Jump to content
270soft Forum

Could Jorgensen theoretically win Maine?


Recommended Posts

1 minute ago, Conservative Elector 2 said:

Wrong party from what I believe is right. However, that doesn't mean others can't have another opinion on that very issue. I am still inclined to improve the lifes of all people and yes I believe the policies I support might reach that goal more universal and faster. 

I'm going to be perfectly frank, and give a non-partisan statement. There is not a single political party on Earth who is out to make, and has a realistic and viable plan with any chance of success, to make the lives of EVERYONE in their jurisdiction they operate within "better," wouldn't you agree, in all honesty?

Link to post
Share on other sites
  • Replies 52
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

No, second choice votes don't count unless the first choice is eliminated by finishing last in the state.

I am a huge fan of it. It definetly could help 3rd parties win which is why I like it, just not in the way you describe. But RCV alleviates the biggest roadblock for third party support: the spoiler e

Ross Perot could have done that in 1992.

5 minutes ago, Patine said:

I'm going to be perfectly frank, and give a non-partisan statement. There is not a single political party on Earth who is out to make, and has a realistic and viable plan with any chance of success, to make the lives of EVERYONE in their jurisdiction they operate within "better," wouldn't you agree, in all honesty?

In their current shape I can even agree on that probably. Parties in Austria are a good example. I have to vote for the best of the worst... I am sure there are also points I'd disagree with Republicans or Tories.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/28/2020 at 5:40 AM, Patine said:

More (and better) choices of candidates (a la, the breaking of the Duopoly) might make that idea more palatable.

I agree. But I do not support giving some people a redo in their vote when their candidates doesn't win while others only have 1 say. There are better ways (such as getting viable 3rd parties going) to accomplish the goal of breaking the 2 party system. Right now, none of the 3rd parties are more than dumpsterfires, so any attempt towards legitimacy is destroyed before it even gets started.

On 10/28/2020 at 8:46 AM, Reagan04 said:

Yikes, and I thought you supported liberty and breaking the duopoly.

Ah yes, a Biden supporter trying to lecture me on supporting liberty.  Let us just ignore all the liberty causes I am a part of and all the liberty candidates I have supported over the years.  Just because I do not support some crappy voting system doesn't mean I do not stand for liberty.  I guess Biden supporter logic is rubbing off on you.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, jvikings1 said:

 

Ah yes, a Biden supporter trying to lecture me on supporting liberty.  Let us just ignore all the liberty causes I am a part of and all the liberty candidates I have supported over the years.  Just because I do not support some crappy voting system doesn't mean I do not stand for liberty.  I guess Biden supporter logic is rubbing off on you.

Well I’ve done the same. You’ve got a clear deficit when it comes to RCV. But that’s alright, you think I’ve got a deficit when it comes to Biden.

Calling it a “crappy voting system” is quite funny though. It is easily the best option especially for elevating Liberty voices and enriching the Republic.

Link to post
Share on other sites
7 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I agree. But I do not support giving some people a redo in their vote when their candidates doesn't win while others only have 1 say. There are better ways (such as getting viable 3rd parties going) to accomplish the goal of breaking the 2 party system. Right now, none of the 3rd parties are more than dumpsterfires, so any attempt towards legitimacy is destroyed before it even gets started.

On 10/28/2020 at 7:46 AM, Reagan04 said:

How do you propose getting viable third parties going without RCV? It hasn't happened in centuries.

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

I agree. But I do not support giving some people a redo in their vote when their candidates doesn't win while others only have 1 say. There are better ways (such as getting viable 3rd parties going) to accomplish the goal of breaking the 2 party system. Right now, none of the 3rd parties are more than dumpsterfires, so any attempt towards legitimacy is destroyed before it even gets started.

Notice my own personal (if not explicitly termed) concerns on ranked voting, while not necessarily selecting or viewing as the best path to political pluralism. I'm not sure my post is the ideal one to bounce your response off of.

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Reagan04 said:

Well I’ve done the same. You’ve got a clear deficit when it comes to RCV. But that’s alright, you think I’ve got a deficit when it comes to Biden.

Calling it a “crappy voting system” is quite funny though. It is easily the best option especially for elevating Liberty voices and enriching the Republic.

I don't have a liberty deficit for not supporting RCV. Your statement makes absolutely no sense. Changing to it would do absolutely nothing to promote liberty (just switches around an electoral system that could be argued as a danger to it).

You on the other hand actively support a candidate that wants to jack up taxes (anti-liberty), is part of the neo-con military establishment (anti-liberty), has a terrible record on criminal justice reform (anti-liberty), wants to stack the Supreme Court with liberal activists (anti-liberty), has proposed a national mask mandate (anti-liberty), and seeks to further nationalize the healthcare industry (anti-liberty).  Again, you have no basis to be accusing someone of being anti-liberty (or having some sort of liberty deficit).

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
15 hours ago, Patine said:

Notice my own personal (if not explicitly termed) concerns on ranked voting, while not necessarily selecting or viewing as the best path to political pluralism. I'm not sure my post is the ideal one to bounce your response off of.

I was agreeing with you sentiment which is why I replied to your comment (and then expressing my concerns despite the sentiment)

Link to post
Share on other sites
17 hours ago, Hestia11 said:

How do you propose getting viable third parties going without RCV? It hasn't happened in centuries.

Parties need to start organizing at the local levels and winning those races.  National politics is a massive step which is very hard to get into without any local organization.  Getting people elected at local and state levels will help build up a base that can be used to launch off of for federal election.  This can also be used to get media attention (the lack of it is one of the biggest obstacles faced by 3rd parties).  You also need a competent leader of the party (something that has been severely lacking for 3rd party options).  These are just a few things that need to be done (which are not being done right now).  Changing an electoral system is not going to make 3rd parties more viable, especially when these problems persist.

Link to post
Share on other sites
4 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

Parties need to start organizing at the local levels and winning those races.  National politics is a massive step which is very hard to get into without any local organization.  Getting people elected at local and state levels will help build up a base that can be used to launch off of for federal election.  This can also be used to get media attention (the lack of it is one of the biggest obstacles faced by 3rd parties).  You also need a competent leader of the party (something that has been severely lacking for 3rd party options).  These are just a few things that need to be done (which are not being done right now).  Changing an electoral system is not going to make 3rd parties more viable, especially when these problems persist.

All, the while, the Duopoly party machines stomp them on the local ground level at their leisure, like big corporations do to "Mom and Pop," small businesses. Although, RCV is a concerning idea, the inherent entrenched, abused, corrupt, and criminal, actually, (the same crimes those alleged Russian "hackers," are accused of, but as insiders, and every single election) power of long, nigh-unchallenged incumabancy by the Duopoly has led to elections little more free and fair for Third Party/Independent candidates than opposition in Russia or Zimbabwe (except American ones tend not to get arbitrarily beaten or jailed).

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

All, the while, the Duopoly party machines stomp them on the local ground level at their leisure, like big corporations do to "Mom and Pop," small businesses. Although, RCV is a concerning idea, the inherent entrenched, abused, corrupt, and criminal, actually, (the same crimes those alleged Russian "hackers," are accused of, but as insiders, and every single election) power of long, nigh-unchallenged incumabancy by the Duopoly has led to elections little more free and fair for Third Party/Independent candidates than opposition in Russia or Zimbabwe (except American ones tend not to get arbitrarily beaten or jailed).

It's the culture of American politics that needs to be addressed.  We need to do things like eliminate party line voting (requiring voters to vote for each race rather than just a party), holding media accountable when they ignore all candidates in a race, reforming the tiered ballot requirements (that allows easy access for Republicans and Democrats while making things difficult for other candidates), etc.  Now will these happen?  I doubt it because no one within the 2 party Establishment will support things that weaken them.

Link to post
Share on other sites
5 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

It's the culture of American politics that needs to be addressed.  We need to do things like eliminate party line voting (requiring voters to vote for each race rather than just a party), holding media accountable when they ignore all candidates in a race, reforming the tiered ballot requirements (that allows easy access for Republicans and Democrats while making things difficult for other candidates), etc.  Now will these happen?  I doubt it because no one within the 2 party Establishment will support things that weaken them.

This is the benefit that United Russia and ZANU-PF also have. It's called a corrupt, entrenched, and abused incumbancy. They just claim the system is not rigged, and it's completely free-and-fair, because there's two parties benefiting, like the late-19th Century Spanish "Turno Pacifico," or the early 20th Century Argentinian and Colombian, "Gentleman's Agreement," (in all three cases, the pairs of benefiting parties there were called the Partido Conservator and the Partido Liberal), but part of the real problem is also that that, at the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans agree on more policywise than they disagree on - the "non-election issues," of Bipartisan support. But I'm sure you fully agree here, given many of your past posts.

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

at the end of the day, Democrats and Republicans agree on more policywise than they disagree on - the "non-election issues," of Bipartisan support. But I'm sure you fully agree here, given many of your past posts.

For sure. Mitch McConnell and Chuck Schumer are more similar than people make them out to be.  They fight on camera to perpetuate the look that they are different, but they are buddy-buddy in the smoky rooms where the public cannot see them. That's why the budget always gets through without much trouble.

Link to post
Share on other sites
14 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

You on the other hand actively support a candidate that wants to jack up taxes (anti-liberty), is part of the neo-con military establishment (anti-liberty), has a terrible record on criminal justice reform (anti-liberty), wants to stack the Supreme Court with liberal activists (anti-liberty), has proposed a national mask mandate (anti-liberty), and seeks to further nationalize the healthcare industry (anti-liberty).  Again, you have no basis to be accusing someone of being anti-liberty (or having some sort of liberty deficit).

And you support Donald Trump my dude. Everyone is dirty this time around. But Biden AT LEAST isn’t a Palpatine-esque emergency powers hog. That’s the low bar this election has set and Biden is the only that clears it. 
 

If Jo could win, I’d happily vote for her. As a matter of fact, if we had RCV, I’d happily vote for her. Funny how that works....

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

And you support Donald Trump my dude. Everyone is dirty this time around. But Biden AT LEAST isn’t a Palestine-esque emergency powers hog. That’s the low bar this election has set and Biden is the only that clears it. 
 

If Jo could win, I’d happily vote for her. As a matter of fact, if we had RCV, I’d happily vote for her. Funny how that works....

What reference to Palestine and emergency powers are you making there? Or did you mistype, "Palpatine?"

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

What reference to Palestine and emergency powers are you making there? Or did you mistype, "Palpatine?"

Hah! Autocorrect! I happen to be watching Revenge of the Sith now and the analogy seemed “palpable” so to speak.

Link to post
Share on other sites
1 minute ago, Reagan04 said:

Hah! Autocorrect! I happen to be watching Revenge of the Sith now and the analogy seemed “palpable” so to speak.

An excellent choice of movie on the brink of a U.S. Presidential Election! :P

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/30/2020 at 11:58 PM, Reagan04 said:

And you support Donald Trump my dude. Everyone is dirty this time around. But Biden AT LEAST isn’t a Palpatine-esque emergency powers hog. That’s the low bar this election has set and Biden is the only that clears it. 
 

If Jo could win, I’d happily vote for her. As a matter of fact, if we had RCV, I’d happily vote for her. Funny how that works....

And even if Trump isn't some liberty champion (which I would never claim), he is better on almost every issue that Biden (who has a massive record of failure over almost half a century).  You just deal with Trump Derangement Syndrome because you don't think him as a person and will do anything to see him taken down.  You try and claim emergency powers as an action, but there is no evidence Trump has gone further than former Presidents with executive action (and you'd be joking yourself if you do not think Biden and Harris would do the exact same thing).  Heck, a national mask mandate would be a Palpatine-esque emergency powers action.

I also find it ironic that you won't vote for Jorgensen because she cannot win despite that being the major talking point coming from the duopoly.  Funny how you attempt to rail against it but use their "they can't win" excuse.  If you truly believed in helping 3rd parties emerge, you would be willing to vote for them despite their current electoral prospects.

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
12 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

I also find it ironic that you won't vote for Jorgensen because she cannot win despite that being the major talking point coming from the duopoly.  Funny how you attempt to rail against it but use their "they can't win" excuse.  If you truly believed in helping 3rd parties emerge, you would be willing to vote for them despite their current electoral prospects.

Dude I’m literally offering you the golden bullet and you’re refusing to take it.

Link to post
Share on other sites
16 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

And even if Trump isn't some liberty champion (which I would never claim), he is better on almost every issue that Biden (who has a massive record of failure over almost half a century). 

Gotta disagree here.

16 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

You just deal with Trump Derangement Syndrome because you don't think him as a person and will do anything to see him taken down

You’ve got no evidence of this. In fact, I tried to support him most of 2017, but the reality is that he is unsupportable.

17 minutes ago, jvikings1 said:

You try and claim emergency powers as an action, but there is no evidence Trump has gone further than former Presidents with executive action (and you'd be joking yourself if you do not think Biden and Harris would do the exact same thing).

I apologize, I must have halleucinated one of the most blatant power grabs in US history when he attempted to overturn a budget, assume power of the purse, and usurp Congress’ appropriation power via national emergency. That’s FAR worse than a national mask mandate (which Biden doesn’t even support).

Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, jvikings1 said:

You try and claim emergency powers as an action, but there is no evidence Trump has gone further than former Presidents with executive action (and you'd be joking yourself if you do not think Biden and Harris would do the exact same thing).  Heck, a national mask mandate would be a Palpatine-esque emergency powers action.

 

1 hour ago, Reagan04 said:

I apologize, I must have halleucinated one of the most blatant power grabs in US history when he attempted to overturn a budget, assume power of the purse, and usurp Congress’ appropriation power via national emergency. That’s FAR worse than a national mask mandate (which Biden doesn’t even support).

You have a point there, @Reagan04. We must remember that an overreaching head-of-state seizing the power of the purse from the legitimate legislative body was the one of the big reasons the English Civil War started. Even by 1640, the English Parliament (an institution dating back to 1265 - the oldest legislative elected by means or suffrage at all through it's history with any real power or authority in governance extant in the world today through it's post Acts of Union successors, and the model of, at least the bicameral, single-member district-elected U.S. Congress with a Speaker in the lower house and "government and opposition seating,") already had the guaranteed power over the purse, and that was why Charles I had no choice but to convene it in November 1640 (the first English Parliamentary with traceable and identifiable political parties - the Royalists, or "Cavaliers," and the Parliamentarians, or "Roundheads"). Charles tried to browbeat Parliament into him his budget, and then tried "backdoor taxes," which angered Parliament, and Parliament took the opportunity to push bills to limit the Crown's power and guarantee rights of English Subjects from Crown impunity. The deadlock led to war, Charles beheaded on the charge of treason, a crime he felt a monarch was absolutely immune to being even indicted, the only non-monarchial head-of-state to govern England, the Puritanical military dictator Oliver Cromwell, held a firm and harsh grip, and well, English, and then British monarchs, were not so cavalier about ignoring Parliament thereafter. Executive heads-of-state in Constitutional systems of governments should beware messing with the power of the purse!

  • Upvote 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
31 minutes ago, Patine said:

 

You have a point there, @Reagan04. We must remember that an overreaching head-of-state seizing the power of the purse from the legitimate legislative body was the one of the big reasons the English Civil War started. Even by 1640, the English Parliament (an institution dating back to 1265 - the oldest legislative elected by means or suffrage at all through it's history with any real power or authority in governance extant in the world today through it's post Acts of Union successors, and the model of, at least the bicameral, single-member district-elected U.S. Congress with a Speaker in the lower house and "government and opposition seating,") already had the guaranteed power over the purse, and that was why Charles I had no choice but to convene it in November 1640 (the first English Parliamentary with traceable and identifiable political parties - the Royalists, or "Cavaliers," and the Parliamentarians, or "Roundheads"). Charles tried to browbeat Parliament into him his budget, and then tried "backdoor taxes," which angered Parliament, and Parliament took the opportunity to push bills to limit the Crown's power and guarantee rights of English Subjects from Crown impunity. The deadlock led to war, Charles beheaded on the charge of treason, a crime he felt a monarch was absolutely immune to being even indicted, the only non-monarchial head-of-state to govern England, the Puritanical military dictator Oliver Cromwell, held a firm and harsh grip, and well, English, and then British monarchs, were not so cavalier about ignoring Parliament thereafter. Executive heads-of-state in Constitutional systems of governments should beware messing with the power of the purse!

Precisely correct. 

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 11/1/2020 at 10:55 AM, Reagan04 said:

Gotta disagree here.

You’ve got no evidence of this. In fact, I tried to support him most of 2017, but the reality is that he is unsupportable.

I apologize, I must have halleucinated one of the most blatant power grabs in US history when he attempted to overturn a budget, assume power of the purse, and usurp Congress’ appropriation power via national emergency. That’s FAR worse than a national mask mandate (which Biden doesn’t even support).

Yes, Biden does support one. He has consistently flip-flopped and the issue.  But, I'll believe his statement supporting such a mandate.  Not to mention his threat to shut the country down if the scientists said to do so.  Other Presidents have also attempted to usurp the power of the purse.  That is nothing new (unfortunately), and Biden would undoubtedly use that power if it suited his purposes (or Kamala when she takes the reigns).  If that is your big issue, then you couldn't legitimately support either of the major party candidates.

I am not a big fan of Trump on the budget, and I have called out his executive overreach.  But it is extremely ignorant to think that the Left is an ally in anything if you actually do care about liberty.  If you truly think Biden is better for liberty, then feel free to give some examples.  If not, my point about TDS still stands.

On 11/1/2020 at 12:40 PM, Patine said:

 

You have a point there, @Reagan04. We must remember that an overreaching head-of-state seizing the power of the purse from the legitimate legislative body was the one of the big reasons the English Civil War started. Even by 1640, the English Parliament (an institution dating back to 1265 - the oldest legislative elected by means or suffrage at all through it's history with any real power or authority in governance extant in the world today through it's post Acts of Union successors, and the model of, at least the bicameral, single-member district-elected U.S. Congress with a Speaker in the lower house and "government and opposition seating,") already had the guaranteed power over the purse, and that was why Charles I had no choice but to convene it in November 1640 (the first English Parliamentary with traceable and identifiable political parties - the Royalists, or "Cavaliers," and the Parliamentarians, or "Roundheads"). Charles tried to browbeat Parliament into him his budget, and then tried "backdoor taxes," which angered Parliament, and Parliament took the opportunity to push bills to limit the Crown's power and guarantee rights of English Subjects from Crown impunity. The deadlock led to war, Charles beheaded on the charge of treason, a crime he felt a monarch was absolutely immune to being even indicted, the only non-monarchial head-of-state to govern England, the Puritanical military dictator Oliver Cromwell, held a firm and harsh grip, and well, English, and then British monarchs, were not so cavalier about ignoring Parliament thereafter. Executive heads-of-state in Constitutional systems of governments should beware messing with the power of the purse!

I agree that this separation is one of the most important that exist.  But the power of the purse has been an issue long before Trump.  Congress abdicated that responsibility long ago, and it is ridiculous to claim Trump caused that.

Link to post
Share on other sites
On 10/23/2020 at 3:53 PM, ThePotatoWalrus said:

So I see Maine is doing ranked choice voting this year, and I may not be 100% sure on how this works, but if every voter had her as her second choice, would she finish ahead of the less popular candidate?

Jo could win, but not through the methods you're talking about. Jo could be made first pick by many, and of course if she does not win, the second choice would come in, so people may get ballsy and vote for her if she's their actual favorite candidate, despite her having a lot lower odds to win.

Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.

×
×
  • Create New...