Is that a bad thing? That's not gaming the system. That's expressing your preferences. Instead, the two party goons push the "lesser-of-two-evils" scam - which IS gaming the system, most insidiously. It has us voting for bad candidates on purpose, because some other bad candidate is worse.

If you could convince enough other voters to do that, you could potentially eliminate a viable candidate from the next rounds of ballot tabulations—even though he is one of the two candidates in a multiple-member field with the largest plurality of support. As one analyst says, the tactic is to “‘up-vote your lesser-evil candidate and ‘bury’ your lesser-evil candidate’s most viable opponent.”

??? They want you stuck with two choices so they can force lesser-of-two-evils down your throat. These fuckers are persistent, I'll give them that.

The Solution: Runoff Elections​

The answer to this gimmickry is runoff elections. In the normal electoral process in the vast majority of states, there is a runoff election several weeks after a general election in which no candidate won a majority of the vote.

It is true that some voters might not turn out for a runoff election that is held several weeks after the general election because their preferred candidate did not gather enough votes to be in the runoff. However, the added time window gives potential voters the opportunity to reexamine and reeducate themselves about the character and views on issues of the two candidates who received the largest pluralities in the general election. Voters have a greater opportunity to make an informed choice than with instant runoffs (i.e., ranked choice voting). Runoff elections guarantee that the winner of the runoff election has a genuine mandate from a majority of the voters—a crucial factor in a democratic system.

Runoff elections carry additional costs—but so do primary and general elections. Yet few people suggest abolishing them because of their cost. Consent of the governed matters.

Consent of the governed is what fosters domestic tranquility. When people believe that elections produce clear results between known opposing ideas, people learn to live with results even if they do not like the outcome. The vast number of Americans who are perfectly comfortable with how elections have been run for centuries will likely see ranked choice as a gimmick. When a body politic comes to believe election outcomes are a gimmick, beware.

A few years ago, there was a movement to add “none of the above” to ballots in some states. Ranked choice voting does the opposite—forcing voters who want to have any say to vote for “all of the above.”

This one is preposterous on the face of it. RCV IS runoff election. It just avoids the time and expense of running multiple, elections. But, when you look closely, you that it achieves what they after. Most states that do runoffs, don't do what RCV does and merely eliminate the bottom candidate. They eliminate all but two because running more than one runoff elections is onerous and expensive. So, you're still stuck with the two leading candidates. Stuck with two choices. There's that theme again.

Birds of a Feather​

We have detected a pattern. Most of the time, when fundamental transformations to elections are proposed, the people proposing them have two characteristics. First, they think it will help their side win. Second, their ideological perspectives are usually rooted in a transformational extreme: They want to change the rules to manipulate elections outcomes in order to force the public into their distorted vision of a supposedly utopian society.

WTF is that supposed to mean? As far as "helping their side win", the article begins with acknowledgement that entrenched Democrat partisans opposed RCV just as entrenched Republican partisans do:

We do not often agree with former California Governor Jerry Brown Jr. (D), but he was right in 2016 when he vetoed a bill to expand ranked choice voting in his state, saying it was “overly complicated and confusing” and “deprives voters of genuinely informed choice.”

I also posted multiple articles above providing examples of this. RCV is in no way a partisan wedge. Instead, it undermines the partisan's "lesser-of-two-evils" sales pitch. Which, at this point, is about all they've got.

Foes of the Electoral College, for example, want to undo it because they want large, densely populated cities with their one-party control over election administration determining who becomes the President of the United States. Foes of legislatures drawing district lines oppose the people having control over the process because they want friendly bureaucrats who sit on “independent” redistricting commissions and who are unaccountable to voters drawing lines instead.

RCV has nothing to do with electoral college reform. I, for example, adamantly support the electoral college as means of protecting the interests of less populous states. Don't listen this bullshit.

Conclusion​

In the end, it is all about political power

This is the only thing the article gets right. As it is, the two parties have the political power to decide for you which two candidates you can choose from. RCV would revoke that power. That's why they oppose it. Fuck them.

 

[bripat9643]

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:

You should check out the communist party. They are more closely aligned with your beliefs.

 

[g5000]

You should check out the communist party. They are more closely aligned with your beliefs.

I bet you are sitting there chuckling at your own weak joke, thinking you are clever.

Sad.

 

[BackAgain]

Thanks for posting this. It's a good summation of the bogus "arguments" that the two-party goons are using to try to scare voters away from positive reform. Let's wade through it:


The first of many unsupported claims.

A pretty horrible analogy (we don't all have to agree on one kind of steak sauce), but observe what they really want to preserve: They want you limited to two kinds of steak sauce. Why? What if you like Worcestershire? Too bad. The two-party fans want you limited to two choices. That's a theme you'll see repeated throughout this article.

As has been pointed out, RCV is essentially a system runnoff elections, without all the hassle. Ballot exhaustion happens when people refuse to rank candidates that end up as finalists. It's the same thing as voters not showing to a runoff in states that use the old style runoffs, and it's actually more likely to happen in those systems. When voters refuse to rank two or more candidates, they're essentially saying, "if it comes down to these candidates, I don't care which one wins". Nothing is exhausted, voters just didn't have a preference between those candidates.

This was something Sarah Palin complained about after losing in Alaska. The irony there is, she actually told voters not to rank. She essentially said, "if there's a runoff, don't bother voting". And was then dumb enough to complain about it.

So, while it is possible for voters who have no preference to not get their votes counted in the final round (What's supposed to be counted anyway? Their non-preference???), the only reason exhaustion is even possible is because there are multiple rounds. In a normal, plurality election, every single vote that isn't for one of the two dominant parties is exhausted out of the gate. Did Perot voters have a preference between Clinton and Bush? Probably, but we'll never know because those voters' preferences were essentially ignored.

Yep. Another great example of RCV working as intended. Without RCV, the center-right candidate would have won, even though a majority of voters opposed them. This phenomenon is known as the "spoiler effect". It happens when opposition to a candidate is divided among multiple candidates. In the above case, there were multiple liberal candidates. But after those with lesser support were eliminated, a majority of voters preferred the liberal candidate.

Again, this is what happened with Perot. Most people assume that, if Perot voters have been forced to choose, they would have chosen Bush over Clinton. If their preferences had been taken into account, if we had used RCV for that election, Bush would have beat Clinton, because in reality a majority of voters preferred a conservative.

How? This just another unsupported claim.

This is just factually incorrect. They're not asked to make any prediction. All they have to do is rank the candidates in the order of their preference. People can handle this.

I really have no idea what they're trying to say here, other than "voters should be limited to two choices, because they're too stupid to handle more". Again, their main goal is made clear. The two parties want you limited to a choice between the two parties. Shocker, eh?

Same story. We should only have two choices. They're sure beating that drum.

Is that a bad thing? That's not gaming the system. That's expressing your preferences. Instead, the two party goons push the "lesser-of-two-evils" scam - which IS gaming the system, most insidiously. It has us voting for bad candidates on purpose, because some other bad candidate is worse.

??? They want you stuck with two choices so they can force lesser-of-two-evils down your throat. These fucker are persistent, I'll give them that.

This one is preposterous on the face of it. RCV IS runoff election. It just avoids the time and expense of running multiple, elections. But that's what they after. Most states that do runoffs, don't do what RCV does and merely eliminate the bottom candidate. They eliminate all but two because running more than one runoff elections is onerous and expensive. So, you're still stuck with the two leading candidates. Stuck with two choices. There's that theme again.

WTF is that supposed to mean? As far as "helping their side win", the article begins with acknowledgement that entrenched Democrat partisans opposed RCV just as entrenched Republican partisans do:


I also posted multiple articles above providing examples of this. RCV is in no way a partisan wedge. Instead, it undermines the partisan's "lesser-of-two-evils" sales pitch. Which, at this point, is about all they've got.



RCV has nothing to do with electoral college reform. I, for example, adamantly support the electoral college as means of protecting the interests of less populous states. Don't listen this bullshit.

This is the only thing the article gets right. As it is, the two party have the power to decide for you which two candidate you can choose from. RCV would revoke that power. That's why they oppose it. Fuck them.

Zzz

Your entire post is mere reiteration of your disagreement. Nothing more.


One of your problems is that you lack substance.

 

[BackAgain]

I bet you are sitting there chuckling at your own weak joke, thinking you are clever.

Sad.

Not ^ exactly a refutation.

 

[g5000]

Not ^ exactly a refutation.

bripat has exposed himself as a pathological liar. What's to refute?

If you have ANY doubts about my political leanings, I created a topic just for people like you:

G5000's Plan For Economic Prosperity And Better Cable Reception

Apparently some people are tragically confused about where I am on the political spectrum. So I thought I would consolidate my larger political beliefs into one topic and let the dice fall where they may. This OP will necessarily be long as I intend to point to it in the future when some fool...

www.usmessageboard.com

Of course you won't read it, because it will obliterate your treasured delusions.

 

[dblack]

Zzz

Don't worry. I get why don't want to respond. Chickenshit.

 

[BackAgain]

bripat has exposed himself as a pathological liar. What's to refute?

If you have ANY doubts about my political leanings, I created a topic just for people like you:

G5000's Plan For Economic Prosperity And Better Cable Reception

Apparently some people are tragically confused about where I am on the political spectrum. So I thought I would consolidate my larger political beliefs into one topic and let the dice fall where they may. This OP will necessarily be long as I intend to point to it in the future when some fool...

www.usmessageboard.com

Of course you won't read it, because it will obliterate your treasured delusions.

Bripat has done no such thing.

And I didn’t ask you for a claim as to your political philosophies. I harbor no delusions about you. I’ve read maybe too many of your posts. You’re a hack. Plain and simple.

 

[g5000]

Ranked Choice Voting Is a Bad Choice

You will not believe what “reformers” have devised to tinker with and manipulate our elections. It is called ranked choice voting (or “instant runoff voting”)—but it is really a scheme to disconnect elections from issues and allow candidates with marginal support from voters to win elections...

www.heritage.org

A clear and fairly concise set of objections to the imbecility of “pranked choice voting.”

Like an intelligent people are going to embrace another gimmick favored by the leftards.

From your link:

We do not often agree with former California Governor Jerry Brown Jr. (D), but he was right in 2016 when he vetoed a bill to expand ranked choice voting in his state, saying it was “overly complicated and confusing” and “deprives voters of genuinely informed choice.”

In other words, the two-party goon think voters are too stupid to list their preferences in numerical order.

How...elitist.


In the real world, you compare price, taste, mood, and maybe even the size of the bottle and then decide on your steak sauce. You know nothing about the generic brand, so you rank it last among your choices, while A1 is ranked a distant third. In your mind, it comes down to Heinz or HP, and you choose the Heinz. You buy that bottle and head home to the grill.

Now imagine if, instead, you had to rank-order all the steak sauces—even the ones you dislike—and at checkout the cashier

Wow! They got this one EXACTLY wrong!

The reason A1, Heinz, HP, and the generic brand are on the shelf in the first place is because shoppers have voted with their purchases and chosen which brands they prefer out of all the possible brands. The store has responded by providing the brands shoppers choose most.

 

[BackAgain]

Don't worry. I get why don't want to respond. Chickenshit.

Your guesswork ain’t worth shit. And I did answer. The “zzz” was just the first line you hack.

 

[g5000]

Bripat has done no such thing.

And I didn’t ask you for a claim as to your political philosophies. I harbor no delusions about you. I’ve read maybe too many of your posts. You’re a hack. Plain and simple.

Yes, it disturbs you when I debunk lies. I understand. The truth doesn't matter to you hacks, only performative assholery.

I knew you wouldn't read it. Like I said, you defend your delusions at all costs.

 

[dblack]

Your guesswork ain’t worth shit. And I did answer. The “zzz” was just the first line you hack.

Sure, sure.