61–70 of 638 posts
I really wish they went with a logo that was a bit more different than that of a literal trash company ( https://www.republicservices.com )
I also am just not a fan of “the forward party”. When I hear it the first thing that comes to mind is this
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ranked Choice (IRV) is better than Plurality, but there are better options. Read about the Condorcet Method
The Condorcet Method has a huge disadvantage that it is hard to understand. Being simple to understand is crucial for voting systems and I would argue is the most important factor since an election without public buy-in is worse than worthless.
With condorcet I think you can also visualize it nicely by playing a Head to Head thing and show ok A vs B, B wins. Ok B vs C, B wins, etc.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Let's review the record: Yang ran for President. Did very poorly. Ran for NY Mayor. Did very poorly. Why does making him the face of a new party make any sense at all?
Is your logic that if someone runs and loses a few times for an election then they should stop trying?
One thing people misunderstand about third parties is that they don't need to win. If they're structured correctly (this is by far the most difficult bit), they can have significant political influence without ever winning a single election. For example, love him or hate him, Ralph Nader probably swayed the 2000 Election and had incredible influence over the outcome (for better or worse). Coming back to the Forward P…
https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/election/2015/results
However there is several negatives to this:
1) That political party won't get any credit for it. 2) The policy will be implemented hardheartedly. 3) It may destroy your party if one or more of the major issues that the alternative party is implemented. As voters won't see any more need to vote as they have got what they wanted. 4) Thee political momentum will be lost for other reform / change. 5) The existing party duopoly will still exist.
To expand on the final point. I dislike all political parties (I am somewhat of a anarchist) and I don't believe in political solutions. However the Labour party in the UK immolating itself will hopefully end up with its destruction. Which will make space in the UK political landscape for new ideas, new people. Some speculate that it may also lead to the destruction of the Conservative party. Peter Hitchens described both Labour and Conservative parties as two corpses that are propping the other up and if one collapses the other may as well. However I personally think that is a fantasy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The main issue is that third parties often have the opposite effect that their supporters want. They draw voters from the more aligned main party, causing that aligned main party to lose elections. Third parties hurt the interests of their own supporters. There are good reasons why the Democratic Party tends to support the Libertarian Party and the Republican Party tends to support the Green Party [1]. 1. https://www…
One advantage of Yang's platform (at least during his Presidential run) is that he was able to draw people from both sides of the aisle to his side. He's not quite a centrist as much as he's trying to break completely out of the left/right dichotomy and compile the best policy ideas that often neither party is supporting, which appeals to a lot of people.
https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2019/oct/24/andrew-yan... appears to be a fact check of this claim, and it was rated false.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh I support electoral reform, but why the obsession with ranked choice? It is the second WORST voting system after first past the post, which is what we have now.
The worst voting system is allowing irresponsible people to vote.
One thing people misunderstand about third parties is that they don't need to win. If they're structured correctly (this is by far the most difficult bit), they can have significant political influence without ever winning a single election. For example, love him or hate him, Ralph Nader probably swayed the 2000 Election and had incredible influence over the outcome (for better or worse). Coming back to the Forward P…
Let's review the record: Yang ran for President. Did very poorly. Ran for NY Mayor. Did very poorly. Why does making him the face of a new party make any sense at all?
Highlighting that is key to his platform succeeding.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ranked Choice (IRV) is better than Plurality, but there are better options. Read about the Condorcet Method
The Condorcet Method has a huge disadvantage that it is hard to understand. Being simple to understand is crucial for voting systems and I would argue is the most important factor since an election without public buy-in is worse than worthless.
While I would really love to see what outcomes could be produced by a Condorcet method I can’t imagine actually implementing one without relying on computerized counting and software. This makes it impossible for volunteers to audit due to the need to audit the hardware and software of the computers doing the counting. If only security experts are capable of auditing such a system then our whole democracy is at their mercy. That’s essentially a technocracy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ugh I support electoral reform, but why the obsession with ranked choice? It is the second WORST voting system after first past the post, which is what we have now.
Ranked choice seems to be the best one I've read about. Could you help us understand what voting system might be better?
The problem is that it appears at first glance to defy the idea of "one person, one vote", so it might be harder to convince people of.
More systems here, https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electoral_system