51st state?

[hotdogPi]

Libertarian party got 3% of popular vote during last presidential election. How many representatives in congress do they have?

None, because the Presidential vote is separate from the House/Senate vote.

If every state was proportional, Gary Johnson would have gotten 4 electoral votes (2 from CA, 1 from TX, 1 from NY), Jill Stein 1 (from CA), and Evan McMullin 1 (from UT).

[jeffandnicole]

Yes, I'd say that 2% malapportionment is a lot better than 40%. As I said before, 0% would be ideal, but that may be mathematically impossible, and practical concerns do place a big damper on what can be done realistically. But I'd support anything that would get the number closer to 0%.

I agree that first-past-the-post causes a lot of really stupid side-effects that are probably more important to solve (such as making third parties nearly irrelevant, as discussed above).

Traditional way to negotiate that - if 2% is OK, then what about 5%?
ANd you were talking about 0.5% in CA as a show stopper before..

But here is a bigger example of non-representation:
Libertarian party got 3% of popular vote during last presidential election. How many representatives in congress do they have?

Apples and Oranges.  Congress can get 100% of the Democratic vote, but that doesn't mean diddly on which party the President is from.

[inkyatari]

Libertarian party got 3% of popular vote during last presidential election. How many representatives in congress do they have?

None, because the Presidential vote is separate from the House/Senate vote.

True, but it still influences how easy it is for third parties to get on the ballot for those seats.  In many states, again going back to ballot access laws, the percentage of votes a party gets for the presidential race determines what kind of ballot access the party has for all offices downticket.

Here in illinois, the entrenched parties need 2,000 petition signatures to get major offices (president, governor, senate, etc.) on the ballot, whereas third parties need five times that many signatures - the number of signatures needed by third parties is actually worse in local races.  Had Gary Johnson gotten 5% of the vote in Illinois, the Illinois Libertarian Party would have been able to conduct ballot access initiatives under the rules for the entrenched parties.  Make no mistake, we have very limited funds, and between the collection of signatures, in conjunction with defending them almost wiped out what little money we had at the time.


The illinois Libertarian Party a few years ago, during the governor's race, needed 25,000 signatures to get on the ballot.  We collected 42,000. The gop challenged 22,000 (and they tried every trick in the book to get them all disqualified.)  The gop had paid staffers and college republican groups come down to Springfield to challenge.  Everyone that came down to help the Libertarian party HAD TO TAKE SICK OR VACATION DAYS OFF OF WORK, AND UNLIKE THE gop OPERATIVES, WE DIDN'T GET PAID. Both sides had to hire lawyers, but the state gop had millions to help.  We had thousands of dollars. On the first day (I helped out the second day of challenges,) the head gop operatives were so belligerent that the Illinois board of elections KICKED OUT THE 3 most dickish gop operatives.

When I went to help defend the signatures, fortunately most of the day the person who the gop had against me was a college republican who didn't care or want to be there, so it was smooth sailing in the morning. At one point the judge that was assigned to my group said "I don't see why we're doing this.  This is a waste of time!"  In the afternoon, a higher up in the college republican groups was put at my table.  He was bringing up the most outlandish challenges.  One family had each family member sign, but only the first put their entire address down.  The next three used " marks.  THE IDIOT ASKED WHAT THOSE MARKS WERE AND TRIED TO HAVE ALL FOUR SIGNATURES DISQUALIFIED OVER THAT.  At a seperate access hearing in chicago, a friend of mine who collected the most signatures had each one of his petitions challenged because the gop charged he didn't live where it said he lived on the petition (each page of each petition has to have residency information of the circulator at the top.) He was able to easily squash this by bringing mortgage statements, bills, and so on.

There were also reports of threats made by gop operatives towards people who signed the LP petitions.  There's also a case of one that was intimidated by the gop through the use of an agent of an Alsip security firm.  From what I understand he was harassing a circulator, WITH HIS GUN ON FULL DISPLAY THE WHOLE TIME.  Oh, this security firm?  It is owned by the head (at that time) of the Alsip area gop.  More information on this:  http://illinoisreview.typepad.com/illinoisreview/2014/08/il-gop-bullies-libertarian-petitioners-as-they-plea-for-term-limit-ballot-access.html

Based on my own experience, it seems to me that the whole electoral system is designed to keep the entrenched parties in power.  I still vote, but my experiences in the Illinois electoral system have soured me on the whole voting process. I'm very close to never voting again.

[kalvado]

Libertarian party got 3% of popular vote during last presidential election. How many representatives in congress do they have?

None, because the Presidential vote is separate from the House/Senate vote.

If every state was proportional, Gary Johnson would have gotten 4 electoral votes (2 from CA, 1 from TX, 1 from NY), Jill Stein 1 (from CA), and Evan McMullin 1 (from UT).

Same people are voting in both elections; and it is only reasonable to assume that 3% of population would vote for  third party in congress. Yes, those are different elections - and yes, existing rules of winner per area make those 3% minority party impossible.
No, that is not the way it absolutely has to be. It is just another rounding error built in existing set of rules.

[kkt]

Based on my own experience, it seems to me that the whole electoral system is designed to keep the entrenched parties in power.  I still vote, but my experiences in the Illinois electoral system have soured me on the whole voting process. I'm very close to never voting again.

That's exactly how the vote suppressors want you to react!

[Brandon]

Based on my own experience, it seems to me that the whole electoral system is designed to keep the entrenched parties in power.  I still vote, but my experiences in the Illinois electoral system have soured me on the whole voting process. I'm very close to never voting again.

That's what Mike wants us to do.  Fuck Mike.

[inkyatari]

Based on my own experience, it seems to me that the whole electoral system is designed to keep the entrenched parties in power.  I still vote, but my experiences in the Illinois electoral system have soured me on the whole voting process. I'm very close to never voting again.

That's exactly how the vote suppressors want you to react!

That's what Mike wants us to do.  Fuck Mike.

It's how the system is designed. Until an independent board can have a shot at the ballot access rules, nothing will change.  The entrenched parties will not give up their power.

[SP Cook]

Politics works best when the final vote comes down to a dichotomous choice.  It just does.  You can find plenty of examples in the USA, and elsewhere, where the TINY number of people that cannot (actually will not) find a home in one of the two great historical parties are the margin of victory for the person further from their views. 

Therefore it is clearly in the public interest to keep fringe parties off the ballot.  In the USA we mostly use high signature numbers, which is good.  Personally I like the British system of requiring a meaningful deposit which the candidate loses to the government if he does not get a legitimate %age of the vote. 

The main political reform needed in this country is fair districting.  Starting with eliminating the racist gerrymandering we require of the South.  Just draw the districts about even, a city and its hinterland and let the chips fall where they may.

[jeffandnicole]

Based on my own experience, it seems to me that the whole electoral system is designed to keep the entrenched parties in power.  I still vote, but my experiences in the Illinois electoral system have soured me on the whole voting process. I'm very close to never voting again.

That's exactly how the vote suppressors want you to react!

Personally, this is more the fault of the media than anything.  The only way most people get their news is from local and national news networks and shows.  If they're not giving Libs and other 3rd party candidates any air time, people aren't going to know about them or be familiar with them.

[inkyatari]

Therefore it is clearly in the public interest to keep fringe parties off the ballot. 

Disenfranchising people is never a good option.

[kalvado]

Therefore it is clearly in the public interest to keep fringe parties off the ballot. 

Disenfranchising people is never a good option.

Actually I still hope that with more power to Tea Party and alike on republican side and most liberal ones on democratic side - a central group composed of more moderate people on both sides would eventually emerge. And that has a potential to become a major party - not a fringe one.

[nexus73]

As I like to joke with truth, democracy is the best government money can buy.  The real opposite would be the 19th century Russian Empire.  Absolute monarchy and politics is not allowed.  No one can buy the Tsar after all!  The more folks that get involved in governing, the lower the common denominator.  I'd rather deal with the mistakes of one person than the mistakes of many with corruption added in to further sour the soup of the social order.  Absolute monarchy is how human affairs were governed for millennia.  Not until the Great War brought the end of so many dynasties and empires did we see a change from this system.  By and large it worked and did so well enough that the Roman Empire and it's successor, the Byzantine Empire, endured until 1453. 

A camel is a horse designed by a committee.

Rick

[SP Cook]

I don't know what "moderate" means, other than the common usage by Big Media, which is "won't admit to agreeing with his political party because the folks back home don't". 

In any event no one is "disenfranchised" by keeping fringe parties off the ballot.   Rather they are enfranchised, as they become the most important swing voters, rather than casting a meaningless protest vote that will acomplish nothing.

[inkyatari]

In any event no one is "disenfranchised" by keeping fringe parties off the ballot.   Rather they are enfranchised, as they become the most important swing voters, rather than casting a meaningless protest vote that will acomplish nothing.

Trying not to get angry here..

First the VOTER is disenfranchised.  YOu're doing the "lesser of two evils" routine.  In other words, you're saying that I should vote for the person with whom I disagree on 98% of the issues, otherwise the person I disagree with 99% of the time will get elected.  Despite the fact that there's someone running that I agree WITH 99% of the time.  This is not a meaningless vote.  Indeed, the only meaningless or wasted vote is one not cast in a clear conscience.  Had I voted for the two entrenched candidates that ran this last time, I could not feel good about myself because I do not like either, nor do I like their policies.

Let's look at this a different way.

In the next statewide Illinois elections, for the office of comptroller, there will (hopefully) be at least three candidates running for office.  Two entrenched party candidates that have no accounting experience, or someone I know personally who is a CPA.  In your scenario, I should vote for a candidate who is politically connected rather than someone who is qualified?  How does that make sense?

Or, one more way...

I should vote for stalin, otherwise hitler would win, despite the fact that Buddha is running.

[vdeane]

I'm pretty sure "moderate" is intended to mean voters who are "in between" the two major parties and favor a blending of both.

As for the duopoly, it has the effect of limiting the scope of debate.  In Europe, for example, there are a lot more ideas on the table.  The reason?  More political parties.  In the US, anything that isn't a mainstream idea within either the Democrats or the Republicans is automatically branded "fringe" and not talked about by politicians and the media.  There are also quite a few bipartisan consensuses (such as allowing interstates to be tolled, or allowing self-driving cars with little government oversight), and if you disagree with them, you have no voice.  The system also locks up voters such that many elections are already decided.  There shouldn't be a single office anywhere in the country where the primary is more influential than the general, but they're everywhere (in fact, I can count on my hands the number of races I've voted on in my entire life where that wasn't the case; not elections, individual races).  Many if not almost all of the frustrations on both the right and left are caused by these effects.  And if competition is good for free markets, I'm not sure why it wouldn't be considered good for politics.  Duopolies cause similar problems in both.

I fail to see how someone who's views are completely different from both parties is "enfranchised" by the two party system.  Someone who's views are outside the system isn't going to bounce between the parties.  They're going to vote third party or not vote at all.

[1995hoo]

I don't believe a vote for a third-party candidate is "wasted." Some states grant ballot access without need for a petition if a party's candidate gets a certain percentage of the vote, and I think I read for federal purposes a party is entitled to matching funds if their candidate gets 5% of the national vote. A person might well decide to vote for a third-party candidate he knows can't win if he doesn't like either of the major-party candidates and wants to see more parties gaining access. Obviously, third-party and write-in candidates have even won on occasion. (In recent memory, Jesse Ventura's campaign for governor comes to mind. Lisa Murkowski was elected to the Senate in 2010 as a write-in candidate after losing the Republican primary, and Anthony Williams won the 2002 DC Democrat mayoral primary as a write-in candidate for reelection after he was removed from the ballot due to irregularities with a bunch of signatures on his petitions.)

Lately I feel like both major parties have largely turned into parodies of themselves.

Either way, I hardly think "it just does [work better]" is a convincing argument in favor of anything, much less only allowing two parties access to the ballot.

I have a feeling this is coming soon for this thread....

[abefroman329]

"Moderate," like "centrist," is in the eye of the beholder.  Rarely are self-described moderates moderate, and rarely are self-described centrists in the center.

[Hurricane Rex]

Lately I feel like both major parties have largely turned into parodies of themselves.

I have a feeling this is coming soon for this thread....

That first paragraph is an understatment.
I can also feel a good chance of a lock coming.

[NWI_Irish96]

Yes, I'd say that 2% malapportionment is a lot better than 40%. As I said before, 0% would be ideal, but that may be mathematically impossible, and practical concerns do place a big damper on what can be done realistically. But I'd support anything that would get the number closer to 0%.

I agree that first-past-the-post causes a lot of really stupid side-effects that are probably more important to solve (such as making third parties nearly irrelevant, as discussed above).

Traditional way to negotiate that - if 2% is OK, then what about 5%?
ANd you were talking about 0.5% in CA as a show stopper before..

But here is a bigger example of non-representation:
Libertarian party got 3% of popular vote during last presidential election. How many representatives in congress do they have?

This is what I really wish everybody would understand.  A lot of people didn't vote because they couldn't stand either major party choice and felt that a vote for the Libertarian candidate was a wasted vote because he couldn't possibly win.  However, if even just 7% of the electorate that stayed home due to the awful choices had decided to go out and vote for the Libertarian candidate, he would have gotten 10%.  Still no electoral votes so it may seem like a wasted effort but hitting that 10% mark gets people's attention.  Then maybe in 2020 the Libertarian candidate gets 15%, and so on.

The stranglehold on the two-party system isn't going away overnight.  It's going to take a concerted effort by a lot of people over a long period of time to build up a third party.

[1995hoo]

My mom sometimes says she wishes she'd voted for Anderson in 1980 but that it would have been a wasted vote. I always tell her that if everyone who says that had voted for him, he'd have had a good chance of winning. You shouldn't base your vote on what you think everyone else may do.

[inkyatari]

My mom sometimes says she wishes she'd voted for Anderson in 1980 but that it would have been a wasted vote. I always tell her that if everyone who says that had voted for him, he'd have had a good chance of winning. You shouldn't base your vote on what you think everyone else may do.

Exactly!

[inkyatari]

I fail to see how someone who's views are completely different from both parties is "enfranchised" by the two party system.  Someone who's views are outside the system isn't going to bounce between the parties.  They're going to vote third party or not vote at all.

[oscar]

The stranglehold on the two-party system isn't going away overnight.  It's going to take a concerted effort by a lot of people over a long period of time to build up a third party.

But when it does, it might become one of the two major parties, with a once-major party disappearing once it loses that status. The Republican Party started off as a third party, but wound up displacing the dying Whigs.

[formulanone]

Politics works best when the final vote comes down to a dichotomous choice.

No.

Adults should be allowed to make informed decisions. Since we're forced to endure an 18-month cycle of the candidates, with 3-4 years between selections (depending on office), there's obviously no rush.

Dichotomous choices are great when forcing a child to pick between two things because they'll take all day for a decision, and you're in a hurry.

Getting back on (er, off) topic, that's like saying we can only talk about Interstates and US Routes.

[abefroman329]

Politics works best when the final vote comes down to a dichotomous choice.

No.

Adults should be allowed to make informed decisions. Since we're forced to endure an 18-month cycle of the candidates, with 3-4 years between selections (depending on office), there's obviously no rush.

Dichotomous choices are great when forcing a child to pick between two things because they'll take all day for a decision, and you're in a hurry.

Getting back on (er, off) topic, that's like saying we can only talk about Interstates and US Routes.

2-4 years.