Libertarians are destroying democracy

[MichiganHerd]

Look at all the close results. The 2% vote haul for the Libertarian candidate made a huge impact on close results throughout the nation. Those are typically republican votes. You love your guns, but by voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning, you just shot yourself in the foot by insuring the democrat won.

 

[i am herdman]

Look at all the close results. The 2% vote haul for the Libertarian candidate made a huge impact on close results throughout the nation. Those are typically republican votes. You love your guns, but by voting for a candidate who has no chance of winning, you just shot yourself in the foot by insuring the democrat won.

I have said that all along. Pick a side. One of the two. One of the two will win.

Who is going to win the Ohio State vs Michigan game? Libertarian answer: Northwestern.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Can we get y’all on board with RCV since it would solve this problem?

 

[SamSwimmer]

Don't blame shitty GOP candidates & no actual message on Libertarians.

 

[MichiganHerd]

Can we get y’all on board with RCV since it would solve this problem?

Yeah, sure, and then we can announce election results six months after election day. See whale hunters and laid off petroleum industry voters up in Alaska.

 

[mlblack16.]

Libertarians are the epitome of cockblocking

 

[HerdandHokies]

Yeah, sure, and then we can announce election results six months after election day. See whale hunters and laid off petroleum industry voters up in Alaska.

RCV doesn’t need to take any longer to count, unless it is poorly implemented. Then again we’ve poorly implemented the simplest form of voting so

 

[MichiganHerd]

RCV doesn’t need to take any longer to count, unless it is poorly implemented. Then again we’ve poorly implemented the simplest form of voting so

If Trump announces he's running, then it won't make a shit how they decide to vote in 2024. He'll beat DeSantis, mainly because there's enough rednecks in this world that will get him through to the nomination, but the numbers won't work for a general election win, unless Democrats were to really fvck things up badly themselves, like maybe nominating the Hag again. Hell, I'd be willing to bet greed a board ban that IF the Democrats ran Fetterman against Trump, the half brain would beat him. (Fetterman is the half brain btw)

 

[i am herdman]

Don't blame shitty GOP candidates & no actual message on Libertarians.

Not sure I buy that. Look at Fetterman. No way is he a good candiate. Most repubs were hammering Dems on what voters said they were concerned about. Inflation, economy, and crime. That is what voters said they were concerned about. Most every poll and expert said Repubs were going to win and win big.

 

[HerdandHokies]

Not sure I buy that. Look at Fetterman. No way is he a good candiate. Most repubs were hammering Dems on what voters said they were concerned about. Inflation, economy, and crime. That is what voters said they were concerned about. Most every poll and expert said Repubs were going to win and win big.

That’s kind of the point though. Fetterman (post stroke at least) wasn’t a good candidate, agreed. But the GOP ran an even worse one, Dr. Oz.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

I've told you all before, the GOP should tell the Bible Thumpers to fvck off. Drop that "pro-life" bullshit, stop fvcking with the gays, and come out for federal legalization of pot, BOOM libertarian problem solved.

Hokies is 100% right...RCV. It's not like the Dems haven't been fvcked before by a third candidate, it's likely something both parties can agree on.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

I'm open to learning more about RCV.

 

[herdfan06]

I'm open to learning more about RCV.

Sounds like an STD.

 

[HerdandHokies]

I'm open to learning more about RCV.

It’s not perfect but it’s better.

Basically, let’s say there are three candidates, a Democrat, a Republican and a Libertarian.

With RCV instead of voting for one you rank them. So you say “my #1 is the Libertarian, my #2 is the Republican, my #3 is the Democrat” (or you can leave the Democrat off altogether, it won’t make a difference.)

They tally all the votes and the Democrat is in the lead with 45% of the votes, the Republican has 40%, and the libertarian has 15%. In our current system the Democrat would win.

But in RCV, the lowest candidate gets eliminated, so the Libertarian gets eliminated and all of their votes go to whoever the second choice was for the people who voted L. Let’s say 12% went Republican, 3% went Democrat. The Republican now has 52% of the vote and the Democrat has 48%. The Republican wins.

It allows people to vote for third parties without directly screwing over the plausible candidate that they would’ve supported. Imagine if Trump lost the primary and ran anyway against DeSantis and Biden. It would hand the White House to Biden. But in RCV everyone could vote for their actual #1 and still have a say when that #1 got eliminated.

edit: A downside is that if you have three legit candidates it can actually cause a push toward the extremes. Assume we have A B and C, where A is left wing and C is right wing, and B is moderate. All voters would be ok with B and mark them as their #1 or #2. But most voters prefer A or C, so they get more first place votes than B. B gets eliminated even though they would have beaten either A or C head to head.

There are other voting systems that can get around that but at that point I think the added complexity is no longer worth the more “accurate” result.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

sounds reasonable to me. I think andrew yang was a proponent of it.

 

[HerdandHokies]

sounds reasonable to me. I think andrew yang was a proponent of it.

That’s another major drawback, yeah.

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

It’s not perfect but it’s better.

And it is even better for primaries...especially open primaries. It's a way to minimize either party shifting to the extremes.

 

[-CarlHungus-]

And it is even better for primaries...especially open primaries. It's a way to minimize either party shifting to the extremes.

Like the dems funding the crazy R's in primary to get rid of the possibility that they lose to reasonable people like Peter Meijer ?

That was a cynical but good move on their part.

 

[i am herdman]

I say we go back to you have to own property or at least be a net payer of income tax.

Maybe even require some people to be able to read.

 

[herdfan06]

I say we go back to you have to own property or at least be a net payer of income tax.

Maybe even require some people to be able to read.

Do you really want a bunch of liberal elites cock blocking people from voting by only leasing property? Should my wife's parents not be allowed to vote because they now rent in Arkansas, previously they owned their property in Florida.

 

[i am herdman]

Do you really want a bunch of liberal elites cock blocking people from voting by only leasing property? Should my wife's parents not be allowed to vote because they now rent in Arkansas, previously they owned their property in Florida.

I am starting to believe there should be some skin in the game at some point. I am sure they are net payers to the system or have been.

There are no way some of my family members should be voting. They can't take care of themselves. Why should they have a vote?

 

[herdfan06]

I am starting to believe there should be some skin in the game at some point. I am sure they are net payers to the system or have been.

There are no way some of my family members should be voting. They can't take care of themselves. Why should they have a vote?

It is a slippery slope if you want to start making voter eligibility based on certain classes of people.

 

[HerdandHokies]

It is a slippery slope if you want to start making voter eligibility based on certain classes of people.

He knows. That’s a feature not a bug.

 

[i am herdman]

He knows. That’s a feature not a bug.

ballot harvesting and mail in voting is a slipperty slope as well.

 

[KyMUfan]

It’s not perfect but it’s better.

Basically, let’s say there are three candidates, a Democrat, a Republican and a Libertarian.

With RCV instead of voting for one you rank them. So you say “my #1 is the Libertarian, my #2 is the Republican, my #3 is the Democrat” (or you can leave the Democrat off altogether, it won’t make a difference.)

They tally all the votes and the Democrat is in the lead with 45% of the votes, the Republican has 40%, and the libertarian has 15%. In our current system the Democrat would win.

But in RCV, the lowest candidate gets eliminated, so the Libertarian gets eliminated and all of their votes go to whoever the second choice was for the people who voted L. Let’s say 12% went Republican, 3% went Democrat. The Republican now has 52% of the vote and the Democrat has 48%. The Republican wins.

It allows people to vote for third parties without directly screwing over the plausible candidate that they would’ve supported. Imagine if Trump lost the primary and ran anyway against DeSantis and Biden. It would hand the White House to Biden. But in RCV everyone could vote for their actual #1 and still have a say when that #1 got eliminated.

edit: A downside is that if you have three legit candidates it can actually cause a push toward the extremes. Assume we have A B and C, where A is left wing and C is right wing, and B is moderate. All voters would be ok with B and mark them as their #1 or #2. But most voters prefer A or C, so they get more first place votes than B. B gets eliminated even though they would have beaten either A or C head to head.

There are other voting systems that can get around that but at that point I think the added complexity is no longer worth the more “accurate” result.

That is a very good explanation but I see one major problem - we have several states that currently can't even count the ballots now. What makes us think that they would be able to count the votes in a more complex setting?

 

[HerdandHokies]

That is a very good explanation but I see one major problem - we have several states that currently can't even count the ballots now. What makes us think that they would be able to count the votes in a more complex setting?

It shouldn’t be a roadblock because it’s 2022 and we should have sorted a lot of this shit out but yes, it would require an overhaul of our election system to make sure it could all be processed efficiently.

Like, that shouldn’t be more than America can handle. But I get the concern.

 

[herdfan429]

What’s turnout like in states with ranked choice? We already don’t vote. Having to do it multiple times until someone gets a majority seems like it would just be to much for our population to consider

 

[Marshall Jeff]

Like the dems funding the crazy R's in primary to get rid of the possibility that they lose to reasonable people like Peter Meijer ?

That was a cynical but good move on their part.

They will probably fund trump if he runs

 

[HerdandHokies]

What’s turnout like in states with ranked choice? We already don’t vote. Having to do it multiple times until someone gets a majority seems like it would just be to much for our population to consider

Alaska is the only state I know of that has RCV, though some cities have it.

You only vote once, but you can rank the candidates so that if your #1 vote doesn’t finish top 2 your vote moves to your #2 choice.

You’re referring to runoff voting like Georgia famously does.

They will probably fund trump if he runs

Worked great the first time…

 

[mlblack16.]

And it is even better for primaries...especially open primaries. It's a way to minimize either party shifting to the extremes.

Yeah but do all Libertarians vote straight ticket Democrat, like you?

I say chale holms, using this system in anything other than primaries will just feed extra votes to demonrats

 

[Raoul Duke MU]

Yeah

Yore an idiot, yeah.