It seems to work in Australia without too much bother.
1 Like
When the “center” is continually shifting to the right because of right wing extremists like those mentioned, “centrism” is effectively conservatism. Would “centrists” restore Roe? No, they’d seek “compromise”. It’s horse shit.
8 Likes
Yeah, it does seem to appeal mostly to never-Trumpers in the gop. I don’t think that this will go anywhere, but the last time we saw these extreme divisions between the parties, with overt threats of violence between political parties was just before the Civil War. Which was when the Whig party disintegrated, So shit COULD get weird.
4 Likes
Why does Cory Doctorow’s politics matter?
At this time libertarian means someone who does not value human rights for everyone.
This is simple to observe for yourself when have libertarians ever come together to vote for policies that would let disadvantaged people exercise their self-determination? ** Spoiler, They Never Have**.
What libertarians do is pull out the personal responsibility cudgel.
Cory isn’t the only one to make this observation. Here is a lefty youtuber making a far harsher case. Their observations match what I my own personal ones. The libertarians I knew are now indistinguishable from the alt-right.
Why shouldn’t who someone associates with and who they vote for, inform my opinion of them?
Google Murray Bookchin.
ETA:
Libertarian socialism still exists outside of the USA.
9 Likes
I fear any third party that has the slightest hint of rationality will only draw votes from democrats. The 40% of kool-aid drinkers are in it to the finnit.
1 Like
Andrew “Jill Fucking Stein” Yang.
3 Likes
The definition of this particular word is not actually relevant to Andrew Yang, his new party, or the other subjects of the O.P.
12 Likes
If they actually cared about Ranked Choice Voting, they would be working at the state level to get it enacted one by one, because that’s the only way it can happen.
By definition a third party can’t win in the US (see @mikest ’s post above for why) so running a third party to try and make it happen is the worst possible approach.
If this is Yang’s approach to politics, he doesn’t deserve to win. Make room for someone like Stacey Abrams who actually knows how to make change happen in the system.
10 Likes
The smart play for a wannabe third party is to try and suck up the self-identified “moderate” Republicans who are supposedly holding their noses to vote for the current MAGA-crowd and their enablers, plus the diet Republicans - who, like Joe Manchin, are basically only nominally Democratic because the Republican Party went too far right for them a little further back. Take a good shot at sending the GOP the way of the Whigs and taking their place.
And as Ceran-Swicegood, plus a few others, have said - focus on building from the bottom.
Sure run candidates for Congress and President as well, but don’t really expect them to come close to winning. Basically just use them as advertisements to build the party’s brand and name recognition. Take the strangling vine approach and wrap themselves around the Republicans trunk, cutting off their flow of new talent and replacing it with their own. Then a few years down the track, when the opportunists can see where things are heading make a play for recruiting some of the big established names to speed things up a bit.
Am I being overly optimistic in thinking this is an actual possibility now, for the first time in a long-long time, even if it isn’t that likely?
5 Likes
The question asked was how approval voting is better. My post was an answer to that. It is better in these regards regardless of my use of rhetorical questions to illustrate the difference.
To be clear, I never said ranked choice voting was crazy, nor that it hadn’t been tried (quite the opposite)… that implied representation of what I said ignores the rest of my (admittedly longish) post and is inaccurate.
Nor did I say you can’t do a recount; it is implicit that any non-quantum computer algorithm can be implemented by hand given enough time.
These questions were all aimed at perceived trustworthyness of the election. If the electorate cannot understand the election process, that is a risk. Even as simple as our elections are today, that trust was attacked (somewhat successfully) in 2020. I think it makes sense to be able to explain in simple words how results were arrived at and to be able to simply and accurately represent the outcome of the election. I think ranked choice falls down in this regard against approval and plurality voting.
Oh yippee. H. Ross Perot called. He wants his crack pipe back.
ETA: Probably someone in the preceding 92 posts already said this but the problem isn’t the two parties. The problem is first-past-the-post, and its inevitable consequences. “Don’t blame the player, blame the game” is a cliche, but in this case it’s a true one.
3 Likes
This. Americans already have plenty of choice, and can vote for literally anybody. But without something like ranked choice voting, the parties with the most advertising dollars and media coverage will always be at the top.
Oh, and bringing together fascists with non-fascists is a fool’s errand. Better to kick out the fascists and isolate them permanently until they disappear.
8 Likes
Unfortunately for them, american political discord dominates the internet.
The meanings of words change. Libertarian now means your a selfish ass.
1 Like
*you’re
ETA: Okay, sorry for the low blow, but I can assure you that everyone here knows exactly what Libertarian means in the American context and how the term has been bastardized to mean that.
8 Likes
How will the Regressives react to a Progressive-sounding party name?
Probably something like ‘godless commies’.
Even the act of disrupting the 2-party duopoly amounts to ‘treezon’.
1 Like
Did you actually read my original comment, in reply to a comment about winning local elections before the state and national ones? The one where I posted a historic socialist theory article titled Libertarian Municipalism: An Overview by lifelong socialist Murray Bookchin, and pointed out that in the context of the document and time period libertarian meant socialism, not capitalism? Or did you just see Libertarian is defined as it’s original socialist meaning and react?
8 Likes
I’m pretty sure that Yang is working with people at FairVote.org to advocate for RCV and other on-the-ground voting reforms, such as supporting the Fair Representation Act.
He could have kept doing that instead of just starting a new political party.
18 Likes
I’ve seen this sentiment other places that RCV is hard to understand. But, I’m unable to understand why or where that view comes from. It feels like a dodge and talking point.
Georgia quite literally already requires a runoff election when no candidate get’s 50%+. All RCV voting does is speed up that process and collect all the votes at one time instead of requiring and entire new election process and steps. That’s the entire explanation. RCV is a runoff election until someone get’s 50%+ done all at one time instead of people returning to vote again and again and again.
There should be Georgians out there fighting for RCV and arguing that it would save the state a ton of money. They’ve already got the runoff requirement, so it shouldn’t be a hard sell at all. It’s an efficiency play. Obviously, the argument against that to keep the entire additional election and cost is because turn out in the second round is significantly lower. All the obstacles to voting occur again, making it great to suppress the vote and disenfranchise people.
6 Likes
