The Next President is...

[uhhello]

59 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Do you read anything here? 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Stop arguing with your fantasy of a conservative voter and argue with the ones in front of you.

 

[brabus]

17 hours ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

Women aborting babies at 9 months or executing them post-birth.

In MN while Walz was gov, 8 babies survived failed abortions. 3 were given “comfort care” to die “comfortably” and 5 were just left aside until dead. No, someone didn’t point a gun at them, but they might as well have. GOP has tried to pass legislation to require live saving care in these events, but the Dems have shot those attempts down. Trump chose his words poorly, but his point is not “insane,” as it’s fact that babies have been left to die after failed abortions. 

[lloyd christmas]

4 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

I know votes will not change here, so how about this.  Just like Lord R said a great post he read was an admission of being wrong, how about Trump voters admit they wish they didn't have him as the candidate and wished the Republican Party should have cut ties with him.

Me, I'm voting for Donkey Kong.

I’m on record here stating that, as a life long republican, I would have voted for a middle of the road, sane and mature democrat over Trump in this election.  I will not vote for Kamala.  No way.  But the dems decided to anoint her and not have a primary.  So guys like me have no choice.  And I guarantee there are lots of people just like me.  

I'll be voting for Trump all day every day over Kamala.  

[SpeedOfHeat]

19 hours ago, dream big said:

Were you asleep between 2016 and 2020?

No, wide awake.  I saw all his "policies" then too.  Just to name a few....

--Building a wall that Mexico will pay for.

--Replacing Obamacare with a "beautiful, tremendous" healthcare plan.

--COVID will "miraculously disappear, probably by Easter." 

--Threatening Kim Jong Un with "fire and fury" one moment, and then "...we fell in love" the next.    

Yeah, awesome policies.  A real "stable genius."  

[dream big]

7 hours ago, disgruntledemployee said:

I know votes will not change here, so how about this.  Just like Lord R said a great post he read was an admission of being wrong, how about Trump voters admit they wish they didn't have him as the candidate and wished the Republican Party should have cut ties with him.

Me, I'm voting for Donkey Kong.

Personally, I wanted Nikki Haley. But here we are and if Trump can put an end to the liberal madness these past few years, then I don’t give a shit if he says mean things or hooked up with a stripper. 
 

People keep saying the Republican Party should cut ties with him; doesn’t work like that when the republican voters voted him as their primary candidate unlike being propped up for being a woman of color by the Democratic machine with zero primary votes. 

[dream big]

55 minutes ago, SpeedOfHeat said:

No, wide awake.  I saw all his "policies" then too.  Just to name a few....

--Building a wall that Mexico will pay for.

--Replacing Obamacare with a "beautiful, tremendous" healthcare plan.

--COVID will "miraculously disappear, probably by Easter." 

--Threatening Kim Jong Un with "fire and fury" one moment, and then "...we fell in love" the next.    

Yeah, awesome policies.  A real "stable genius."  

You’re picking and choosing; conveniently forgetting the virtual end to ISIS, conservative Supreme Court justices, zero additional foreign entanglements, strong national economy, record low border crossings, low taxes (I did the math), and so on.

I never said awesome or perfect policies. You asked what his policies were and there are plenty to chose from during his tenure 

[Pooter]

The problem I have with the right these days is they will continually complain that their party is hijacked by an incompetent buffoon…

..and then keep voting for that incompetent buffoon.

I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the only way the trump cult dies is if people stop coalescing around him. Sure his MAGA base will always be there. But every time a moderate Republican holds their nose and votes for him as the perceived lesser of two evils, it prolongs trump’s stranglehold on the party. Republicans are in a hostage situation entirely of their own making.
 

Between Biden and Kamala weve had the two most beatable candidates in a generation. But somehow, in a move defying all the odds, the right is about to extend their losing streak from ‘20 and ‘22, to a 2024 3-peat. The left is so insane these days that if the right, dumped trump and their fringe abortion policy madness, they’d cakewalk into the white house for at least the next decade. But they won’t because the party is far more stubborn than strategic.
 

For any moderate or center-right person looking for a viable Republican Party in the future, I think  the best strategy this year is to vote 3rd party. Counterintuitive, but It would detract from trump’s legitimacy and force him into irrelevance sooner. 

[Pooter]

11 minutes ago, dream big said:

Personally, I wanted Nikki Haley. But here we are and if Trump can put an end to the liberal madness these past few years, then I don’t give a shit if he says mean things or hooked up with a stripper. 
 

People keep saying the Republican Party should cut ties with him; doesn’t work like that when the republican voters voted him as their primary candidate unlike being propped up for being a woman of color by the Democratic machine with zero primary votes. 

problem is he isn’t going to undo shit because he isn’t going to win. 60-70% of voters thought kamala won the debate and trump is only trending more petty and more unhinged. He also doesn’t have coherent policy stances other than:

“Weren’t things great in 2016-2019!!”

and 

“if I was in office that never would have happened”

Cool dude, Both true. But how are you gonna deal with the problems we have now.

[brabus]

9 minutes ago, Pooter said:

But how are you gonna deal with the problems we have now.

Kamala can’t articulate a single policy - she beats trump by a landslide on word salads and platitudes. I agree with you trump (and many politicians) just say words/“catch phrases” and don’t articulate policy well, but Kamala is way worse than Trump in that sense. So I don’t think that’s the thing that’s going to sink him, at least for any voter who doesn’t already have their head planted up the DNC’s ass. 

[herkbier]

Ranked choice voting would help to relieve the stranglehold the extreme candidates hold in the parties..

[brabus]

20 minutes ago, herkbier said:

Ranked choice voting would help to relieve the stranglehold the extreme candidates hold in the parties..

No it would not. RCV is another “magical unicorn and rainbows!” sales pitch that may sound great at first contact before any scrutiny. See Article 1. Here’s an excerpt from a Columbia professor’s article:

”So how could any decent, intelligent person not support IRV? One answer is that situations can arise in which IRV results are clearly unreasonable. For starters, what would you think of a system that chose C as the winner in a 3-candidate race where majorities of the voters expressed a preference for A over B and for A over C? In the IRV election of Example 3 below, this is precisely what happens!

Example 3.

4 CAB              4 CB 
3 BAC ---------->  3 BC ----> C wins
2 ACB   drop A     2 CB

In the first round, A is eliminated. C, second choice of A supporters, gets 2 more votes in round-2 and therefore beats B 6-3. But notice that 6 of the 9 voters placed A ahead of B and 5 voters placed A ahead of C. So, altho A would have beaten both rivals in 2-candidate elections, C comes out on top in this 3-candidate race. Putting it another way, if there had been a 2-candidate election between A and C, A would have won, but the entry of B into the race mysteriously makes C the winner. Not good!”

That’s just one example of many. I too thought it sounded good at first hearing, until I did my own research. 

Edited September 13, 2024 by brabus

[Lord Ratner]

34 minutes ago, brabus said:

No it would not. RCV is another “magical unicorn and rainbows!” sales pitch that may sound great at first contact before any scrutiny. See Article 1. Here’s an excerpt from a Columbia professor’s article:

”So how could any decent, intelligent person not support IRV? One answer is that situations can arise in which IRV results are clearly unreasonable. For starters, what would you think of a system that chose C as the winner in a 3-candidate race where majorities of the voters expressed a preference for A over B and for A over C? In the IRV election of Example 3 below, this is precisely what happens!

Example 3.

4 CAB              4 CB 
3 BAC ---------->  3 BC ----> C wins
2 ACB   drop A     2 CB

In the first round, A is eliminated. C, second choice of A supporters, gets 2 more votes in round-2 and therefore beats B 6-3. But notice that 6 of the 9 voters placed A ahead of B and 5 voters placed A ahead of C. So, altho A would have beaten both rivals in 2-candidate elections, C comes out on top in this 3-candidate race. Putting it another way, if there had been a 2-candidate election between A and C, A would have won, but the entry of B into the race mysteriously makes C the winner. Not good!”

That’s just one example of many. I too thought it sounded good at first hearing, until I did my own research. 

But that's a dumb hypothetical. There is no two candidate election between A and C, or A and B. Why worry about what would have happened in the hypothetical election, that isn't in fact happening. 

In that example a got the fewest "top" votes, So they either would have lost in a three-way election, or been eliminated from the runoff. 

 

That's exactly how the system is supposed to work.

 

And this dude is a professor?

[brabus]

21 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

But that's a dumb hypothetical. There is no two candidate election between A and C, or A and B. Why worry about what would have happened in the hypothetical election, that isn't in fact happening. 

In that example a got the fewest "top" votes, So they either would have lost in a three-way election, or been eliminated from the runoff. 

 

That's exactly how the system is supposed to work.

 

And this dude is a professor?

It’s retarded because you end up with a lot of votes not counting (e.g. “exhausted ballots”) and you end up with a too high of risk of people weaseling their way into victory when they would have had no chance in a traditional primary to general election system. I’m a fan of every vote counts and I’m not a fan of a person getting elected who a plurality of the voters did not want. 
 

Here’s a humorous Op Ed regarding AK’s RCV and how that’s working out…cliff notes: a dude who got 621 votes (out of 108,407 cast) is going to the general election on the Dem ticket as one of the “top 4” from the primary. Now I don’t think it’ll work out for him for multiple reasons, but it does showcase the absurd outcomes that occur with RCV. 

 

Edited September 13, 2024 by brabus

[Lord Ratner]

2 minutes ago, brabus said:

It’s retarded because you end up with a lot of votes not counting (e.g. “exhausted ballots”) and you end up with a too high of risk of people weaseling their way into victory when they would have had no chance in a traditional primary to general election system. I’m a fan of every vote counts and I’m not a fan of a person getting elected who a plurality of the voters did not want. 

I don't think using the traditional primary election system as evidence of ranked-choice's faults makes much sense at all. The whole argument is that the traditional primary and election system is broken. 

 

Point in case, we have two absolutely ridiculous candidates, specifically because no one is willing to risk "throwing away their vote." 

 

Ranked choice voting allows you to vote for who you actually want. The example above is evidence of why rank choice voting works, not why it doesn't work. The only way A wins is to break every 3+ candidate election into a series of 2-way matchups. No one does that anywhere. 

 

There might be convincing arguments for the status quo, but that link isn't it.

[SurelySerious]

I don't think using the traditional primary election system as evidence of ranked-choice's faults makes much sense at all. The whole argument is that the traditional primary and election system is broken. 
 
Point in case, we have two absolutely ridiculous candidates, specifically because no one is willing to risk "throwing away their vote." 
 
Ranked choice voting allows you to vote for who you actually want. The example above is evidence of why rank choice voting works, not why it doesn't work. The only way A wins is to break every 3+ candidate election into a series of 2-way matchups. No one does that anywhere. 
 
There might be convincing arguments for the status quo, but that link isn't it.

Well…no one even voted for one of the candidates. You know, from the party protecting democracy.

[brabus]

37 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

The whole argument is that the traditional primary and election system is broken. 

I don’t necessarily disagree with that statement, I just don’t think RCV is the solution.

[ViperMan]

2 hours ago, brabus said:

No it would not. RCV is another “magical unicorn and rainbows!” sales pitch that may sound great at first contact before any scrutiny. See Article 1. Here’s an excerpt from a Columbia professor’s article:

”So how could any decent, intelligent person not support IRV? One answer is that situations can arise in which IRV results are clearly unreasonable. For starters, what would you think of a system that chose C as the winner in a 3-candidate race where majorities of the voters expressed a preference for A over B and for A over C? In the IRV election of Example 3 below, this is precisely what happens!

Example 3.

4 CAB              4 CB 
3 BAC ---------->  3 BC ----> C wins
2 ACB   drop A     2 CB

In the first round, A is eliminated. C, second choice of A supporters, gets 2 more votes in round-2 and therefore beats B 6-3. But notice that 6 of the 9 voters placed A ahead of B and 5 voters placed A ahead of C. So, altho A would have beaten both rivals in 2-candidate elections, C comes out on top in this 3-candidate race. Putting it another way, if there had been a 2-candidate election between A and C, A would have won, but the entry of B into the race mysteriously makes C the winner. Not good!”

That’s just one example of many. I too thought it sounded good at first hearing, until I did my own research. 

It's not a unicorn. It's a different paradigm for weighing peoples' choices and preferences. There's nothing inherently wrong with that.

The author of that Columbia article has chosen a very particular way in which to count votes. He successively eliminates candidates based on multiple rounds of who gets the least number of votes. That is not the only way to count votes in such a system. He certainly knows this fact, and that he neglects to address it, and show other ways of counting and perhaps different outcomes, betrays his bias against such a system. i.e. he's pulling the wool over his readers' eyes.

Take his example which you provided:

4 CAB              4 CB 
3 BAC ---------->  3 BC ----> C wins
2 ACB   drop A     2 CB

It's a totally contrived example. In the majority of cases, the extreme candidates will be represented on the "ends" of the choice spectrum - put differently, the middle candidate will in almost all cases be the same (for example, most people would vote 1. Trump, 2. Kennedy, 3. Harris OR 1 Harris, 2. Kennedy, 3. Trump). In the constructed example provided by the author, the middle candidate is A, A, and C - this is not a likely outcome in our currently hyper-polarized political reality. Even still, I'll take him at his word that such an odd outcome is possible: this contrived example still relies on and requires a unique counting scheme to result in a nonsensical outcome.

Suffice it to say, there are multiple - better - ways of executing the counting system in a ranked-choice voting scheme which that article side-steps. Opponents point to issues like this usually because they have some predilection against it - it is very difficult to exercise fear-based politics in such a system. Understand though, there are more fair and optimal ways of weighing votes, eliminating candidates, and settling on a candidate who is satisfactory to the majority of voters - which is the ultimate test and purpose of a democracy (republic).

Look at it this way: we currently have ranked-choice voting, it's just a 1 or a 0. I'd much rather have a choice between a 6 or an 8 at the end of the night...and that's the purpose of the ranked-choice scheme: to eliminate the other people at the bar from choosing who you have to bang at the end of the night.

Under our current system, you either get to bang the 10, or are forced to bang a dude...

Edited September 13, 2024 by ViperMan

[Lord Ratner]

9 hours ago, brabus said:

It’s retarded because you end up with a lot of votes not counting (e.g. “exhausted ballots”) and you end up with a too high of risk of people weaseling their way into victory when they would have had no chance in a traditional primary to general election system. I’m a fan of every vote counts and I’m not a fan of a person getting elected who a plurality of the voters did not want. 
 

Here’s a humorous Op Ed regarding AK’s RCV and how that’s working out…cliff notes: a dude who got 621 votes (out of 108,407 cast) is going to the general election on the Dem ticket as one of the “top 4” from the primary. Now I don’t think it’ll work out for him for multiple reasons, but it does showcase the absurd outcomes that occur with RCV. 

 

Did you read that article completely? It has nothing to do with ranked choice voting. They go to a top four, and two of the top candidates decided to drop out. So two of the lower candidates moved up. The article gives no indication that there were additional candidates that got votes between the dude with 621 and the top vote getters. The real headline of this article should be "nobody wants to serve in elected office in Alaska"

 

The only thing that article shows is that Alaskans continue to be, as they always have been, batshit crazy.

[herkbier]

9 hours ago, brabus said:

No it would not. RCV is another “magical unicorn and rainbows!” sales pitch that may sound great at first contact before any scrutiny. See Article 1. Here’s an excerpt from a Columbia professor’s article:

”So how could any decent, intelligent person not support IRV? One answer is that situations can arise in which IRV results are clearly unreasonable. For starters, what would you think of a system that chose C as the winner in a 3-candidate race where majorities of the voters expressed a preference for A over B and for A over C? In the IRV election of Example 3 below, this is precisely what happens!

Example 3.

4 CAB              4 CB 
3 BAC ---------->  3 BC ----> C wins
2 ACB   drop A     2 CB

In the first round, A is eliminated. C, second choice of A supporters, gets 2 more votes in round-2 and therefore beats B 6-3. But notice that 6 of the 9 voters placed A ahead of B and 5 voters placed A ahead of C. So, altho A would have beaten both rivals in 2-candidate elections, C comes out on top in this 3-candidate race. Putting it another way, if there had been a 2-candidate election between A and C, A would have won, but the entry of B into the race mysteriously makes C the winner. Not good!”

That’s just one example of many. I too thought it sounded good at first hearing, until I did my own research. 

I said it would help relieve the stranglehold the extremes have on the parties.. which it would. 
 

Your example is confusing the feature with the bug. Political strategies will change due to the new voting system, but that’s not necessarily a bad thing. The current system doesn’t seem to be among anyone but the elites happy..

I really haven’t done much in depth research on RCV.. seems to be working in Australia alright, I understand they have implemented it differently than Alaska has, but I’m not sure in what way 

[Lord Ratner]

7 hours ago, ViperMan said:

Under our current system, you either get to bang the 10, or are forced to bang a dude...

I'd take those odds. The dude is probably Biff anyway, he looks soft. 

 

But seriously, under our current system you either get to bang the bartender's wheelchair-bound grandma, or a dude. 

It would be a refreshing change to have "the 10" running for office.

[SocialD]

This thread is a great reminder of some words I received from a rather wealthy dude many moons ago.  I don't have near enough time, money or energy to get my preferred candidates into office.  So I prefer to spend my time, money and energy in figuring out how to legally pay as little tax as possible.  How I do that may change from administration to administration, but there is always a way.  It appears to be working for him and he's one of the happiest people I know lol.  

Edited September 13, 2024 by SocialD

[brabus]

26 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Did you read that article completely? It has nothing to do with ranked choice voting. They go to a top four, and two of the top candidates decided to drop out. So two of the lower candidates moved up. The article gives no indication that there were additional candidates that got votes between the dude with 621 and the top vote getters. The real headline of this article should be "nobody wants to serve in elected office in Alaska"

 

The only thing that article shows is that Alaskans continue to be, as they always have been, batshit crazy.

I did. The point is the guy made it in the first place, which would have never happened in a “normal” system, even with people dropping out.

 GOP primary example: I RCV Desantis, Vivek, Trump. Of total votes,  Desantis gets 49.5%, Trump 30%, Vivek 20.5%. Thank God, we have Desantis as the nominee! Oh wait, he didn’t get 50%, so now we have to do a runoff and Vivek is out. Now we end up with Trump because he bests Desantis in the 1v1 runoff. Desantis won a massive plurality in the first round, but doesn’t matter, and now I got my 3rd choice when my first choice “won” (in a standard election) the first go at it. We have now watched someone win who objectively did not have the most support amongst primary voters and many votes did not count in the end (e.g. someone who went Vivek, Scott, Haley). That’s bullshit in my opinion.

While not RCV, look at how Kamala is the dem nominee with zero votes. Not one person gave her a primary vote. It’s not the same, but RCV promotes a similar issue: you end up with people like Kamala making it when there were overall better candidates who were more liked, but because of a severely imperfect system, they’re out and she’s in.

 

Edited September 13, 2024 by brabus

[herkbier]

Your GOP primary example.. is this:

49.5% Dxx

30% Txx

20.5% RTD

There are zero RDT voters? Math in public, but you just need 0.6% RDT and Desantis wins.
 

And.. if that’s not the case, it just indicates that DeSantis, in your example, is more extreme than Trump. 

[Lord Ratner]

11 minutes ago, brabus said:

I did. The point is the guy made it in the first place, which would have never happened in a “normal” system, even with people dropping out.

 GOP primary example: I RCV Desantis, Vivek, Trump. Of total votes,  Desantis gets 49.5%, Trump 30%, Vivek 20.5%. Thank God, we have Desantis as the nominee! Oh wait, he didn’t get 50%, so now we have to do a runoff and Vivek is out. Now we end up with Trump because he bests Desantis in the 1v1 runoff. Desantis won a massive plurality in the first round, but doesn’t matter, and now I got my 3rd choice when my first choice “won” (in a standard election) the first go at it. We have now watched someone win who objectively did not have the most support amongst primary voters and many votes did not count in the end (e.g. someone who went Vivek, Scott, Haley). That’s bullshit in my opinion.

While not RCV, look at how Kamala is the dem nominee with zero votes. Not one person gave her a primary vote. It’s not the same, but RCV promotes a similar issue: you end up with people like Kamala making it when there were overall better candidates who were more liked, but because of a severely imperfect system, they’re out and she’s in.

 

Once again it's a misanalysis of how RCV is supposed to work. 

 

You can't apply the rules of a traditional election to an RCV election. People voted differently (for their first choice) specifically *because* they were voting ranked choice. 

However your scenario is perfectly illustrative, because if they didn't have RCV they would have just voted Trump in the first place to not "waste their vote," just like many of us are in this election. So we get Trump either way, but in your example because the minor candidates simply didn't have enough popularity (as minor candidates I'll add) to beat the candidate with the most support.

This also ignores the fact that many of the examples as to why RCV doesn't work are incredibly contrived. That professor's article creates a series of ballot examples, but only provides three of the possible six voting combinations in a three candidate election. 

You also can't say that someone doesn't have "the most support" just because they didn't get the most first place rankings in an RCV election. Again, the entire purpose of an RCV election is to allow minor candidates, who are in fact the primary choice of a voter, to get the first position.

But that doesn't equal the most support in RCV. In your example above, it is highly likely that Donald Trump would be the second place choice of a vast majority of conservative voters who simply prefer one of the minor candidates more. If Donald Trump doesn't get a single first place vote, but the entirety of the second place vote, he absolutely has more support than 4 other candidates splitting the first-place votes.

The second example of gaming the system also assumes complete control over the vote. Which no one will have. It also assumes that problem is somehow not inherent to any voting system. But we have that now.

Your last paragraph has no basis. She didn't receive any votes, and a candidate who receives no votes in rcv is not elected. There is no comparison between what the Democrats have done with Kamala and *any* voting system, because no voting system was used to select her.

 

Yeah, a weighted system as suggested in the professor's article would be better. But it is completely impractical to expect a population to be able to understand that and do the necessary math. Rcv is a simple system that solves 95% of a complicated problem. The metric for whether or not it is successful is not if it is perfect, only if it is better than what we have. And that's easy.

[brabus]

13 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

because if they didn't have RCV they would have just voted Trump in the first place

Invalid statement. Desantis had a massive plurality, and if all the the voters who had originally not put him in their ranked choices been allowed to re-vote for just Desantis vs. Trump, they likely vote Desantis because they detest Trump and won’t vote for him out of principle (but that’s not an option, so their ballots are shredded and they have zero say).

Here’s the bottom line, you’re OK with a candidate clearly beating everyone, yet failing to achieve 50%, and then a different person ultimately winning the election in round 15 of vote tabulations. Cool, I’m not. 

And none of this is to say I think our voting system is smooth sailing, just that I think there are too many pitfalls in RCV for it to be the best solution.

13 minutes ago, Lord Ratner said:

Your last paragraph has no basis.

Then you didn’t read what I wrote. It wasn’t a direct comparison, it was highlighting how RCV is another way you end up in a similar position as the Dem party has currently, albeit via very different ways. 

Edited September 13, 2024 by brabus