Jump to content
270soft Forum

2016 with approval voting


Guest

Recommended Posts

Do you think a third-party would've won the 2016 election (under a direct popular vote) or been a serious competitor had the election been conducted via approval voting?

Link to post
Share on other sites
18 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

Do you think a third-party would've won the 2016 election (under a direct popular vote) or been a serious competitor had the election been conducted via approval voting?

What do you mean by "via approval voting"? 

Link to post
Share on other sites
Just now, vcczar said:

What do you mean by "via approval voting"? 

via an approval voting system where 1 is approve and 0 is disapprove.Voters would be obliged to mark all candidates.

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

via an approval voting system where 1 is approve and 0 is disapprove.Voters would be obliged to mark all candidates.

 

Hmm. Never heard of that sort of voting. I'm not sure who would have won. I think if the Libertarians and Green party had an equal shot at winning an election under this system as Reps and Dems had at winning, then I think they still would have lost. I think Libertarians scare a lot of people, despite having a cult following. I think the Green Party, while not scaring people, come off as overly emotional to a lot of people, and ignorant of commerce, finance and the military. I think the Reps and Dems would actually grow in favorability in such a system that allows the chance for Libertarians and Green to win. I'd possibly vote Green, hesitantly, but I'd feel safer voting Democrat. I think McMullin would be the most likely winning 3rd party, actually. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

McMullin probably would have done rather well, some Trump people may strategically only vote Trump and McMullin to avoid a non conservative winner, while also appealing to the Libertarians. I prefer ranked choice voting because it would be more precise, and I don't like, say, the Libertarians as much as I would someone like Rubio. But under an approval ballot I could hesitantly pick both. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

I'd like a ballot where you can list your top 2 or 3 choices. If no candidate gets over 50% of the PV, then the 2nd or 3rd choices are used in some way to push a candidate over 50%

 

Link to post
Share on other sites
23 minutes ago, vcczar said:

I'd like a ballot where you can list your top 2 or 3 choices. If no candidate gets over 50% of the PV, then the 2nd or 3rd choices are used in some way to push a candidate over 50%

 

If I had to choose out who actually ran, it'd be:

-Lincoln Chaffee

-Bernie Sanders

-Chris Christie

None of whom actually got nominated.

Link to post
Share on other sites
10 minutes ago, Patine said:

If I had to choose out who actually ran, it'd be:

-Lincoln Chaffee

-Bernie Sanders

-Chris Christie

None of whom actually got nominated.

Off topic, but can you explain your reasoning? I'm somewhat surprised by your list, even if it is similar to how one of my own would go. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 minutes ago, CalebsParadox said:

Off topic, but can you explain your reasoning? I'm somewhat surprised by your list, even if it is similar to how one of my own would go. 

I feel Lincoln Chaffee is one of the most likely to be the "bridge-building President" I'd brought up earlier in response to @servo75 and his support (and many others) for a President that only alienates the other side uncompromisingly and thinking this is somehow good for the whole nation. Bernie Sanders, while I did list him on the same list of candidates who alienate the others, holds far more actual views in common with me than any other candidate, even if I feel he'd a disaster as President (hence he's second, not first). Christie, while many compare him to Trump, I feel he's very distinct because he stood up to his own party to get help from Congress over a natural disaster that overwhelmed all the States' affected resources (which, by the way, servo75 and other Constitutional purists seem to believe the U.S. Federal Government should not lift or spend a penny regardless, and maintaining Constitutional purity is far more important than saving countless lives), and Christie (like Schwarzenegger in California, in fact) was actually able to work productively with a Democratic-dominated legislature. I don't know myself, either way (or pretend to know), if he was or was not behind Bridgegate, or if it actually was State Government underlings acting of their own accord.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, Patine said:

I feel Lincoln Chaffee is one of the most likely to be the "bridge-building President" I'd brought up earlier in response to @servo75 and his support (and many others) for a President that only alienates the other side uncompromisingly and thinking this is somehow good for the whole nation. Bernie Sanders, while I did list him on the same list of candidates who alienate the others, holds far more actual views in common with me than any other candidate, even if I feel he'd a disaster as President (hence he's second, not first). Christie, while many compare him to Trump, I feel he's very distinct because he stood up to his own party to get help from Congress over a natural disaster that overwhelmed all the States' affected resources (which, by the way, servo75 and other Constitutional purists seem to believe the U.S. Federal Government should not lift or spend a penny regardless, and maintaining Constitutional purity is far more important than saving countless lives), and Christie (like Schwarzenegger in California, in fact) was actually able to work productively with a Democratic-dominated legislature. I don't know myself, either way (or pretend to know), if he was or was not behind Bridgegate, or if it actually was State Government underlings acting of their own accord.

The media has also been out to get Trump when he didn't do anything wrong. For example, his clearing of the room with Comey likely just means that he wants a 1 on 1 talk not that he obstructed justice. Democrats have refused to do as much as prepare amendments to the health care bill.That example of refusing to co-operate isn't Trump's fault. Sanders is much more polarizing here than you think.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, NYrepublican said:

The media has also been out to get Trump when he didn't do anything wrong. For example, his clearing of the room with Comey likely just means that he wants a 1 on 1 talk not that he obstructed justice. Democrats have refused to do as much as prepare amendments to the health care bill.That example of refusing to co-operate isn't Trump's fault. Sanders is much more polarizing here than you think.

I didn't say at all Sanders wasn't polarizing - I believe he would be JUST as polarizing as Trump; I admitted that myself. However, Trump is NOT an innocent victim and I wish he'd stop being portrayed as such. He came into his campaign swinging and attacking several demographics of people at once with populist vitriol, and now his supporters complain that those groups he just came out and started targeting in his campaign (or those who resent the tone of those attacks, even if they don't to said groups) don't like him and have nothing good to say about him and some (though not all) of the more vocal of them are taking the dialogue to the low level Trump started it at. Let's put things in perspective here.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, Patine said:

I didn't say at all Sanders wasn't polarizing - I believe he would be JUST as polarizing as Trump; I admitted that myself. However, Trump is NOT an innocent victim and I wish he'd stop being portrayed as such. He came into his campaign swinging and attacking several demographics of people at once with populist vitriol, and now his supporters complain that those groups he just came out and started targeting in his campaign (or those who resent the tone of those attacks, even if they don't to said groups) don't like him and have nothing good to say about him and some (though not all) of the more vocal of them are taking the dialogue to the low level Trump started it at. Let's put things in perspective here.

1.99% of those statements were during a heated election

2.He never advocated killing innocent people (aside from that off-the-cuff non-thought through remark about killing terrorists' families)

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 7/7/2017 at 1:13 PM, Presidentinsertname said:

i got a feeling the reason for trump approval rating are one state starting with the letter c.

It's not just one state. It's at least a handful, at a minimum. Additionally, his approval rating in most cities is pretty low. While California is the largest state, it represents 12% of the US population. Probably about 35% of this 12% are Republicans or Libertarians. Remember also that his favorability rating was historically low before he won the election. I don't think he's ever had 50% favorability or approval from any credible polling company (except maybe a couple Rasmussin polls, but they even show that he is unpopular). I do think Trump's base has a magnified level of support for him. So those that hang out with other Trump supporters, live among a majority of Trump supporters (meaning those favoring him in the Republican primaries), are likely to feel that he is immensely popular, until they leave this circle of friends and supporters. I was recently in Philadelphia, from a state that voted for Trump, I didn't see a single Trump supporter sign. I saw Clinton (and some Sanders) signs, and many "Impeach Trump Now!" or "Not my president!" or "F*** Trump!" on signs in peoples windows, flyers on the streets, on people's T-Shirts. I'm still in Austin, TX right now, and we have the same thing here, but to a lesser degree (also more Sanders supporters than Clinton supporters, unlike in Philadelphia). The populations are in the cities and they are mostly opposed to Trump. I doubt Trump ever exceeds Obama's worst polling week, unless the polls are geared towards only Trump's base, as many polls are conducted in the right wing media sites, generally in unscientific polls. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, vcczar said:

It's not just one state. It's at least a handful, at a minimum. Additionally, his approval rating in most cities is pretty low. While California is the largest state, it represents 12% of the US population. Probably about 35% of this 12% are Republicans or Libertarians. Remember also that his favorability rating was historically low before he won the election. I don't think he's ever had 50% favorability or approval from any credible polling company (except maybe a couple Rasmussin polls, but they even show that he is unpopular). I do think Trump's base has a magnified level of support for him. So those that hang out with other Trump supporters, live among a majority of Trump supporters (meaning those favoring him in the Republican primaries), are likely to feel that he is immensely popular, until they leave this circle of friends and supporters. I was recently in Philadelphia, from a state that voted for Trump, I didn't see a single Trump supporter sign. I saw Clinton (and some Sanders) signs, and many "Impeach Trump Now!" or "Not my president!" or "F*** Trump!" on signs in peoples windows, flyers on the streets, on people's T-Shirts. I'm still in Austin, TX right now, and we have the same thing here, but to a lesser degree (also more Sanders supporters than Clinton supporters, unlike in Philadelphia). The populations are in the cities and they are mostly opposed to Trump. I doubt Trump ever exceeds Obama's worst polling week, unless the polls are geared towards only Trump's base, as many polls are conducted in the right wing media sites, generally in unscientific polls. 

This is also one of the biggest reasons why FAR more Republicans than Democrats, statistically, support maintaining the Electoral College is, without any reform or review, and say it's working perfectly despite obvious evidence to the contrary - but a reason such individuals never openly admit to - is that the EC, in it's current form, blunts the influence of the urban vote and disproportionately overrepresents the rural vote. Thus, under a popular vote system, if the general and typical platforms and support bases of the parties remained the same, the Republicans might realistically never win a Presidential election again.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, Patine said:

This is also one of the biggest reasons why FAR more Republicans than Democrats, statistically, support maintaining the Electoral College is, without any reform or review, and say it's working perfectly despite obvious evidence to the contrary - but a reason such individuals never openly admit to - is that the EC, in it's current form, blunts the influence of the urban vote and disproportionately overrepresents the rural vote. Thus, under a popular vote system, if the general and typical platforms and support bases of the parties remained the same, the Republicans might realistically never win a Presidential election again.

Yeah, 2004 would have been the only Republican victory in the 21st century if not for the EC. This is primarily because more people live in cities in this century than in any previous century. Cities prefer Democrats for good reason. If more people live in cities than in all rural places combined then the cities should have their president, considering they're the majority. I do think a two-round system would be fair, to ensure that at least 50.1% of the population approves of a single candidate. This way candidates like Clinton, who won the PV, would have to beat Trump if the 3rd parties are taken out in round 2. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 hours ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, 2004 would have been the only Republican victory in the 21st century if not for the EC. This is primarily because more people live in cities in this century than in any previous century. Cities prefer Democrats for good reason. If more people live in cities than in all rural places combined then the cities should have their president, considering they're the majority. I do think a two-round system would be fair, to ensure that at least 50.1% of the population approves of a single candidate. This way candidates like Clinton, who won the PV, would have to beat Trump if the 3rd parties are taken out in round 2. 

alot of third parties hate clinton more then trump I am not saying trump would win their votes maybe maybe maybe some johnson voters and all of Castle voters and maybe some tactically voting.

Link to post
Share on other sites
6 hours ago, vcczar said:

Yeah, 2004 would have been the only Republican victory in the 21st century if not for the EC. This is primarily because more people live in cities in this century than in any previous century. Cities prefer Democrats for good reason. If more people live in cities than in all rural places combined then the cities should have their president, considering they're the majority. I do think a two-round system would be fair, to ensure that at least 50.1% of the population approves of a single candidate. This way candidates like Clinton, who won the PV, would have to beat Trump if the 3rd parties are taken out in round 2. 

De Blasio (more his city council but he was co-operative and supportive of this) have been on a decriminalizing spree, decriminalizing all non-volent crimes. Hell,Littering and public urination were decriminalized last year just to name a few, and now De Blasio is suddendly complaining about panhandling since some people are doing it near his rental house.

Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, NYrepublican said:

De Blasio (more his city council but he was co-operative and supportive of this) have been on a decriminalizing spree, decriminalizing all non-volent crimes. Hell,Littering and public urination were decriminalized last year just to name a few, and now De Blasio is suddendly complaining about panhandling since some people are doing it near his rental house.

De Blasio is an atypical Democrat. I wouldn't use just one or a couple of left of average Democrats to represent the reason why cities prefer Democrats. I think some of the things De Blasio does doesn't make sense. However, I wonder how much decriminalization is saving the city money. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
13 minutes ago, vcczar said:

De Blasio is an atypical Democrat. I wouldn't use just one or a couple of left of average Democrats to represent the reason why cities prefer Democrats. I think some of the things De Blasio does doesn't make sense. However, I wonder how much decriminalization is saving the city money. 

today budget:$82.2 billion

2013(Bloomberg's last year):$68.7 billion (today:$72,111,156,994.64)

during all this decriminalization quality of life has worsened.

@vcczar

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
×
  • Create New...