IGX

We should move to an instant runoff voting system as opposed to our plurality system. An IRV doesn't punish voting 3rd party so much, and does punish negative campaigning. Works in other countries.

Our constitution writers did not anticipate the two party system, but it emerges naturally from how vote. Time to fix it.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting

nafod wrote:Our constitution writers did not anticipate the two party system

They created it pretty quickly though.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:Our constitution writers did not anticipate the two party system

They created it pretty quickly though.

It is literally inevitable with our voting scheme.

Far other side is proportional representation. Instant Runoff Voting splits the difference, not (necessarily) punishing you for, example, putting down Johnson/Trump as your preference as opposed to just Johnson. When no one wins and Johnson comes in third, he is dropped and now your vote goes to just Trump.

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:Our constitution writers did not anticipate the two party system

They created it pretty quickly though.

It is literally inevitable with our voting scheme.

It was literally inevitable because Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:Our constitution writers did not anticipate the two party system

They created it pretty quickly though.

It is literally inevitable with our voting scheme.

It was literally inevitable because Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison.

Say what?

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:Our constitution writers did not anticipate the two party system

They created it pretty quickly though.

It is literally inevitable with our voting scheme.

It was literally inevitable because Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison.

Say what?

All brilliant, outspoken, and charismatic-- and with the exception of Jefferson and Madison, they couldn't get along. The party system they essentially devised gave structure to their disagreements, effectively increased their influence, and limited the ability of 'small tent' candidates (especially anti-Federalists) to influence our system.

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:Our constitution writers did not anticipate the two party system

They created it pretty quickly though.

It is literally inevitable with our voting scheme.

It was literally inevitable because Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison.

Say what?

All brilliant, outspoken, and charismatic-- and with the exception of Jefferson and Madison, they couldn't get along. The party system they essentially devised gave structure to their disagreements, effectively increased their influence, and limited the ability of 'small tent' candidates (especially anti-Federalists) to influence our system.

The two party system has survived many, many assaults over the years. People have wanted multiple choices, but it always slides back that way. A structural issue in how we vote.

Anyway, the IRV would be a huge improvement.

It's all fun and games until everyone's second choice becomes President.

that might be a good outcome in 2016

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:Our constitution writers did not anticipate the two party system

They created it pretty quickly though.

It is literally inevitable with our voting scheme.

It was literally inevitable because Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison.

Say what?

All brilliant, outspoken, and charismatic-- and with the exception of Jefferson and Madison, they couldn't get along. The party system they essentially devised gave structure to their disagreements, effectively increased their influence, and limited the ability of 'small tent' candidates (especially anti-Federalists) to influence our system.

The two party system has survived many, many assaults over the years. People have wanted multiple choices, but it always slides back that way. A structural issue in how we vote.

The choices have to present themselves first-- the ones in American politics tend to be in one issue parties (Greens, Know Nothings, etc...) or cults of personality (Sanders, Perot, etc...).

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:

Turdacious wrote:

nafod wrote:Our constitution writers did not anticipate the two party system

They created it pretty quickly though.

It is literally inevitable with our voting scheme.

It was literally inevitable because Adams, Hamilton, Jefferson, and Madison.

Say what?

All brilliant, outspoken, and charismatic-- and with the exception of Jefferson and Madison, they couldn't get along. The party system they essentially devised gave structure to their disagreements, effectively increased their influence, and limited the ability of 'small tent' candidates (especially anti-Federalists) to influence our system.

The two party system has survived many, many assaults over the years. People have wanted multiple choices, but it always slides back that way. A structural issue in how we vote.

The choices have to present themselves first-- the ones in American politics tend to be in one issue parties (Greens, Know Nothings, etc...) or cults of personality (Sanders, Perot, etc...).

You are proving my point. We only get third parties now for the cases you gave. Other more nuanced reasons can't hold, like if there are 10 issues to address then there are actually over a thousand unique possible platforms and not just 2 (left and right).

The republicans right now are living this. If they split, the two pieces get bludgeoned by the democrats out of proportion to their...proportions.

nafod wrote:You are proving my point. We only get third parties now for the cases you gave. Other more nuanced reasons can't hold, like if there are 10 issues to address then there are actually over a thousand unique possible platforms and not just 2 (left and right).

The republicans right now are living this. If they split, the two pieces get bludgeoned by the democrats out of proportion to their...proportions.

Both parties are living it. Sanders is a socialist who became a Democrat for a couple of years, had an underfunded and disorganized campaign, and was a lackluster campaigner-- he nearly dethroned Hillary.

If a third party was serious, they'd create a platform that could get them elected in local and state elections. Libertarians can do that, but they're not serious.

Now that I'm reading up, this is an interesting plot



Approval Voting is where you don't rank the candidates, you just check the ones you are OK with. Top approval getter wins. Not sure about other methods (other than IRV).

Turdacious wrote: Both parties are living it. Sanders is a socialist who became a Democrat for a couple of years, had an underfunded and disorganized campaign, and was a lackluster campaigner-- he nearly dethroned Hillary.

If a third party was serious, they'd create a platform that could get them elected in local and state elections. Libertarians can do that, but they're not serious.

the "progressive" party is a force in vt. bernie is their godfather. he is supporting progressive candidates for state office, but is silent about more mainstream democrats, like the female candidate for governor. he isn't (and wasn't) a democrat, but because he couldn't have competed as a progressive in the presidential primary, he slipped on a democrat's disguise for tthe race. as expected, the democratic establishment did not embrace him.

dead man walking wrote:

Turdacious wrote: Both parties are living it. Sanders is a socialist who became a Democrat for a couple of years, had an underfunded and disorganized campaign, and was a lackluster campaigner-- he nearly dethroned Hillary.

If a third party was serious, they'd create a platform that could get them elected in local and state elections. Libertarians can do that, but they're not serious.

the "progressive" party is a force in vt. bernie is their godfather. he is supporting progressive candidates for state office, but is silent about more mainstream democrats, like the female candidate for governor. he isn't (and wasn't) a democrat, but because he couldn't have competed as a progressive in the presidential primary, he slipped on a democrat's disguise for tthe race. as expected, the democratic establishment did not embrace him.

VT is a state that has the population of a medium sized suburb, but what you're describing is a start.

true about vt's size.

but we got 2 senators.

Turdacious wrote:If a third party was serious, they'd create a platform that could get them elected in local and state elections. Libertarians can do that, but they're not serious.

This right here. It's patently ridiculous to think that a 3rd party with zero local governmental representation could expect win the POTUS. They're trying to topple a pyramid by pushing it over from the top.

dead man walking wrote:true about vt's size.

but we got 2 senators.

My big beef with Sanders (other than disagreeing with him politically) is that despite having some plum assignments his accomplishments in the Senate are pretty much zero. Compared to other independent minded folks in the same position (Barry Goldwater, Henrik Shipstead, etc...) he looks really meh.

true about bernie. he's a know-it-all scold, commenting from the edges. that's another reason he didn't get support from mainstream dems.

like donald, though, he caught the mood of some of the nation's disaffected folks.

it seems he has pretty much disappeared.