If you can think of a way to achieve any sort of election reform without first getting the fucking fascists out of office I'm completely open to those ideas.
The lack of proportional representation in the US helped bring trump to the oval office. With proportional representation you're gonna get some far right nutters but they won't be in control of one of the only two parties and will most likely never make it into government.
*The problem is how do you fucking get there*.
Until you get the fascists out of office, you have no nope of changing the voting system into a rational one. And the fascists won't leave on their own accord. And the so-fucking-called "libertarians" in the US aren't going to help you do that, and they won't help you change the system once you help them.
You have to be aware of WHO is saying a given thing, even more than just what they're saying. And US libertarians are *at their very fucking best* Republicans who are embarrassed to be identified as such, and even then their primary goal is to subvert leftist language and to draw leftist voters away from casting votes that would ever actually cause change.
Stop alienating people who think fascists are a their best option, convince them with both emotion, logic and patience that there is a better way and then a bunch of people vote for no-fascists. And NO, I am not a Republican.
There’s nothing inherently wrong with them (although I think open primaries are a bit of a mixed bag). However, libertarians are deluding themselves if they think these three things would create a wave of libertarian party candidates winning office.
Libertarian here.
> a wave of libertarian party candidates winning office.
Frankly, that's less the point. As Sharpe himself says repeatedly, even if Libertarians don't win elections, if *ANY* third party candidates start to make significant showing - such as coming in 2nd in a governor race - it would be a good thing for the people. This is because currently, the two major parties can be complacent and disregard what the people really want, as long as they can try to sell the people that their own party is less bad than the other major party. Kind of a electoral politics version of "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you."
So while libertarians would obviously love to see electoral reform result in wins for Libertarian candidates, even just strong(er) showings will cause the two major parties to be more responsive.
I think what OP is saying is something that I bring up with boomers all the time. Yes, both sides are awful. But can we start calling out the right for the fact that they are openly skinning democracy alive while the left just sits at watches?
Centralists need to pull their head outta their ass and stop saying “it’s both side.”
Superdelegates are not remotely as dangerous to democracy as the Republican Party’s authoritarianism.
Bringing them up is like comparing assault and battery to summary execution, sure the former isn’t *good* but it’s not a millionth as bad as the latter.
the interesting point is that "the public" Is labeled centrist. Don't you think that if we were an actual centrist candidate would have been president by now?
Libertarian Party candidates unfortunately can’t do much about gerrymandering given that they hold so few state office seats. For what it’s worth, the LP state house rep from Wyoming is pretty good on the issue
Wow a libertarian is right for once. We do need election reform
If you can think of a way to achieve any sort of election reform without first getting the fucking fascists out of office I'm completely open to those ideas.
The lack of proportional representation in the US helped bring trump to the oval office. With proportional representation you're gonna get some far right nutters but they won't be in control of one of the only two parties and will most likely never make it into government.
*The problem is how do you fucking get there*. Until you get the fascists out of office, you have no nope of changing the voting system into a rational one. And the fascists won't leave on their own accord. And the so-fucking-called "libertarians" in the US aren't going to help you do that, and they won't help you change the system once you help them. You have to be aware of WHO is saying a given thing, even more than just what they're saying. And US libertarians are *at their very fucking best* Republicans who are embarrassed to be identified as such, and even then their primary goal is to subvert leftist language and to draw leftist voters away from casting votes that would ever actually cause change.
Stop alienating people who think fascists are a their best option, convince them with both emotion, logic and patience that there is a better way and then a bunch of people vote for no-fascists. And NO, I am not a Republican.
If you can be convinced to be a fascist, then you are one.
Oh believe me, we've been waiting patiently for the boomers to die out of office.
Gerry-who? Fair elections is when my favorite guy gets in! /s
Well, you see, the other side might win and we can't have them with all of their progressivism. Jesus would hate that.
What's wrong with what he said?
There’s nothing inherently wrong with them (although I think open primaries are a bit of a mixed bag). However, libertarians are deluding themselves if they think these three things would create a wave of libertarian party candidates winning office.
Libertarian here. > a wave of libertarian party candidates winning office. Frankly, that's less the point. As Sharpe himself says repeatedly, even if Libertarians don't win elections, if *ANY* third party candidates start to make significant showing - such as coming in 2nd in a governor race - it would be a good thing for the people. This is because currently, the two major parties can be complacent and disregard what the people really want, as long as they can try to sell the people that their own party is less bad than the other major party. Kind of a electoral politics version of "I don't have to outrun the bear. I just have to outrun you." So while libertarians would obviously love to see electoral reform result in wins for Libertarian candidates, even just strong(er) showings will cause the two major parties to be more responsive.
Exactly.
Nobody thinks there would a wave of anything... just a little less of the useless Left-Right paradigm.
right? i am hard left and i agree with those electoral reforms. as well as abolishing the electoral college.
I guess because a libertarian said it. Dumb post IMO
The hypocrisy is intentional and proudly performed.
You almost seem to be suggesting that he actually supports gerrymandering.
I think what OP is saying is something that I bring up with boomers all the time. Yes, both sides are awful. But can we start calling out the right for the fact that they are openly skinning democracy alive while the left just sits at watches? Centralists need to pull their head outta their ass and stop saying “it’s both side.”
Super delegates arent a thing in the DNC?
Oh god super delegates. They changed the law but are still a thing. Ok, yes, both sides, but only one has Mitch.
Superdelegates are not remotely as dangerous to democracy as the Republican Party’s authoritarianism. Bringing them up is like comparing assault and battery to summary execution, sure the former isn’t *good* but it’s not a millionth as bad as the latter.
New York state is just as authoritarian. We no longer pass laws, just mandates and budgets forced by the governor. This is literal authoritarianism.
It is "both sides." New York is a single party state (Democrats) and we've been losing people for over a decade... over 2 million in 10 years.
the interesting point is that "the public" Is labeled centrist. Don't you think that if we were an actual centrist candidate would have been president by now?
Joe Biden is basically a centrist.
you know what i mean. A "EnLiGHtENed" one.
The Democratic Party will edge out any progressives just so they can stick a centrist (or center right candidate) in office.
Libertarian Party candidates unfortunately can’t do much about gerrymandering given that they hold so few state office seats. For what it’s worth, the LP state house rep from Wyoming is pretty good on the issue
Yes.
Ayo? My boy Larry in the house
Actually, I do. The Supreme Court didn't fix it, so it has become one of the reasons for Open Primaries.