Jan. 6 sentencing...

  • You are viewing Orangepower as a Guest. To start new threads, reply to posts, or participate in polls or contests - you must register. Registration is free and easy. Click Here to register.

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
If point number 2 ever happens, I'm not sure we need a third party. It is this all or nothing nature of our system that pulls the parties to the extremes, and causes them to ignore entire states. Which in turn causes the extreme division we have now. Here in Nebraska, we do split the delegates for president, but only Omaha vs the rest, which still perpetuates the whole urban vs rural divide.
Might take a look at the National Popular Vote Interstate compact. There about halfway of getting where they need to be for that to happen.

I still think they'd be divided the two primary parties based upon popular vote without opening up candidate ballot access as well. IMO, the greatest impediment to the rise of a third party are laws that make it so damn hard for a third party to even get on and then stay on the ballot.
 

CowboyJD

The Voice of Reason...occasionally......rarely
A/V Subscriber
Dec 10, 2004
18,905
20,678
1,743
Item #2 is something that should be considered. I believe Nebraska does this as well as a couple of other states. It certainly diminishes the power of the political majority in the state (depending upon views that could be a positive or a negative).

Item #3: In theory I like the idea, but I don't like it in current practice for general elections. There have been several elections with ranked-choice voting had the eventual winner be listed less as the top choice than someone else.
What I find telling and understandable is listing that you are Libertarian. I consider myself Libertarian --- yet I think we would agree that we are very different in our political thoughts, at least as expressed on this board. This highlights that there is a wide ideological gulf between most Republican and most Democratic candidates -- (ie a big-space for Independents, Libertarians, etc.). Most candidates of major political parties play to the base, which continues to lean more extreme (left or right) and in primaries that extreme has more power.
I think that shows the value for your item #3 (ranked-choice voting) in primaries, but not necessarily general elections.
I don't consider myself a Libertarian Party member at this point. I was involved in getting them recognized as a party for ballot purposes purely because of my desire to see candidate ballot access opened up. I am presently registered as an independent, but at different times I've been a registered Republican (Reagan and GB 1 era), registered Democrat (Democratic Leadership Council era...Clinton), then an independent, then a registered Libertarian, and now back as registered unaffiliated in Oklahoma.

I am an issues oriented voter and not driven by party affiliation or personality (whether I like the guy/gal or not).

If I had to consider myself a member of any party that is out there, the stated values and positions of the Modern Whig Party is the one that most closely aligns with my political values and positions.

I agree that ranked-choice voting IS largely meaningless in a two candidate general election. And that is what we see in most general elections.

That's why my complete statement about ranked-choice voting was "I'd like to see elimination of the primary system as a whole in favor of a ranked voting single primary with all candidates that meet the minimal qualifications and a run-off if no one ends up with a majority of the votes."

I did start off with I'd like to see elimination of the entire primary system. I was referring to the party primary system there. I may have been less than clear by again using the same word in the above-quoted statement. What I meant (albeit didn't clearly express) is I want a single election (what you're referring to as a general election) with all the candidates that meet the minimal qualifications....irrespective of party affiliation and a run-off if there is no majority single candidate based upon ranked voting.
 

oks10

Federal Marshal
A/V Subscriber
Sep 9, 2007
10,094
6,585
1,743
Piedmont, OK
I did start off with I'd like to see elimination of the entire primary system. I was referring to the party primary system there. I may have been less than clear by again using the same word in the above-quoted statement. What I meant (albeit didn't clearly express) is I want a single election (what you're referring to as a general election) with all the candidates that meet the minimal qualifications....irrespective of party affiliation and a run-off if there is no majority single candidate based upon ranked voting.
I'm game. Can we go one step further and remove the letter next to their name as well?