11 hours ago, Boogyman said:

Anyone who didn't see this coming six years ago is retarded.

I know it’s typical anecdotal sample size of just my friend group, but legit group of 10 of us all raised fiscally conservative socially liberal, but all tended towards republican and voted as such our entire lives. And then Trump won the R nod. I couldn’t bring myself to vote Hillary. My dad would roll over in his grave and 8 of us voted 3rd party and 1 went dem 1 went Trump. Fast forward 2 years of his term and that entire group has voted D or 3rd party in every single election since. Trump destroyed the party along with Mitch and the rest of the weak spines republicans that followed along with bringing in the ultra religious, openly racists and Qanon crazies. You’ll see in next 10-15 years as our parents all finally die off that the republicans base will be even worse off than they are right now unless they figure this crap out and get back to working across the aisle while fighting for values that those of us you call Rhinos actually care about. 

5 hours ago, homerpat said:

I know it’s typical anecdotal sample size of just my friend group, but legit group of 10 of us all raised fiscally conservative socially liberal, but all tended towards republican and voted as such our entire lives. And then Trump won the R nod. I couldn’t bring myself to vote Hillary. My dad would roll over in his grave and 8 of us voted 3rd party and 1 went dem 1 went Trump. Fast forward 2 years of his term and that entire group has voted D or 3rd party in every single election since. Trump destroyed the party along with Mitch and the rest of the weak spines republicans that followed along with bringing in the ultra religious, openly racists and Qanon crazies. You’ll see in next 10-15 years as our parents all finally die off that the republicans base will be even worse off than they are right now unless they figure this crap out and get back to working across the aisle while fighting for values that those of us you call Rhinos actually care about. 

Honestly, same. People like to peg millennials as a bunch of SJWs but the truth is most I've encountered have libertarian beliefs. The GOP could have seized on that and coasted. Instead they went full ****.

In the voting booth in 2016 i was basically the human embodiment of UnsureLarryDavid.gif and ended up voting third party, and to be honest it was a liberating experience.

9 hours ago, homerpat said:

I know it’s typical anecdotal sample size of just my friend group, but legit group of 10 of us all raised fiscally conservative socially liberal, but all tended towards republican and voted as such our entire lives. And then Trump won the R nod. I couldn’t bring myself to vote Hillary. My dad would roll over in his grave and 8 of us voted 3rd party and 1 went dem 1 went Trump. Fast forward 2 years of his term and that entire group has voted D or 3rd party in every single election since. Trump destroyed the party along with Mitch and the rest of the weak spines republicans that followed along with bringing in the ultra religious, openly racists and Qanon crazies. You’ll see in next 10-15 years as our parents all finally die off that the republicans base will be even worse off than they are right now unless they figure this crap out and get back to working across the aisle while fighting for values that those of us you call Rhinos actually care about. 

Sounds like our families are in lock step. 

3 hours ago, Bill said:

Honestly, same. People like to peg millennials as a bunch of SJWs but the truth is most I've encountered have libertarian beliefs. The GOP could have seized on that and coasted. Instead they went full ****.

In the voting booth in 2016 i was basically the human embodiment of UnsureLarryDavid.gif and ended up voting third party, and to be honest it was a liberating experience.

Ive seen the same thing. It's amazing how many people I talk to believe in core libertarian beliefs, but don't vote that way because they are brainwashed by the duopoly. This was my first time voting libertarian (should have been 2 years ago, but I caved and didn't come for Jo) and you're right, it felt great. 

Grew up in a fairly Republican family but been splitting my ticket since 18. Up until 2016 it was still heavier to Republican / Libertarian candidates, but been almost entirely Dem since. 

Not the way I'd prefer to vote, but it's the way I feel I have to vote. The current Republican party needs to be buried and hit rock-bottom before it realizes how serious the problem is.

Every party is going to have its extremists. There's always going to be examples "on both sides" of people willing to commit political violence like we saw on Jan 6, and even a few people elected to office in deep Red & Blue areas who openly support it.

What has changed is that the Jan 6 mentality has gotten to the top of the ticket on one side, and prominent voices in the Republican party make excuses or even support it. In my memory at least we've never seen a presidential candidate - let alone someone elected to the freaking office - who actively courted these voters, handed them real political power, and wielded them like a weapon. 

What even more insane is seeing the party just fall in line. MAGA has badly hurt the Republicans in EVERY election since 2016. Any red wave that might have been (probably would be so without Dobbs) would be despite MAGA, not because of it.

And for the same reasons progressive candidates hurt the left: the votes you need to win in any competitive district or state are NOT the extremes, but the moderates. 

10 hours ago, homerpat said:

I know it’s typical anecdotal sample size of just my friend group, but legit group of 10 of us all raised fiscally conservative socially liberal, but all tended towards republican and voted as such our entire lives. And then Trump won the R nod. I couldn’t bring myself to vote Hillary. My dad would roll over in his grave and 8 of us voted 3rd party and 1 went dem 1 went Trump. Fast forward 2 years of his term and that entire group has voted D or 3rd party in every single election since. Trump destroyed the party along with Mitch and the rest of the weak spines republicans that followed along with bringing in the ultra religious, openly racists and Qanon crazies. You’ll see in next 10-15 years as our parents all finally die off that the republicans base will be even worse off than they are right now unless they figure this crap out and get back to working across the aisle while fighting for values that those of us you call Rhinos actually care about. 

I've never called anyone a "RINO" unless I'm making fun of the Trumplikins.

 

Again, whoever didn't see Trump causing deep, lasting damage to the Republican party is at the very least mildly retarded.

9 minutes ago, Boogyman said:

I've never called anyone a "RINO" unless I'm making fun of the Trumplikins.

 

Again, whoever didn't see Trump causing deep, lasting damage to the Republican party voted for Trump is at the very least mildly retarded.

FYP

5 hours ago, Bill said:

Honestly, same. People like to peg millennials as a bunch of SJWs but the truth is most I've encountered have libertarian beliefs. The GOP could have seized on that and coasted. Instead they went full ****.

In the voting booth in 2016 i was basically the human embodiment of UnsureLarryDavid.gif and ended up voting third party, and to be honest it was a liberating experience.

 

1 hour ago, BFit said:

Ive seen the same thing. It's amazing how many people I talk to believe in core libertarian beliefs, but don't vote that way because they are brainwashed by the duopoly. This was my first time voting libertarian (should have been 2 years ago, but I caved and didn't come for Jo) and you're right, it felt great. 

This is why we need ranked choice voting. People can vote how they truly feel without worrying about "wasting" their vote on a candidate who has no real shot of winning. Wouldn't change my vote much but it's dumb that others have to make that choice. 

1 minute ago, DEagle7 said:

 

This is why we need ranked choice voting. People can vote how they truly feel without worrying about "wasting" their vote on a candidate who has no real shot of winning. Wouldn't change my vote much but it's dumb that others have to make that choice. 

Honestly I think the biggest thing that would help is open primaries. Independent voters make up a big chunk of the block, and in closed primaries it keeps those voters from picking their candidate of choice on the side they lean to, which then allows the crazies to come out and nominate a moron.

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

open primaries

This.

Open primaries + ranked choice helps avoid extremist candidates. 

I know some think ranked choice voting is complicated, but how complicated is listing candidates in your preferred order? I really don't understand the challenge there.

2 hours ago, BFit said:

Ive seen the same thing. It's amazing how many people I talk to believe in core libertarian beliefs, but don't vote that way because they are brainwashed by the duopoly. This was my first time voting libertarian (should have been 2 years ago, but I caved and didn't come for Jo) and you're right, it felt great. 

 

7 minutes ago, Bill said:

Honestly I think the biggest thing that would help is open primaries. Independent voters make up a big chunk of the block, and in closed primaries it keeps those voters from picking their candidate of choice on the side they lean to, which then allows the crazies to come out and nominate a moron.

This is what keeps me from registering Independent vs staying Republican. I feel I can make larger impact voting in R primaries, even if I’m pissing in wind. Always research all candidates and vote for most moderate with no or little Trump connections. Agreed with both sentiments that if we had ranked or gave more credence to another party then things would change. I voted Lib in 2016 but in 2020 and this year for Senate voted Dem while holding my nose. Truly dislike Fetterman as a candidate, but legitimately was offended the Republicans were only trotting out of state guys coming in to represent us. WTF how can they not find an in state candidate?  Oz!?! really a tv doctor is the best they could do?

 

Mastriano never stood a chance. Shapiro freaking funded part of his primary knowing he would smoke him in general election. 

16 minutes ago, Bill said:

Honestly I think the biggest thing that would help is open primaries. Independent voters make up a big chunk of the block, and in closed primaries it keeps those voters from picking their candidate of choice on the side they lean to, which then allows the crazies to come out and nominate a moron.

Honestly, we need to just get rid of primaries. Even in an open primary, only the extremes are motivated enough to come out and vote. So the most extreme wins in the primary every time. If we're going to have primaries, let's go all the way to non-partisan primaries. Let them all run against one another, then have the top 2 vote getters in a runoff in November, regardless of party affiliation. Still, I'm fine saying that voters are too stupid and lazy to make these decisions -- let the party leaders decide. 

8 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

Open primaries + ranked choice helps avoid extremist candidates. 

I know some think ranked choice voting is complicated, but how complicated is listing candidates in your preferred order? I really don't understand the challenge there.

Dealing with RCV currently, and...it sucks. There are 2 main issues. First, it is designed to disenfranchise people. If you vote for 3 people, and they all get eliminated, your vote is discarded completely. Second, it leads to all kinds of back room deals where people team up. 

10 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Dealing with RCV currently, and...it sucks. There are 2 main issues. First, it is designed to disenfranchise people. If you vote for 3 people, and they all get eliminated, your vote is discarded completely. Second, it leads to all kinds of back room deals where people team up. 

How is it more disenfranchising than the current system?  Yeah your vote is "counted" if you vote third party but you're still not impacting the R vs D race nearly as much than if we're able to rank your choices, and I'm sure there are plenty of people who don't vote third party solely because of that.

The second point about backroom deals I can see happening though. Still worth it imo. 

17 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Honestly, we need to just get rid of primaries. Even in an open primary, only the extremes are motivated enough to come out and vote. So the most extreme wins in the primary every time. If we're going to have primaries, let's go all the way to non-partisan primaries. Let them all run against one another, then have the top 2 vote getters in a runoff in November, regardless of party affiliation. Still, I'm fine saying that voters are too stupid and lazy to make these decisions -- let the party leaders decide. 

Dealing with RCV currently, and...it sucks. There are 2 main issues. First, it is designed to disenfranchise people. If you vote for 3 people, and they all get eliminated, your vote is discarded completely. Second, it leads to all kinds of back room deals where people team up. 

Isn't that the same as voting for someone in a primary field that fails to get a plurality?

18 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Dealing with RCV currently, and...it sucks. There are 2 main issues. First, it is designed to disenfranchise people. If you vote for 3 people, and they all get eliminated, your vote is discarded completely. Second, it leads to all kinds of back room deals where people team up. 

If all three of your candidates fail to advance that's pretty much the same as losing when voting for one, no? You voted, your candidates just lost.

I disagree strongly that it's designed to disenfranchise. It's designed to make MORE votes count by making sure the moderates aren't disenfranchised by crazy partisans selecting extremists in a primary.

Honestly, I think it's a case of too little too late when it comes to RCV be able to put a dent into Trump's stranglehold on the GOP. You can make an argument that it could've changed the outcome of the primaries back in 2016, but now that Trump has ascended to the throne, there's no putting that toothpaste back into the tube. The electorate has just become way too polarized for RCV to materially change things now when it comes to nominating someone other than Trump, but what it could help with going forward, is getting a 3rd party to slowly emerge as a viable alternative in the generals. Much like when discussing how to improve the winner-take-all system, the issue as always, is getting most of the states to agree to a similar process, which of course will never happen.

7 minutes ago, we_gotta_believe said:

Honestly, I think it's a case of too little too late when it comes to RCV be able to put a dent into Trump's stranglehold on the GOP. You can make an argument that it could've changed the outcome of the primaries back in 2016, but now that Trump has ascended to the throne, there's no putting that toothpaste back into the tube. The electorate has just become way too polarized for RCV to materially change things now when it comes to nominating someone other than Trump, but what it could help with going forward, is getting a 3rd party to slowly emerge as a viable alternative in the generals. Much like when discussing how to improve the winner-take-all system, the issue as always, is getting most of the states to agree to a similar process, which of course will never happen.

I think 2022 midterms are evidence that the electorate isn't as polarized as advertised.

Split ticket voting came roaring back.

5 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

I think 2022 midterms are evidence that the electorate isn't as polarized as advertised.

Split ticket voting came roaring back.

Perhaps, but possibly because Trump was not directly on the ballot. That will change when it comes time for the votes to be cast in the primary in 2024.

42 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

If all three of your candidates fail to advance that's pretty much the same as losing when voting for one, no? You voted, your candidates just lost.

I disagree strongly that it's designed to disenfranchise. It's designed to make MORE votes count by making sure the moderates aren't disenfranchised by crazy partisans selecting extremists in a primary.

No. Your ballot is thrown out as if it never happened, so it's no longer part of the denominator. So when seeing if someone gets 50%, if your vote is completely thrown out, they only need 50% of the remaining ballots. If we had an open primary and had the top 2 advance (regardless of party affiliation), the winner would need 50% of all voted cast. In RCV, they need 50% of votes that make it to the end, even if that's way below 50% of all votes cast.

6 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

No. Your ballot is thrown out as if it never happened, so it's no longer part of the denominator. So when seeing if someone gets 50%, if your vote is completely thrown out, they only need 50% of the remaining ballots. If we had an open primary and had the top 2 advance (regardless of party affiliation), the winner would need 50% of all voted cast. In RCV, they need 50% of votes that make it to the end, even if that's way below 50% of all votes cast.

But it did happen, because your ballot factored in to the top three rounds. Your ballot would still "count" in the sense that it was counted in the first few rounds. You just didn't pick anybody who survived to the final round.

If you have a field of candidates so large that you're regularly selecting candidates that never make it to the final round, I'd argue that you're very much an outlier by definition, and you can't build a democratic system around such heavy outliers.

What you're saying is mathematically feasible, just by definition would be an uncommon outcome for an individual voter. 

21 minutes ago, JohnSnowsHair said:

But it did happen, because your ballot factored in to the top three rounds. Your ballot would still "count" in the sense that it was counted in the first few rounds. You just didn't pick anybody who survived to the final round.

If you have a field of candidates so large that you're regularly selecting candidates that never make it to the final round, I'd argue that you're very much an outlier by definition, and you can't build a democratic system around such heavy outliers.

What you're saying is mathematically feasible, just by definition would be an uncommon outcome for an individual voter. 

Seeing a ton of it right now. Local mayor's race. 10 candidates. Like 20% of votes will be completely disqualified.

7 minutes ago, vikas83 said:

Seeing a ton of it right now. Local mayor's race. 10 candidates. Like 20% of votes will be completely disqualified.

Is it that RCV sucks, or is it that, and I'm just going out on a limb here, it sucks for you because it was done in the way of California?

2 minutes ago, Bill said:

Is it that RCV sucks, or is it that, and I'm just going out on a limb here, it sucks for you because it was done in the way of California?

A little from column A, a little from column B. Letting 10 people run for Mayor is...smaht. 

LA does it better -- open primary, then the top 2 face off in the general. But it doesn't have to be 1 Dem and 1 GOP. So it's usually 2 Dems, but it would allow a better path for a moderate Republican (which is basically what Caruso is). 

Here we go again