What Makes People Vote Democrat?

Post Reply New Topic

I doubt there would end up being 15 candidates for most positions.


This is how it helps:

Let's say you have center-left candidate A, solidly-left candidate B, and solidly-right candidate C. Say that 40% of the electorate prefers candidate C, 35% prefers A, and 20% support candidate B (with 5% supporting assorted fringe characters). All of the people who support candidate B prefer candidate A over candidate C. In a regular election, candidate C wins with 40% of the vote because the center-left-to-solid-left vote was split between two candidates, whereas the overall smaller center-right-to-solid-right vote went entirely to one candidate. In IRV, candidate B is eliminated in the first round, and most of his votes are transferred to candidate A, allowing him to win. This helps candidate B (the third-party candidate) because when voters do not feel pressured to reject him in order to support the "lesser of two evils," he is able to gain a higher percentage of the vote (without risking sending the nation's leadership way off in the opposite direction politically by splitting the vote) and with a higher percentage of the vote, his party gains more credibility, and might after a couple election cycles be a serious contender against the other two parties.

It doesn't give anyone two votes, any more than regular run-off voting does.


Enhanced credibility might get them into the debates once they have some level of support. It does not even up the money or enhance ballot access, but those are other reforms that are also needed.


If someone really is a hard-liner who will only support their third-party candidate, then they simply abstain from the later rounds of voting. No one is forced to do anything. However, this does allow voters to give support to their preferred candidate without, in practice, aiding the greater of two evils.


Each party would still be restricted to nominating one candidate for each office. It is possible that you would end up with Republicans or Democrats who lost primaries making general election bids (as Crist did here in FL) but it would also open up the chances for third parties like the Libertarians to gain some ground.

Second and third votes can be optional. It isn't really that confusing. It would increase the incentive for third party voting because if one votes for a third party candidate and that candidate gets eliminated in the first round, then the second vote counts as a "first vote" in the second round.

The ultimate result of IRV would probably be to push US politics firmly into the center. Neither Democrats nor Republicans would have a real need to appeal to the right wing or the left wing, as they would know they could act as a choice of last resort against those on the other side, and further-out candidates wouldn't have a broad enough support base to win an absolute majority.

This would ultimately be a good thing. The majority of Americans are centrist, and yet it's partisan hacks on the edges who often dominate the national conversation. Plus a more centrist government is going to be more stable and consistent, since the changes in leadership every few years won't usually result in dramatic policy reversals. The only real way for change to come about would be for the actual political center of the country to shift in one direction or the other.

I am aware of how a run off election works.

You're making two assumptions, that the only reason people don't vote for third party candidates is because they're afraid of their least preferable candidates winning and that this would some how make third parties more credible than they are now. I see the issue having more to do with money, name recognition, and tradition rather than the electoral system. I'd say a credible third party candidate with sufficient name recognition and money would be less likely to win with IRV since they only need a plurality now to win.

I'm not really sure IRV would be cheaper than a regular run off either since I figure IRV would require electronic voting(which has it's own issues) rather than paper ballots or a long exhaustive hand count. The legal challenges could really stall things up as well. You have to understand that voting as it is now is apparently too complicated for a lot of people, this would make people's brains explode.

Last edited by Jacoby on 18 Dec 2010, 6:58 pm, edited 3 times in total.

Is the supposed middle really a good thing? The political middle in this country is like John McCain and Hillary Clinton. I'll stick with what we got if that's the alternative.

I don't assume that is the only reason. I do assume (and I am correct in doing so) that it is a major reason for a lot of people.


In general, sensible centrist policies are better than partisan bickering and gridlock.

Most of the alleged "centrist" politicians today are really just opportunists with no real principles. I don't know much about Hillary's political views, but McCain has a well-established history of saying whatever seemed to be expedient at the moment, rather than actually holding firm to any beliefs.

It might be a factor for some people but I think it's rather minuscule in the grand scheme of things. Usually when somebody whines about the spoiler factor in an election, polls show that third party supporters split pretty even to both candidates or don't vote at all. I see this helping the major parties more than I see it helping third parties.

There aren't any dedicated centrists, they're opportunists by definition. I suppose they'd probably prefer the term pragmatists.

I'd rather have partisan bickering and gridlock. Doing nothing doesn't hurt anybody. Doing something bad hurts everybody.

First, have you even met John McCain or even studied his background? If you had, you'd realize what you just said just shows how ignorant you are of the man. The man has core principles which is to this country, his problem is he is too much of a gentleman at times and didn't realize that some Democrats actually want to do as much damage as they can to this country. Quite frankly, you do realize you've insulted a man that has been through hell, that put himself through extremely painful rehabilitation just so he would be able to get flight status again after he was finally back in the United States having been a prisoner of war.

The man you insulted, is the same man that told Keating that he would not try to obstruct the investigation into Keating. Oh btw, the prosecutor recommended all accusations against McCain be dropped and the only reason people in congress still went after him was cause he was the only Republican of the group and they still couldn't spin it to make him look like a crook. He is the same man that also volunteered to testify against Keating in the civil cases on his own to make sure people got their money back.

Additionally there is a difference between listening to the people he is supposed to represent and being an opportunist, the stances he has changed has been the result of him listening to his constituents as well as learning new information on subjects.

He had all kinds of opportunities to be an opportunist in life and he didn't take them because of principle. He stood against Obamacare because he felt it was the right thing to do.

In all seriousness, are you making those accusations because you honestly think that, or the fact his views aren't in line with your views. I suspect the latter.

I don't see what McCain's military record has to do with his political opportunism. My claims are established fact, and can be demonstrated merely by playing clips of John McCain talking.

I don't know whether his views are in line with mine or not, because I have no idea what his views are. He changes them too often. I've watched him flip-flop on gay marriage within 10 minutes. Usually he takes a little bit longer to flip flop on a given issue, but he almost always does.

My favorite quote from John McCain, during this most recent campaign season: "I never considered myself a maverick." If you still believe he has any credibility after that, there is something wrong with you.

I'm sure you can paint someone to look like anything by taking their comments out of context as you've pointed out frequently.

That's a cop-out. He has explicitly taken opposing and contradictory stances in short succession.

And come on. His claim that that he "never considered [himself] a maverick" when he ran an entire Presidential campaign on the premise that he was a maverick is just absurd. That's not taking anything out of context. That is McCain being a lying opportunist who will say anything for political gain.

I still respect McCain, despite losing, I considered him to be the best person the Republicans have put forward in a good long time. Had he been ten-fifteen years younger he would have made a fine President. As to the lying... its politics, it goes with the territory. As to the shape-shifting.... well he has been through enough trouble for an outsider not to doubt that he has character inside. Despite my own political leanings and desire to have a President of the United States who is assertive in relation to foreign policy (think more Eisenhower, than Bush's), Obama's election was something special and his legislative success cannot really be sneezed at. The health care deal really is a big deal (having always had free healthcare, I cannot imagine a country attempting to get by without it).

I get the feeling you would only hold positive views of him if he mindlessly beat a left wing drum.

You still haven't addressed the fact about Obamacare's Individual Mandate giving the government practically unlimited power.

Not at all. There are leftists I dislike (Michael Moore comes to mind as a very dishonest propagandist). Lieberman was a former Democrat and still caucuses with the Democrats, but I regard him as even more of an opportunist than McCain ever was. There are right-wingers who I have some respect for, such as Paul. You are the one here who is so partisan as to mindlessly oppose anyone from the other party, regardless of their stances.


I don't agree with your gloomy predictions of it setting a precedent that will later be expanded.

That is just the kind of expansion of government power that will be seized upon as a precedent.

ruveyn

Actually, I respect Lieberman and used to be a supporter of Evan Bayh until he went along with the unconstitutional pile of Garbage his party rammed through. I think Ron Paul is a hypocrit cause he goes bananas about earmarks yet he admits stuffing them into bills and then voting against the whole bill.

Further the individual mandate is the expansion it won't need to be further expanded after this cause they can penalize people just for breathing because they don't want to buy a particular product. Short of commiting suicide breathing is involuntary. You choose to buy a car, you choose to buy a house those are voluntary actions engaging in commercial activity. Being forced to buy health insurance just because you are alive (which is not voluntary unless you are suggesting people should literally kill themselves) is penalizing people for choosing not to participate in commercial activity.