2020 Presidential Election

[Aquapod770]

Tulsi qualifies for the October debate.

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/24/tulsi-gabbard-qualifies-for-october-primary-debate-1509412

[*bfine32*]

(09-25-2019, 11:17 AM)Aquapod770 Wrote: Tulsi qualifies for the October debate.  

https://www.politico.com/story/2019/09/24/tulsi-gabbard-qualifies-for-october-primary-debate-1509412

I hope they go with a JV stage and a Varsity stage. 

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

The threshold for third parties to get on the ballot in Texas has beenlowered in a way that watchdog groups, nonpartisan experts and progressive activists all say is designed to siphon votes from Democratic candidates. https://t.co/hfjIYHHSGM

— NBC News (@NBCNews) September 23, 2019

We have apparently now hit the "democracy is bad, you choose from who we give you" stage of the primary.

We need more laws to make 3rd parties viable. If I have to go through another Clinton/Trump type situation, it's really going to start killing any sort of desire to participate in the Presidential election process.... which is maybe the goal of the two parties? Just trade the White House between each other every 8 years?

Give me some more choices, please. Viable ones I can actually get excited about rather than throw my vote at because I hope their party will one day hit 5% so that they can get some proper funding/standing in the government's eyes.

Don't even get me started on Alaska GOP straight up cancelling their primary.

[Belsnickel]

(09-25-2019, 04:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:

The threshold for third parties to get on the ballot in Texas has beenlowered in a way that watchdog groups, nonpartisan experts and progressive activists all say is designed to siphon votes from Democratic candidates. https://t.co/hfjIYHHSGM

— NBC News (@NBCNews) September 23, 2019

We have apparently now hit the "democracy is bad, you choose from who we give you" stage of the primary.

We need more laws to make 3rd parties viable. If I have to go through another Clinton/Trump type situation, it's really going to start killing any sort of desire to participate in the Presidential election process.... which is maybe the goal of the two parties? Just trade the White House between each other every 8 years?

Give me some more choices, please. Viable ones I can actually get excited about rather than throw my vote at because I hope their party will one day hit 5% so that they can get some proper funding/standing in the government's eyes.

Don't even get me started on Alaska GOP straight up cancelling their primary.

Ranked-choice/instant runoff voting. Solves the "spoiler effect" and makes third parties more viable.

[*TheLeonardLeap*]

(09-25-2019, 04:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ranked-choice/instant runoff voting. Solves the "spoiler effect" and makes third parties more viable.

I'm good with just voting for the person you'd like, and I don't want my vote to potentially go to someone else. Pass on the ranked choices. They just need to make third party candidates be included on polls and most importantly included on debates.

You can campaign all you'd like, but you'll never beat being able to talk to tens of millions of people at once on national television. Harris gets 2% and gets to be on national television for months. Meanwhile a 3rd party candidate needs to wait until after the primaries are over and THEN get 15% on polls to be included in the debates, and a lot of polls don't even include them as a choice so it's literally impossible.

[fredtoast]

(09-25-2019, 04:48 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: Ranked-choice/instant runoff voting. Solves the "spoiler effect" and makes third parties more viable.

I think this only really helps if all the House seats for a state are "at-large" instead of in districts.

As long as you are dealing with an election that just produces one winner it is going to be hard for third parties to get a foothold, but if the 4th or 5th place candidate gets a seat we start having some true diverse representation.  Even if 20% of the voting public favored one third party they could never get a representative elected because 20% does not win any election.

You know I think taking all private money out of elections would help.  the only reason the two parties have a stranglehold on the system is that they have a stranglehold on the campaign finances.

[hollodero]

(09-25-2019, 05:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm good with just voting for the person you'd like, and I don't want my vote to potentially go to someone else. Pass on the ranked choices. They just need to make third party candidates be included on polls and most importantly included on debates.

You can campaign all you'd like, but you'll never beat being able to talk to tens of millions of people at once on national television. Harris gets 2% and gets to be on national television for months. Meanwhile a 3rd party candidate needs to wait until after the primaries are over and THEN get 15% on polls to be included in the debates, and a lot of polls don't even include them as a choice so it's literally impossible.

For president, it sure is. I guess the only way to get a third party viable is through electing some members to congress first.
And for that, you'd need to get rid of this winner takes all voting system and of the many gerrymandered voting districts. Have voting districts for five (or ten or whatever) representatives in larger districts, and every 20% of votes amount to one seat. Which would sure need some kind of ranked choices, or maybe some more sophisticated ballots, whatever. 
Now while I certainly don't want to be so smart and tell you how to organize your voting districts and hold your elections, I really don't see any other possibility to ever make a third party relevant as through slowly have them get some recognition through a handful of elected house members. It won't happen through presidential elections.

[Belsnickel]

(09-25-2019, 05:24 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: I'm good with just voting for the person you'd like, and I don't want my vote to potentially go to someone else. Pass on the ranked choices. They just need to make third party candidates be included on polls and most importantly included on debates.

You can campaign all you'd like, but you'll never beat being able to talk to tens of millions of people at once on national television. Harris gets 2% and gets to be on national television for months. Meanwhile a 3rd party candidate needs to wait until after the primaries are over and THEN get 15% on polls to be included in the debates, and a lot of polls don't even include them as a choice so it's literally impossible.

There can never be a viable third party with our current system. You have to get rid of first-past-the-post, winner-take-all elections. Duverger's Law.

(09-25-2019, 06:51 PM)fredtoast Wrote: I think this only really helps if all the House seats for a state are "at-large" instead of in districts.

As long as you are dealing with an election that just produces one winner it is going to be hard for third parties to get a foothold, but if the 4th or 5th place candidate gets a seat we start having some true diverse representation.  Even if 20% of the voting public favored one third party they could never get a representative elected because 20% does not win any election.

You know I think taking all private money out of elections would help.  the only reason the two parties have a stranglehold on the system is that they have a stranglehold on the campaign finances.

I don't disagree. Larger districts with several representatives from the district or at-large from the state in coordination with RCV would be ideal for letting other parties thrive. But RCV is an easier sell at this point.

[Benton]

(09-25-2019, 04:40 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote: Just trade the White House between each other every 8 years?

Pretty much.

They've set the system up that way and voters let them. So now you get Crappy Option A versus Crappy Option B.

[Aquapod770]

(09-26-2019, 12:26 AM)Benton Wrote: Pretty much.

They've set the system up that way and voters let them. So now you get Crappy Option A versus Crappy Option B.

But then you couldn't spend the first 4 years undoing everything the previous administration did (or expanding upon the bad stuff they did) 

[fredtoast]

Right now the parties are so evenly represented in Congress that even a small number of third party seats would keep either side from having a majority.  That would force some compromise.

[Goalpost]

So Sanders is now ill. Had two stents implanted and his campaign is at the moment suspended.

[Belsnickel]

Facebook has refused to take down a false ad about Biden put out by the Trump campaign: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/technology/facebook-trump-biden-ad.html

Of course, the policy related to taking down false information was changed last week to one that makes political figures exempt from the whole "fake news" thing: https://popular.info/p/facebook-says-trump-can-lie-in-his

All of this, coincidentally, happened a week after Zuckerberg had a meeting with Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/business/bezos-zuckerberg-washington.html

Gotta say, that liberally biased social media sure seems to be doing a damn fine job of helping out the conservatives.

[Aquapod770]

(09-27-2019, 12:12 PM)fredtoast Wrote: Right now the parties are so evenly represented in Congress that even a small number of third party seats would keep either side from having a majority.  That would force some compromise.

Sadly if Trump v Hilldog couldn't get a significant increase in 3rd party voting I don't think much else will  

[GMDino]

(10-10-2019, 09:18 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: Facebook has refused to take down a false ad about Biden put out by the Trump campaign: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/08/technology/facebook-trump-biden-ad.html

Of course, the policy related to taking down false information was changed last week to one that makes political figures exempt from the whole "fake news" thing: https://popular.info/p/facebook-says-trump-can-lie-in-his

All of this, coincidentally, happened a week after Zuckerberg had a meeting with Trump: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/19/business/bezos-zuckerberg-washington.html

Gotta say, that liberally biased social media sure seems to be doing a damn fine job of helping out the conservatives.

This.  All of this.

Trump supporters say the voters should be smarter and educate themselves meanwhile there is no filter in the "media" (social) that keeps outright lies out.

I mean there is a large percentage of republicans who STILL don't think Trump asked for a "favor" in the transcript.  And it's in the transcript.  And Trump hasn't denied it.

[BmorePat87]

This made me roll my eyes



She's really no better than Trump with this post, which makes it incredibly ironic.

Context: You have to click "read more" to see her say "not really".

[GMDino]

(10-11-2019, 08:32 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: This made me roll my eyes



She's really no better than Trump with this post, which makes it incredibly ironic.

Context: You have to click "read more" to see her say "not really".

I thought it was clever.

She is using Facebook's rules: It's fine to outright lie.

Then she explains it.

At least she explains it as opposed to Trump and his lies.

[BmorePat87]

(10-12-2019, 09:24 AM)GMDino Wrote: I thought it was clever.

She is using Facebook's rules: It's fine to outright lie.

Then she explains it.

At least she explains it as opposed to Trump and his lies.

If you click the “read more” and ignore the headline.

No one should be defending this

[GMDino]

(10-12-2019, 09:47 AM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If you click the “read more” and ignore the headline.

No one should be defending this

Yet here I am...lol.

I see a difference between Trumps Biden/witch hunt/coup/ ads and one that says "Hey, FB is allowing everyone to lie to you without punishment...I just did it to prove it".

[BmorePat87]

(10-12-2019, 09:55 AM)GMDino Wrote: Yet here I am...lol.

I see a difference between Trumps Biden/witch hunt/coup/ ads and one that says "Hey, FB is allowing everyone to lie to you without punishment...I just did it to prove it".

She has since shifted the message to this, but when the original post had been made, she was openly suggesting that Zuckerberg was tacitly endorsing Trump because of his actions. That point will not be as publicly dispersed as the ad was, though, which is an issue.