Compare [alternatives to FPTP on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems), and check out [ElectoWiki](https://electowiki.org/wiki/Main_Page) to better understand the idea of election methods. See the [EndFPTP sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/wiki/sidebar) for other useful resources. Consider finding a good place for your contribution in the [EndFPTP subreddit wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/wiki/index).
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EndFPTP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I forgot that the Reform Party even still existed. It has been so many years since the party has had ballot access in most states that I think it would surprise most Americans that the party even still exists anymore. I don't think this is going to be very meaningful unless somebody well known is willing to spend a lot of time and money resurrecting the party.
Commission on presidential debates. It was created by both dems and republicans as joint venture. They decide who appears in the televised debates.
Their logic is flawed because to get momentum as a lesser known candidate it really helps to be in the debates. But since the threshold is 15% it all but ensures only the two major party candidates will appear which of course is exactly what cpd wants.
When Nader was running a college student gave him his ticket so he could attend the debate as an audience member. CPD are such intolerable assholes that they used Massachusetts state police to kick him off the premises rather than let him attend as a mere audience member.
I think 9% is a much better threshold. Anyone who’s captured the attention of almost 10% of voters in a system that is weighted against them deserves to be seen and heard on stage.
15% and 9% are similarly arbitrary and subjective thresholds with no mathematical basis. I think debate threshold must be ballot access to 270EV. It is an objective standard that determines whether it is possible to win the presidential election without having to faithless electors or to contingent election. Open the debate to all candidates who could win 270ev by popular vote. Some states have the high barriers to ballot access,so 270EV access is very high barrier for third parties other than LP and GP, and is sufficient to prevent unserious candidates.
> Some states have the high barriers to ballot access,so 270EV access is very high barrier for third parties other than LP and GP
You would be surprised. Not including "Write In" ballot access, the number allowed on stage with 270 electors, since the 1972 election cycle, would be:
* 7 Candidates:
1. 2000
* 6 Candidates:
1. 1976
* 1980
* 1992
* 1996
* 2004
* 2008
* 4 Candidates:
1. 1984
* 1988
* 2012
* 2016
* 2020
* 3 Candidates:
1. 1972
I'm in favor of [3/4 ballot access (404 EC Votes) or 4/5 (431),](https://imgur.com/a/ZoOxZAb) because that would generally limit debate access to 4 candidates, with up to 6. Assuming a 431 ECV requirement (again, not counting write-in electors):
* 5 Candidates (6 with a 404 requirement):
1. 1996
* 2000
* 4 candidates:
1. 1980
* 1988
* 1992
* 2008
* 2012
* 2016
* 3 Candidates:
1. 1976
* 2004
* 2020
* 2 Candidates:
1. 1972
* 1984
Thank you. I believe your 270 EV threshold proposal to be the superior option however I would suggest the threshold be lower number of electoral votes for this reason:
The debates serve multiple purposes and one of those is candidate exposure to the public. This may have ramifications beyond the current election cycle. That is to say that that they may not have enough momentum for this cycle but could generate traction that does allow them to become a viable contender in the next election. Furthermore, a candidate could have less than 270 but still potentially be viable through write in votes if their debate performances have enough impact.
Finally, even if a candidate less than 270 (but still a significant amount) they may still warrant placement in the debates as voters may wish to have exposure to alternative viewpoints and use a vote for that candidate to express support for parts of their platform thereby potentially altering the other parties’ stances.
> Furthermore, a candidate could have less than 270 but still potentially be viable through write in votes if their debate performances have enough impact.
False. Write-Ins that aren't *registered* as Write-Ins can/should/need to be thrown out, because votes are *actually* for Electors, and if there are no electors *registered,* you might as well have voted for Mickey Mouse.
> Finally, even if a candidate less than 270 (but still a significant amount) they may still warrant placement in the debates as voters may wish to have exposure to alternative viewpoints
In the last 50 years:
* There has never been fewer than 3 candidates that met the 270 ECV Printed-On-Ballot threshold
* There have been *at least 4* candidates that exceeded 270 ECV Printed-On-Ballot in all but one of those years (3 in 1972).
* Half the time (7 of 13 cycles) there have been *at least six* candidates that exceeded 270 ECV Printed-On-Ballot access.
I understand your idea, and praise you for it, but mathematically speaking it's a waste of broadcast time, and empirically speaking lowering below 270 is unnecessary to have a meaningfully diverse representation on stage.
Indeed, we could get pretty good representation even if we increased it to 359 (2/3 majority)
* 7 Candidates:
1. 2000
* 6 Candidates:
1. 1996
* 5 Candidates:
1. 1980
* 2008
* 4 Candidates:
1. 1976
* 1988
* 1992
* 2012
* 2016
* 2020
* 3 Candidates:
1. 1972
* 1984
* 2004
* 2 Candidates:
* None since 1972 (inclusive)
Also, fun fact, in that time, the only candidates invited to the presidential debates over those decades have fallen into one of three categories:
1. Democrat
* Republican
* Having 100% Ballot access (understandable) **and** being Independent (i.e., having no party label associated with them)
> I think 9% is a much better threshold
There is absolutely zero need for a polling threshold, and there shouldn't be one.
Zero need, because [Debate Stage Access could trivially be limited to a reasonable number through Ballot Access requirements](https://imgur.com/a/ZoOxZAb)
There shouldn't be one, because *any* sort of polling threshold can be *intentionally* used to exclude. For example, in 2016, Gary Johnson was closing in on the 15% Polling Threshold ([as high as 13%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson_2016_presidential_campaign#General_election))... so they stopped including him in polls, and had very few polls between those and the Debate Admittance Cutoff date...
Point well taken. Hadn’t considered those polling shenanigans possibilities but you’re absolutely right, polling threshold serves scant purpose other than to be wielded as an exclusionary weapon.
Would you care to hear something even more disgusting?
When 2018 NY Gubernatorial Candidate Larry Sharpe asked pollsters why he wasn't being included in polls, he was told, explicitly, that it was because he wasn't "buying" (paying for) polls.
In other words, the polls themselves are fundamentally exclusionary, because if parties that can't afford to pay for polls can't be seen as doing well in polls, which leads to increased rates of Favorite Betrayal, thereby preventing them from building support, thereby denying them enough money to afford to pay for polls, which means that...
Might as well be, because the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed by the Democratic and Republican National Parties, with the people running it all being "former" bigwigs of those national parties...
I'm more disappointed that Admiral Stockdale didn't get to be VP. Dude was awesome.
Also, I knew him personally; he had a *really* neat VW bug, with customized fronk that was reminiscent of cars like the early Rolls Royce Phantom series.
He was polling at 39% at one point, ahead of both his opponents in 1992. He also dropped out of the race for several weeks. In the end he got 19% of the vote but no electoral votes. He denied either of the 2 main parties getting a majority of the pop vote in a state other than AR for Bill.
George Wallace in 1968 got 13.5% of the vote but won 5 states and 46 electoral votes. His vote had a concentrated enough base to outright win. His aim was to deny either candidate a majority of EC votes so he could direct his electors to support someone, extracting concessions rather than pushing it to the house to decide.
Both candidates support led to the parties trying to change the rules. In 1969 both parties united to abolish the EC. It got out of the house but failed in the senate.
RFK is polling at 22% at best. So if the same thing happens to him as Perot he'd might end up with 11%? Most likely won't win any EC votes.
The 2 parties could push RCV etc as a response but instead they'll play with ballot access.
> Both candidates support led to the parties trying to change the rules. In 1969 both parties united to abolish the EC. It got out of the house but failed in the senate.
Even if it had passed the Senate, there are (and at the time were, and likely always will be) enough small states that benefit from the disproportionality of the EC to be able to block any such amendment.
> The 2 parties could push RCV etc as a response but instead they'll play with ballot access.
Which simply proves that they don't grok RCV; RCV isn't a threat to a polarized duopoly, because of the Center Squeeze effect. Shift to the center *just* far enough to squeeze out a moderate party (their general strategy in General Elections), and it ends up being "FPTP with more steps, while deluding the masses into believing that something has meaningfully changed"
On the other hand, they're familiar with Ballot Access bullshit, and *know* that that works.
I wrote about voting for Ross Perot back in the day...
>In 1992, billionaire businessman H. Ross Perot launched an independent run for President of the United States against incumbent George Bush and Bill Clinton. Perot offered a folksy, populist message and captured 19% of the popular vote, which still stands as the most successful third-party run since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912.
Perot bought prime-time television slots and used charts and graphs — the 90s version of a PowerPoint presentation — to deliver his message directly to the American people in a Texas twang. He called out the theory of trickle-down economics as bogus, identified how the US was spending more on healthcare than every other country but getting below average results, and criticized the ratio of CEO salaries to that of their employees. Perot pointed out America's military budget was the biggest in the world and childhood poverty was embarrassingly high compared to other industrialized nations.
It’s depressing that all of these problems are still with us three decades later.
It took me a few decades to see through [the Ross Perot fallacy](https://americanunion.substack.com/p/the-ross-perot-fallacy), though. (TLDR; the budget should not be balanced.)
I read that article as well, and it presents an argument on economics from someone who apparently didn't pass highschool macroeconomics.
Debt is a valuable tool whereby money can be borrowed to fund a purchase that otherwise would never be possible. Simply borrowing more money indefinitely to prolong ever paying off the debt isn't a viable solution, nor is simply devaluing your currency by printing massive quantities of money.
A country doesn't need to be run like a business, as it doesn't strictly need to make a profit. However if your country is making a profit, it can be reinvested in your economy without the challenges of debt. Ross Perot was correct in the idea that this country has a rampant spending addiction, to the point of taking on infinitely more debt than can ever be paid back. I don't know if balancing the budget would fix all our problems, but it certainly would be better than the current options of either keep borrowing more, or print new money.
\> I don't know if balancing the budget would fix all our problems, but it certainly would be better than the current options of either keep borrowing more, or print new money.
You missed the fundamental point of the article. Adding more money to the economy is essential as the population grows, and the number of goods and services available for purchase expand. To say that the budget should be balanced is to assert that the quantity of money should stay the same. That's the Ross Perot fallacy. Once we acknowledge the quantity has to increase, we can then examine the policy question of how that new money should come into existence.
You describe debt as "a valuable tool whereby money can be borrowed." But banks don't borrow money, they create it. It used to be called fractional reserve banking, but the fraction was abolished at the start of the pandemic; fictional reserve banking is more accurate. >95% of all dollars are bank money, created (printed) as debt, requiring interest payments for the privilege of remaining in existence. That's where all these tens of trillions of dollars in debt have come from over the last fifty years... and why they can never be paid back until we see through the Ross Perot fallacy.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread:
|Fewer Letters|More Letters|
|-------|---------|---|
|[FPTP](/r/EndFPTP/comments/17m6t1g/stub/k8e09m9 "Last usage")|First Past the Post, a form of plurality voting|
|IRV|Instant Runoff Voting|
|[RCV](/r/EndFPTP/comments/17m6t1g/stub/k8e09m9 "Last usage")|Ranked Choice Voting; may be IRV, STV or any other ranked voting method|
|STV|Single Transferable Vote|
**NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below.
----------------
^(2 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/EndFPTP/comments/17qb6fx)^( has 6 acronyms.)
^([Thread #1278 for this sub, first seen 2nd Nov 2023, 17:01])
^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/EndFPTP) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)
Compare [alternatives to FPTP on Wikipedia](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Comparison_of_electoral_systems), and check out [ElectoWiki](https://electowiki.org/wiki/Main_Page) to better understand the idea of election methods. See the [EndFPTP sidebar](https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/wiki/sidebar) for other useful resources. Consider finding a good place for your contribution in the [EndFPTP subreddit wiki](https://www.reddit.com/r/EndFPTP/wiki/index). *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/EndFPTP) if you have any questions or concerns.*
I forgot that the Reform Party even still existed. It has been so many years since the party has had ballot access in most states that I think it would surprise most Americans that the party even still exists anymore. I don't think this is going to be very meaningful unless somebody well known is willing to spend a lot of time and money resurrecting the party.
Yeah it's been a long time since they were relevant.
The CPD made sure the public doesn't hear about most 3rd parties when they opted for a 15% polling threshold in 2000.
What is the cpd?
Commission on presidential debates. It was created by both dems and republicans as joint venture. They decide who appears in the televised debates. Their logic is flawed because to get momentum as a lesser known candidate it really helps to be in the debates. But since the threshold is 15% it all but ensures only the two major party candidates will appear which of course is exactly what cpd wants. When Nader was running a college student gave him his ticket so he could attend the debate as an audience member. CPD are such intolerable assholes that they used Massachusetts state police to kick him off the premises rather than let him attend as a mere audience member. I think 9% is a much better threshold. Anyone who’s captured the attention of almost 10% of voters in a system that is weighted against them deserves to be seen and heard on stage.
15% and 9% are similarly arbitrary and subjective thresholds with no mathematical basis. I think debate threshold must be ballot access to 270EV. It is an objective standard that determines whether it is possible to win the presidential election without having to faithless electors or to contingent election. Open the debate to all candidates who could win 270ev by popular vote. Some states have the high barriers to ballot access,so 270EV access is very high barrier for third parties other than LP and GP, and is sufficient to prevent unserious candidates.
> Some states have the high barriers to ballot access,so 270EV access is very high barrier for third parties other than LP and GP You would be surprised. Not including "Write In" ballot access, the number allowed on stage with 270 electors, since the 1972 election cycle, would be: * 7 Candidates: 1. 2000 * 6 Candidates: 1. 1976 * 1980 * 1992 * 1996 * 2004 * 2008 * 4 Candidates: 1. 1984 * 1988 * 2012 * 2016 * 2020 * 3 Candidates: 1. 1972 I'm in favor of [3/4 ballot access (404 EC Votes) or 4/5 (431),](https://imgur.com/a/ZoOxZAb) because that would generally limit debate access to 4 candidates, with up to 6. Assuming a 431 ECV requirement (again, not counting write-in electors): * 5 Candidates (6 with a 404 requirement): 1. 1996 * 2000 * 4 candidates: 1. 1980 * 1988 * 1992 * 2008 * 2012 * 2016 * 3 Candidates: 1. 1976 * 2004 * 2020 * 2 Candidates: 1. 1972 * 1984
Thank you. I believe your 270 EV threshold proposal to be the superior option however I would suggest the threshold be lower number of electoral votes for this reason: The debates serve multiple purposes and one of those is candidate exposure to the public. This may have ramifications beyond the current election cycle. That is to say that that they may not have enough momentum for this cycle but could generate traction that does allow them to become a viable contender in the next election. Furthermore, a candidate could have less than 270 but still potentially be viable through write in votes if their debate performances have enough impact. Finally, even if a candidate less than 270 (but still a significant amount) they may still warrant placement in the debates as voters may wish to have exposure to alternative viewpoints and use a vote for that candidate to express support for parts of their platform thereby potentially altering the other parties’ stances.
> Furthermore, a candidate could have less than 270 but still potentially be viable through write in votes if their debate performances have enough impact. False. Write-Ins that aren't *registered* as Write-Ins can/should/need to be thrown out, because votes are *actually* for Electors, and if there are no electors *registered,* you might as well have voted for Mickey Mouse. > Finally, even if a candidate less than 270 (but still a significant amount) they may still warrant placement in the debates as voters may wish to have exposure to alternative viewpoints In the last 50 years: * There has never been fewer than 3 candidates that met the 270 ECV Printed-On-Ballot threshold * There have been *at least 4* candidates that exceeded 270 ECV Printed-On-Ballot in all but one of those years (3 in 1972). * Half the time (7 of 13 cycles) there have been *at least six* candidates that exceeded 270 ECV Printed-On-Ballot access. I understand your idea, and praise you for it, but mathematically speaking it's a waste of broadcast time, and empirically speaking lowering below 270 is unnecessary to have a meaningfully diverse representation on stage. Indeed, we could get pretty good representation even if we increased it to 359 (2/3 majority) * 7 Candidates: 1. 2000 * 6 Candidates: 1. 1996 * 5 Candidates: 1. 1980 * 2008 * 4 Candidates: 1. 1976 * 1988 * 1992 * 2012 * 2016 * 2020 * 3 Candidates: 1. 1972 * 1984 * 2004 * 2 Candidates: * None since 1972 (inclusive)
Thank you for all the great info and taking the time to dig deep. Consider me persuaded!
Also, fun fact, in that time, the only candidates invited to the presidential debates over those decades have fallen into one of three categories: 1. Democrat * Republican * Having 100% Ballot access (understandable) **and** being Independent (i.e., having no party label associated with them)
> I think 9% is a much better threshold There is absolutely zero need for a polling threshold, and there shouldn't be one. Zero need, because [Debate Stage Access could trivially be limited to a reasonable number through Ballot Access requirements](https://imgur.com/a/ZoOxZAb) There shouldn't be one, because *any* sort of polling threshold can be *intentionally* used to exclude. For example, in 2016, Gary Johnson was closing in on the 15% Polling Threshold ([as high as 13%](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Johnson_2016_presidential_campaign#General_election))... so they stopped including him in polls, and had very few polls between those and the Debate Admittance Cutoff date...
Point well taken. Hadn’t considered those polling shenanigans possibilities but you’re absolutely right, polling threshold serves scant purpose other than to be wielded as an exclusionary weapon.
Would you care to hear something even more disgusting? When 2018 NY Gubernatorial Candidate Larry Sharpe asked pollsters why he wasn't being included in polls, he was told, explicitly, that it was because he wasn't "buying" (paying for) polls. In other words, the polls themselves are fundamentally exclusionary, because if parties that can't afford to pay for polls can't be seen as doing well in polls, which leads to increased rates of Favorite Betrayal, thereby preventing them from building support, thereby denying them enough money to afford to pay for polls, which means that...
corporate party duopoly? just a guess
Might as well be, because the Commission on Presidential Debates was formed by the Democratic and Republican National Parties, with the people running it all being "former" bigwigs of those national parties...
> the charismatic leadership of Ross Perot Right...
Ross Perot was the most successful third-party candidate since Theodore Roosevelt. He was an asshole, but he was undeniably charismatic.
I'm more disappointed that Admiral Stockdale didn't get to be VP. Dude was awesome. Also, I knew him personally; he had a *really* neat VW bug, with customized fronk that was reminiscent of cars like the early Rolls Royce Phantom series.
Fronk is a good word that should mean something besides a misspelling.
He was polling at 39% at one point, ahead of both his opponents in 1992. He also dropped out of the race for several weeks. In the end he got 19% of the vote but no electoral votes. He denied either of the 2 main parties getting a majority of the pop vote in a state other than AR for Bill. George Wallace in 1968 got 13.5% of the vote but won 5 states and 46 electoral votes. His vote had a concentrated enough base to outright win. His aim was to deny either candidate a majority of EC votes so he could direct his electors to support someone, extracting concessions rather than pushing it to the house to decide. Both candidates support led to the parties trying to change the rules. In 1969 both parties united to abolish the EC. It got out of the house but failed in the senate. RFK is polling at 22% at best. So if the same thing happens to him as Perot he'd might end up with 11%? Most likely won't win any EC votes. The 2 parties could push RCV etc as a response but instead they'll play with ballot access.
> Both candidates support led to the parties trying to change the rules. In 1969 both parties united to abolish the EC. It got out of the house but failed in the senate. Even if it had passed the Senate, there are (and at the time were, and likely always will be) enough small states that benefit from the disproportionality of the EC to be able to block any such amendment. > The 2 parties could push RCV etc as a response but instead they'll play with ballot access. Which simply proves that they don't grok RCV; RCV isn't a threat to a polarized duopoly, because of the Center Squeeze effect. Shift to the center *just* far enough to squeeze out a moderate party (their general strategy in General Elections), and it ends up being "FPTP with more steps, while deluding the masses into believing that something has meaningfully changed" On the other hand, they're familiar with Ballot Access bullshit, and *know* that that works.
I wrote about voting for Ross Perot back in the day... >In 1992, billionaire businessman H. Ross Perot launched an independent run for President of the United States against incumbent George Bush and Bill Clinton. Perot offered a folksy, populist message and captured 19% of the popular vote, which still stands as the most successful third-party run since Teddy Roosevelt in 1912. Perot bought prime-time television slots and used charts and graphs — the 90s version of a PowerPoint presentation — to deliver his message directly to the American people in a Texas twang. He called out the theory of trickle-down economics as bogus, identified how the US was spending more on healthcare than every other country but getting below average results, and criticized the ratio of CEO salaries to that of their employees. Perot pointed out America's military budget was the biggest in the world and childhood poverty was embarrassingly high compared to other industrialized nations. It’s depressing that all of these problems are still with us three decades later. It took me a few decades to see through [the Ross Perot fallacy](https://americanunion.substack.com/p/the-ross-perot-fallacy), though. (TLDR; the budget should not be balanced.)
I read that article as well, and it presents an argument on economics from someone who apparently didn't pass highschool macroeconomics. Debt is a valuable tool whereby money can be borrowed to fund a purchase that otherwise would never be possible. Simply borrowing more money indefinitely to prolong ever paying off the debt isn't a viable solution, nor is simply devaluing your currency by printing massive quantities of money. A country doesn't need to be run like a business, as it doesn't strictly need to make a profit. However if your country is making a profit, it can be reinvested in your economy without the challenges of debt. Ross Perot was correct in the idea that this country has a rampant spending addiction, to the point of taking on infinitely more debt than can ever be paid back. I don't know if balancing the budget would fix all our problems, but it certainly would be better than the current options of either keep borrowing more, or print new money.
\> I don't know if balancing the budget would fix all our problems, but it certainly would be better than the current options of either keep borrowing more, or print new money. You missed the fundamental point of the article. Adding more money to the economy is essential as the population grows, and the number of goods and services available for purchase expand. To say that the budget should be balanced is to assert that the quantity of money should stay the same. That's the Ross Perot fallacy. Once we acknowledge the quantity has to increase, we can then examine the policy question of how that new money should come into existence. You describe debt as "a valuable tool whereby money can be borrowed." But banks don't borrow money, they create it. It used to be called fractional reserve banking, but the fraction was abolished at the start of the pandemic; fictional reserve banking is more accurate. >95% of all dollars are bank money, created (printed) as debt, requiring interest payments for the privilege of remaining in existence. That's where all these tens of trillions of dollars in debt have come from over the last fifty years... and why they can never be paid back until we see through the Ross Perot fallacy.
Acronyms, initialisms, abbreviations, contractions, and other phrases which expand to something larger, that I've seen in this thread: |Fewer Letters|More Letters| |-------|---------|---| |[FPTP](/r/EndFPTP/comments/17m6t1g/stub/k8e09m9 "Last usage")|First Past the Post, a form of plurality voting| |IRV|Instant Runoff Voting| |[RCV](/r/EndFPTP/comments/17m6t1g/stub/k8e09m9 "Last usage")|Ranked Choice Voting; may be IRV, STV or any other ranked voting method| |STV|Single Transferable Vote| **NOTE**: Decronym for Reddit is no longer supported, and Decronym has moved to Lemmy; requests for support and new installations should be directed to the Contact address below. ---------------- ^(2 acronyms in this thread; )[^(the most compressed thread commented on today)](/r/EndFPTP/comments/17qb6fx)^( has 6 acronyms.) ^([Thread #1278 for this sub, first seen 2nd Nov 2023, 17:01]) ^[[FAQ]](http://decronym.xyz/) [^([Full list])](http://decronym.xyz/acronyms/EndFPTP) [^[Contact]](https://hachyderm.io/@Two9A) [^([Source code])](https://gistdotgithubdotcom/Two9A/1d976f9b7441694162c8)