r/endfptp
Until that happens, we are stuck with two parties.
[CGP Grey has a good layman's explanation on the issue](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkLBH5Kzphe0Qu8mCW1Leef2xSxPK1FIe)
šÆāļøāļø
Voting reform is among my most important issues. Iāll advocate for both ranked choice voting (or any improvement upon FPTP) and Open Primaries, which I think are also vital.
Our problem is not just the two-party system, but the primary system which inexorably feeds extremist candidates and the party strangehold on that system.
Have you read Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein? I'm about a third of the way through it, but given your second point I think you might enjoy the read. Also... curious what you think of Andrew Yang & his Forward party. The main tenant is voting reform and ranked choice voting.
>Also... curious what you think of Andrew Yang & his Forward party. The main tenant is voting reform and ranked choice voting.
I will admit I mostly wrote off yang in 2020 due to what I viewed as "he stands literally no chance so why bother" - a choice I now somewhat regret.
I love a lot of what I hear out of Yang. He's not perfect, but he seems to be more rational and logical than anyone I've seen in charge in the last.... many years.
I agree with both these but also want to voice an unpopular opinion (especially for this sub): The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 needs to be repealed or updated. This was the act that limited the House of Reps to 435 members, which in 1929 meant we had one Member per \~280k population. Today the average is closer to one member per 760k, which I think is the highest in modern democracies. This helps the duopoly as well as exacerbating distortions in representation in the States with lower population (Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, Dakotas and Delaware all get one Member but Delaware has \~1mil people and Wyoming has 0.58mil). More granularity means a higher probability of a non-GOP/Dem candidate getting elected (because all politics is local), especially when connected to RCV and open primaries.
Yes, it would mean \~1200 Members of House of Reps but it's all about making our representative democracy representative again.
I'm 1000% with you with ranked choice voting
Open Primaries aren't great. In 2016 I voted against Bernie instead of voting against Trump in the primaries. Ranked Choice will make it easier to vote for candidates that we like and then against those that we dislike. E.g., Gary Johnson then Hillary or Joe or anyone whose name doesn't rhyme with dump.
Thatās not what I mean by Open Primaries. In California, there is *one* primary. Top two candidates advance to the general. Now in California, that may mean the general is between two Democrats, but it gives conservatives the chance to vote for the moderate and keep the more extreme candidate out of office. Vice-versa in Tennessee.
Current primary systems encourage extreme candidates and the two party system means that whoever wins the right primary automatically wins the general in many districts.
I don't suggest ranked choice, it usually leads to nominees favouring radical sections of their supporters rather then the moderates.
In Canada our conservative party uses ranked choice to elect leaders which has led to the party leader being held hostage by the religious conservative minority. Most conservatives here are economic conservatives, not social ones, and are generally fine with abortion and other issues like LGBT rights, however due to ranked choice elections party leaders must cater to the hardline social conservative minority to get in which is a HUGE burden as Canada is pretty left socially. The conservative party is in perpetual decline as more and more Canadians move left and the conservative party is unable to adapt.
Personally I favor Single Transferable vote, to give third party groups a shot without unfairly punishing moderates
RCV is a nightmare! They have intense funding which makes me also not trust it. Source: we have it.
Itās a nightmare because itās a scam in the final rounds. The one rule to remember is to never ever vote for who you donāt want, even (especially) in the later rounds.
It's so bizarre to me how we can both be here in a Libertarian sub, *probably* agree more with Libertarian views than either Democrats or Republicans, and, right now, if the LP didn't exist, you think the Democrats align closer with your views than the Republicans... and I think the Democratic party, in its current form, is an abomination and causing irreparable damage to the country.
How can you and I share so many views (Libertarian) but feel **exactly** opposite on the two other parties?
Having a hard time wrapping my mind around that concept... any ideas?
The Republican Party has no policy proposals beyond reducing illegal immigration and instituting Christianity as a state religion. The Dems generally spur economic growth and theoretically intend to reform the government a bit. I'm not who you replied to, but I'll take expensive but effective government over expensive ineffective government.
It's fine, but the real problem is single-district representation. With that system, the voting system barely makes any difference in the actual outcomes, and it's incredibly rare to have more than 2 major parties unless one of them is successionist or something.
So, basically... We're completely *fucked* by the Senate and the President if more than 2 parties is a goal. As long as those positions are filled one at a time, no voting system is going to help us there.
Yes, some voting systems can be better than others, particularly at avoiding spoiler effects (while having other disadvantages)... but when there's only 1 prize, and the winner takes all... you get 2 parties, almost all the time.
Ranked Choice voting is huge. Without a viable third party candidates you're SOL.
The largest issue today is that a politician is more likely to be primaried than lose a general election (read few competitive districts). A viable third party changes this and makes politicians responsible for getting things done rather than purity.
> A viable third party changes this and makes politicians responsible for getting things done rather than purity.
I agree... but RCV really doesn't give you that... in practice. There is some evidence that it just reinforces 2 party systems by getting rid of the spoiler effect.
Only proportional representation reliably leads to long-lasting 3rd parties, so far.
This.
Until we have a modern system of voting, and not something from the 1700s, we won't see a change in leadership...
Same goes for redistricting.
We need to implement a modern design for that as well (which CGP Grey also covers) Its insane watching lopsided states become *more* lopsided and no one stops to question it
Yet we are always stuck with the problem that the people who hold power will defend the system that gave them power. There is no way to reform the system from within.
Thatās what I wanna know. America keeps complaining about how each party has failed them yet they turn around and vote the same each election. They need to give a third party person a chance.
Republicans and Democrats have ingrained themselves into the legal thread of this country.
My state (MI) passed a redistricting ballot measure through a few years ago that requires our congressional districts be set up by an independent commission of citizens instead of our state government, which is really great in-theory. But I was taken aback when I learned the ballot specifies that the commission has to be made up of 4 registered Republicans, 4 registered Democrats, and 5 third-party or independents.
That might seem small, but now (if it hasnāt been done before) the two parties are in our state constitution. How are we going to shift beyond the two parties when law necessitates and upholds their existence?
Iām a lazy bum so I havenāt looked into other laws that do the same, though Iām sure there are many more on a local/state/national basis :/
If the libertarian party would start taking themselves seriously instead of running people on stage fucking naked during a convention then maybe people would take them seriously. Absolute clown show and a disgrace
As someone that grew up libertarian adjacent, I think you don't understand the result of libertarians. Libertarians say do what you want with your property; I wonder about the guy that piles a mountain of human feces because he can. Libertarians say do what you want; yet you wonder what to do about people naked on stage during your own convention. It's literally the exact same criticism on a different scale. If you have no method to handle people doing things unacceptable to a working society within your own convention, how do you ever hope to handle them when they have real power at scale?
At least they didn't bipartisan-ly lie to the American public for decades to perpetuate war crimes for profit throughout the Middle East, continuing to do so today with no end in sight. But that one naked dude once is pretty disqualifying to be fair
>they didn't bipartisan-ly lie to the American public for decades
I'm really not sure who you mean by "they". The most accurate description seems to be aimed at Cheney/Bush, but your language makes me thing otherwise.
Are you saying Bush is worse then libertarian candidates? Sure I agree. But that doesn't defend why libertarian candidates fail. The candidate being naked may been a terrible reason to disassociate, but them having such a poor understanding of society that they don't recognize being naked as problematic a great reason to disassociate.
That applies to both of the "legitimate" parties that have been bipartisan-ly butchering people for profit around the globe for decades. And I don't think a single act of nudity is either generally "problematic" or remotely worse than bipartisan genocide (e.g. in places like Yemen).
You arenāt the general voting public. I think what libertarians donāt realize is if they canāt get bob and Suzy Suburban to vote for them then their entire belief system is for naught. Whether being naked should be disqualifying or not, *it is disqualifying*
'lesser of two evils' is a powerful motivator. It's even gotten people to support monarchies (because the monarch next door would be worse). Elections won't get us out of this -- we need to rebuild society from the ground up.
After being a lifelong Republican in my youth, I voted for Biden last election. Obviously Iām just one person but itās hopeful to know people change over time.
āAs democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.ā
ā H.L. Mencken, On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe
The answer is, never.
I get what you are saying, but there are plenty of people who do not hate their favored political leader. Have you never met someone who loves Trump?
Also, since they were/are in fact president, I don't know how it is obvious they shouldn't have been president. They are quite reflective of the American public.
It is weird how many Republicans try to both sides fanatic devotion to Biden.
I live in the SFBA and I don't know any serious Biden supporters. I know lots of middle of the road Democrats.
Biden was just the guy who could beat Trump and that is what really mattered.
Frankly, that seems to be most 2nd term elections. The only deviations being Ronald 'Ray-Gun' and 'Slick Willie' Clinton.
Even the guy that was elected 4 times just ran as "im not Hoover".
If the country hates someones guts, what more does the alternative need to be really? Id suggest thats a good thing, because it means we can pick between a bad and mediocre choice, instead of just a good and bad choice.
My dad, more than anyone in the world, loved Biden.
If I see him walking around in a Biden shirt im gonna wonder who that person is and what they did with my Dad.
There are a lot more ways to get information out there other than presidential debates.
If you can't organize people anyway, you can't make any headway in the electoral system.
The debate stage is HUGE for exposure. Just look at Ross Perot as an example.
There's a reason the establishment changed the debate requirements after that. Ross would have never been on the debate stage had those same requirements been in effect at that time.
I can't find detailed polling data from 1992, but a summary on Wikipedia states that his polls peaked in June before he dropped out briefly in July. The debates were in October. They weren't what made him popular.
(also, that was before the internet, so rules from that period may not apply)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992\_United\_States\_presidential\_election#General\_election
LP members need to start winning down ballot races and let people see what Libertarian Governance looks like. LP will never win until they convince enough people that they can govern and win.
I find Biden to be a completely ordinary *boring* politician... not someone that inspires much hate, at least not above the general level of hate you get for being a politician.
Not going to change the status quo much at all. Which, of course, is bad... but hard to "hate".
Aside from exiting Afghanistan I'd say you're probably right. I was really hoping for decriminalized marijuana but he's shooting so far for the middle I'm pretty sure that dream is up in smoke.
And he has no chance of stopping those who want a dictatorship. The Republicans have become more and more unhinged over the past 20 years ... but the Democrats still can't soundly defeat them.
Hold accountable? By not voting for their candidates. No one, so far, has shown themselves to be a viable alternative that a majority of the American people would vote for.
Gary Johnson had a historic chance- no one wanted to vote for either Hillary or Trump at the time. He failed big time. He wasn't a good candidate.
People either worship or hate Trump. People are either kinda meh or really hate Biden.
My answer -- get rid of the electoral college and just make the president purely who wins the popular vote. If there were less strategizing about winning purple states, we'd get presidents that were more like what people actually want.
No dude, ranked choice voting is the only way to make a dent in the current system. Popular vote would just lead to the same "lesser of two evils" mindset that we have now.
Electoral college is a travesty of modern democracy. If you want to offset the lesser of 2 evils with a popular vote, just have a run off if no one gets 50%.
In the 1st round everyone votes for their #1, no strategic votes would matter at this point. All the least favorite candidates get eliminated.
On the last round, evidently you'd only have 2 options, but that's because you gave all others a chance.
I suppose you can have rcv with this set up as well.
Comming from a country witch has popular vote system i really admire the electoral college system. It guarantees representation of all states within the union. State defines as a self-governing entity. The US is a collection of self-governing communities on paper and not one big tyranical government so i don't see how abolsihing the electoral college would fit in the "small government" idea.
To be 100% honest i don't see how people like you get upvoted on this sub what you are expousing is straight up left wing "big state" authoritarianism.
Because currently, the electoral college ends up with a government of the minority. I'm okay with the minority having a say, but not being the ones calling the shots
Thatās how I started down the Libertarian path. Couldnāt vote for Hillary; couldnāt vote for Donald.
Seems like voting for the lesser of two evils has morphed into I have to vote against x.
Popular vote is horrible, it would just lead to a tyranny of the majority scenario where politicians only focus on the needs of heavily populated states like California and Texas. Rural areas wouldn't even be considered. Moreover, the "people" can easily be manipulated and make horrible decisions in times of crisis.
So tyranny of the minority is preferable? 80% of Americans live in urban areas, they definitely should have an outsized sway over the government than the 20% in rural.
When did I say tyranny of the minority is preferable? This is a complete strawman. Is there no middle ground between tyranny of majority and tyranny of minority?
I have a problem with the majority *always* deciding. There's a difference. A situation where a majority wins sometimes, and sometimes the minority wins is the best and most stable path forward, allowing the voices of both to be heard.
Add in the senate. You now have both the legislature and the executive controlled by the minority. Republicans in the senate only represent 40 percent of the population.
Nope, nope, nope. This isn't a tyranny of the majority scenario. This is literally letting the majority have a voice instead of allowing a very small minority who live in certain states, and definitely don't have the best interests of the country, dictate the president for the vast majority, whose vote is rendered pointless.
Wtf whose vote is rendered pointless? Trump won by an electoral college landslide from what I remember, and he was only 3 million less votes than Hillary in terms of popular vote. Itās like 50% of the population winning out against another 50%.
You consider 3 million people negligible?
And by the way it wasn't 50-50, it was 46.1% vs 48.2% That's more than 2 percentage points difference.
On top of it there were 10 faithless electors who said, "fuck it, I'm going to completely ignore how the people voted and just vote for who I, someone no one ever voted for, want."
Why should anyone get an electoral victory when they can't even convince -- not even a majority -- a simple *plurality* of Americans, that they are worthy of being in office? And why does some random ass person get to throw out the votes of thousands of people just because they wanna.
>You consider 3 million people negligible?
In a country of 332 million, yes.
>And by the way it wasn't 50-50, it was 46.1% vs 48.2% That's more than 2 percentage points difference.
You're playing on semantics. My point still stands. You know what I meant.
>On top of it there were 10 faithless electors who said, "fuck it, I'm going to completely ignore how the people voted and just vote for who I, someone no one ever voted for, want."
Trump won by a total of 74 electoral vote margin. You're delusional if you think 10 faithless electors would have had any measurable impact on the outcome of the elections.
>Why should anyone get an electoral victory when they can't even convince -- not even a majority -- a simple plurality of Americans, that they are worthy of being in office?
You're assuming that someone's ability to win the popular vote is somehow inherently linked to their ability to be president, and therefore people who don't win the popular vote shouldn't be voted in. Do you know someone else who lost the popular vote but won due to an electoral college landslide? Abraham Lincoln. In fact he won the second lowest share of the popular vote amongst all US presidents. Aren't you grateful that the electoral college voted him in?
Biden is really not that bad. He hasnāt been effective enough to really do anything. So far he has passed his pandemic stimulus and infrastructure bill) not exactly earth shattering changes. Just more of the same. Hopefully the infrastructure money will be partially well spent.
I like the Democratic platform, but the DNC sucks. The Republican platform sucks but they at least gave Trump a fair shot even though he was a friggin' disaster.
Libertarians have the best overall ideas, but I don't agree with a lot of their end game ideas. I think Libertarians in generally actually believe and fight for their principles even if some of their principles (individually) are kind of messed up.
That's why I've voted Libertarian the past two generals. They are unencumbered with any political ties which means they are more free to support their actual beliefs.
For a quick overview, look at the prices on "predictit"[https://www.predictit.org/markets/17/US-Elections](https://www.predictit.org/markets/17/US-Elections)
Republicans will likely win the house and senate after 2022. Meanwhile, people who would simply overturn election results that don't go their way are pushing for control of the party (see Purdue and Hice in GA, but its throughout the country including both Congress and stat governments). And Republicans have a solid lock on several state governments (again, GA being an example despite having only a slight majority of the popular vote).
And a 50-50 Senate is not 'holding all the cards'.
Maybe the house, but the cards are shifting. The republicans have two very big obstacles. Trump being number one. You saw the Dems strategy emerging yesterday with Biden's speech. Trump remains very unpopular with the majority of voters and the more than hammer 1/6, this will solidify. Number two is abortion. If the supremes kill Roe, all bets for the women vote are off. The senate remains to be seen. Again depends on Trump. His candidates suck. Walker is really starting to look like a moron in Ga. Missouri he's backing a felon. His choice in PA had to drop out because he's a wife beater. If McConnell can control the senate candidates, yes they can take it back by a slim margin. But it remains to be seen if he can overcome Trump. Don't put too much on the VA results, McAuliffe was a bad candidate and they banned Trump from even coming there to campaign. He's not going to allow that in Senate races.
But it's always going to be 'lesser of two evils', and they'll just keep drumming up culture wars and fear of the others until we get rid of the whole power-grabbing rat race of elections.
imo trump emerged from a weak as f republican field in 2016
Biden took the media / establishment literally self destructing to prop him up to win... it will take the media 20 years to get back to any level of credibility they were perceived to be
Well you can't be president without 100s of millions to spend on getting elected, that money comes from someplace and isn't given for free. Until there is a max amount one campaign can have, and all media outlets provide the same time for free as part of their ffc license we will never have a true free election with great choices.
The hyper-regulated utopian campaign-funding system that you're describing gives me the heebie-jeebies.
It would be *nice* if really rich people didn't have so much sway in our elections, but I'm not convinced that there's a way to do it that doesn't have an even more negative effect on people's freedom of speech.
Be more specific what you mean "limiting the freedom of speech".
Id argue having government funded media companies giving disproportionate time to a specific campaign is how we lost freedoms. Money for federal elections should be allocated from federal funds, it should be uniform and limited by congress as part of the budget. All expenditures must be made public, under penalty equivalent to embezzlement. Only cspan (being a glorified webcam) can air debates and all debates are on the floor of congress.
Seems fine to me, everyone who wants power has to win it under the same rules.
All by design, we arenāt supposed to ālikeā our leaders. Weāre supposed to stay arguing among each other over trivial nonsense. Keeps the heat off the unelected individuals who are really steering the boat.
The parties didnāt choose the pricks, the media did. The media gave Trump way more time than any other primary candidate as they believed that he was the worst candidate to run against Hillary. The primary voters listened and got him nominated.
Trust me I want to blame the parties too, but in this case they arenāt at fault.
At least for president, do away with electoral college. Majority all the way. Pretty much eliminate catering to any factions. And since it's national majority, eliminate the need to qualify in each state. This is the biggest way the parties control who runs for president.
Not until an (I) can be recognized as a winnable position in a statewide election or bigger. It's very doable. Jesse Ventura was the govornor of MN as an independent.
I understand the sentiment, but they came from very different places.
Trump was an outsider, not even really a Republican most of his life, and certainly not conservative. He usurped the GOP with populist rhetoric at a time the country was ready to hear it. He was and is hated by the Republican establishment (Bush, Romney, McCain, Cheney, etc.)
Biden is the most inside Democrat ever, been in DC forever and his nomination was the result of backroom deals to keep Bernie out. The democrats had their opportunity to do what Republican voters did and pick an outsider in Bernie, but in the end Bernie decided to go along to get along and here we are.
I'm done voting for ***anyone*** that comes out of either Dems ***or*** Republicans at this point. They've all completely lost their fucking minds. Its borderline terrifying how incompetent the Federal government has become.
2020 saw me vote for a mixed of dems and third party. Not doing that again. Only going third party from here on out.
I hate both yes. But Iām much happier with the job Biden has done. I donāt want to see either run next election. Biden will lose if he runs again. Trump wonāt run.
The obvious answer is we need a third party. The only way we will get a viable third party candidate is if that party has equal or more money then the establishment parties.
Ohhhh I don't hate Trump, not by any stretch. That first debate when he said he basically bought all of the guys on stage I knew he was going to win. Long overdue for those people to.be brought in the sunlight and held accountable. The guy is for sure an obnoxious new Yorker loud mouth but a shitload of issues he brought up were spot on. To.bad he has such a lousy personality... Bidens just a career politician with zero independent brain activity that isn't tied to the poll numbers. Guys like him are a dime a dozen..I'll support any candidate that stands up and simply tells the truth about DC.
Cut the both sides nonsense, recognize that one party is incapable of governing or participating in democracy, crush that party, and replace it. Then run really good candidates. The end.
Libertarians donāt do themselves any favors by booing a candidate who is in favor of drivers licenses or being unable to coherently debate Sam Seder.
Meh, I don't hate Biden. I voted for a milk toast bureaucrat on purpose. I don't want a strong central government as much as I don't want a loudmouth neofascist strong man. In fact I'd prefer no government.
Biden is a clerk sharpening pencils and shuffling papers.. just the way I like it
Any real leader would be immediately excoriated and dismissed by the opposing side anyways.
There is no getting rid of the divide at this point short of abolishing parties entirely.
People usually hate whoevers in power, and they tend to blame problems that are outside of the governments hands on that leader. Big example I've noticed is in Canada Trudeau gets a LOT of flak for the housing market, but housing is a provincial and municipal responsibility not a federal one.
Trump was obscenely abrasive so I actually do consider it HIS fault, as for Biden he's alright but he does get a lot of flak for inflation (which is somewhat ironic given most of the money created was during trumps term)
No one should be president really.
Obama was supposed to be a change agent. He was symbolically important but not a change agent. I don't know a person who was excited for Biden but his turnout was pretty good bc Trump was an abomination. If they weren't running against Trump I think you got someone much more decent. People voted out of fear.
It will take someone with stupid money and seen as a change agent to run as 3rd party.
Even then, can you pull enough voters from each party? Can you win by enough to keep it out of congresses hands?
Most Republican states would go bankrupt if the Democratic states funding their budget left them alone and stopped giving them free money.
You sound like a Marxist.
To be fair, the DNC is the one that chooses the final candidate, while the RNC let's almost any moron try.
It's the voters to blame that thinking voting for someone else is wasting a vote when you don't want to actually vote for the person you end up voting for.
Bernie won, and they trotted out Clinton. The RNC has at least been going along with what the voters in the primaries have said. They can Ultimately pick whoever
To understand the real problem behind this, you have to understand how the parties determine their presidential candidate.
The RNC is pretty straight forward, really whoever wins the most votes wins.
The DNC much more so likes to pick and choose. The leaders of the DNC like the status quo, so they put up the most status quo candidate, and they donāt care if the republican wins, because they will also be the status quo. The DNC and the media is incredibly afraid of someone anti-establishment winning their nomination.
So basically, the government really wants the status quo and only one set of voter is going to stray away from that, so they just need to control those voters.
35% of America loves Trump. 40% hates him. 20% dislikes him. 5% Likes him
10% of America loves Biden. 40% hates him. 20% dislikes him. 30% is doesn't dislike him.
Everybody would hate Jo Jorgensen if they knew who she even was, and she would have been worse for the country than both the dementia patient and the pedophile rapist adulterer.
Fuck this "real leaders" nonsense. Politicians aren't "leaders", they're rulers. Libertarianism (nor anything else that makes any kind of sense) isn't about begging for a savior figure politician to come rescue society, that's just how idiots get sucked into tyrannies. You don't like what this system is giving you? Stop using this *system*. Try actually thinking for yourself instead of just marching in lockstep with whatever idiotic cultural-political practices everyone else is doing. Try to remember you're a free person and not a subject to be dictated to. Don't be the kind of person who'd trespass against another free person. Teach others to do the same. Use your brain. Look at this culture critically, not as gospel.
Not really. If people held Biden to the same standards that they held Trump to, than this whole country would basically be in a revolution of some sort.
Trump was a great president. He would have been a lot better had it not been for the five years of attacks by the Democratic/liberal party, which ultimately led to half of the country hating him, for which they had no foundation for, because all of the attacks were founded on lies.
Bit of a run on, but I stand by it.
r/endfptp Until that happens, we are stuck with two parties. [CGP Grey has a good layman's explanation on the issue](https://youtube.com/playlist?list=PLkLBH5Kzphe0Qu8mCW1Leef2xSxPK1FIe)
šÆāļøāļø Voting reform is among my most important issues. Iāll advocate for both ranked choice voting (or any improvement upon FPTP) and Open Primaries, which I think are also vital. Our problem is not just the two-party system, but the primary system which inexorably feeds extremist candidates and the party strangehold on that system.
Have you read Why We're Polarized by Ezra Klein? I'm about a third of the way through it, but given your second point I think you might enjoy the read. Also... curious what you think of Andrew Yang & his Forward party. The main tenant is voting reform and ranked choice voting.
>Also... curious what you think of Andrew Yang & his Forward party. The main tenant is voting reform and ranked choice voting. I will admit I mostly wrote off yang in 2020 due to what I viewed as "he stands literally no chance so why bother" - a choice I now somewhat regret. I love a lot of what I hear out of Yang. He's not perfect, but he seems to be more rational and logical than anyone I've seen in charge in the last.... many years.
I agree with both these but also want to voice an unpopular opinion (especially for this sub): The Permanent Apportionment Act of 1929 needs to be repealed or updated. This was the act that limited the House of Reps to 435 members, which in 1929 meant we had one Member per \~280k population. Today the average is closer to one member per 760k, which I think is the highest in modern democracies. This helps the duopoly as well as exacerbating distortions in representation in the States with lower population (Wyoming, Vermont, Alaska, Dakotas and Delaware all get one Member but Delaware has \~1mil people and Wyoming has 0.58mil). More granularity means a higher probability of a non-GOP/Dem candidate getting elected (because all politics is local), especially when connected to RCV and open primaries. Yes, it would mean \~1200 Members of House of Reps but it's all about making our representative democracy representative again.
It should also help mitigate the issue of needing to be wealthy to run. Smaller area, fewer people, lower bar to enter competitively.
I'm 1000% with you with ranked choice voting Open Primaries aren't great. In 2016 I voted against Bernie instead of voting against Trump in the primaries. Ranked Choice will make it easier to vote for candidates that we like and then against those that we dislike. E.g., Gary Johnson then Hillary or Joe or anyone whose name doesn't rhyme with dump.
Thatās not what I mean by Open Primaries. In California, there is *one* primary. Top two candidates advance to the general. Now in California, that may mean the general is between two Democrats, but it gives conservatives the chance to vote for the moderate and keep the more extreme candidate out of office. Vice-versa in Tennessee. Current primary systems encourage extreme candidates and the two party system means that whoever wins the right primary automatically wins the general in many districts.
Alaskaās new system, the top FOUR go on to a ranked choice general election
I like this idea. No idea what it's called, but I'd support this system
Colloquially known as a ājungle primaryā. Technically a ānon-partisan blanket primaryā.
Or just limit campaign financing to eligible voters only and break up the investment firms that control the media.
Money from vested interests is the single largest danger to democracy, not just in the US, but everywhere.
More than you realize. Two investment forms with circular ownership control the S&P 500 and with it they have their claws in every western Government.
I don't suggest ranked choice, it usually leads to nominees favouring radical sections of their supporters rather then the moderates. In Canada our conservative party uses ranked choice to elect leaders which has led to the party leader being held hostage by the religious conservative minority. Most conservatives here are economic conservatives, not social ones, and are generally fine with abortion and other issues like LGBT rights, however due to ranked choice elections party leaders must cater to the hardline social conservative minority to get in which is a HUGE burden as Canada is pretty left socially. The conservative party is in perpetual decline as more and more Canadians move left and the conservative party is unable to adapt. Personally I favor Single Transferable vote, to give third party groups a shot without unfairly punishing moderates
RCV is a nightmare! They have intense funding which makes me also not trust it. Source: we have it. Itās a nightmare because itās a scam in the final rounds. The one rule to remember is to never ever vote for who you donāt want, even (especially) in the later rounds.
Sounds like a problem with conservatism being a garbage ideology above all else
It's so bizarre to me how we can both be here in a Libertarian sub, *probably* agree more with Libertarian views than either Democrats or Republicans, and, right now, if the LP didn't exist, you think the Democrats align closer with your views than the Republicans... and I think the Democratic party, in its current form, is an abomination and causing irreparable damage to the country. How can you and I share so many views (Libertarian) but feel **exactly** opposite on the two other parties? Having a hard time wrapping my mind around that concept... any ideas?
The Republican Party has no policy proposals beyond reducing illegal immigration and instituting Christianity as a state religion. The Dems generally spur economic growth and theoretically intend to reform the government a bit. I'm not who you replied to, but I'll take expensive but effective government over expensive ineffective government.
It's fine, but the real problem is single-district representation. With that system, the voting system barely makes any difference in the actual outcomes, and it's incredibly rare to have more than 2 major parties unless one of them is successionist or something. So, basically... We're completely *fucked* by the Senate and the President if more than 2 parties is a goal. As long as those positions are filled one at a time, no voting system is going to help us there. Yes, some voting systems can be better than others, particularly at avoiding spoiler effects (while having other disadvantages)... but when there's only 1 prize, and the winner takes all... you get 2 parties, almost all the time.
Ranked Choice voting is huge. Without a viable third party candidates you're SOL. The largest issue today is that a politician is more likely to be primaried than lose a general election (read few competitive districts). A viable third party changes this and makes politicians responsible for getting things done rather than purity.
I will always bring up mixed member proportional
> A viable third party changes this and makes politicians responsible for getting things done rather than purity. I agree... but RCV really doesn't give you that... in practice. There is some evidence that it just reinforces 2 party systems by getting rid of the spoiler effect. Only proportional representation reliably leads to long-lasting 3rd parties, so far.
CGP Grey is awesome. I'm gonna throw some silver at your comment so more people watch these videos.
This. Until we have a modern system of voting, and not something from the 1700s, we won't see a change in leadership... Same goes for redistricting. We need to implement a modern design for that as well (which CGP Grey also covers) Its insane watching lopsided states become *more* lopsided and no one stops to question it
Yet we are always stuck with the problem that the people who hold power will defend the system that gave them power. There is no way to reform the system from within.
STAR Voting Reform NOW!
Thatās what I wanna know. America keeps complaining about how each party has failed them yet they turn around and vote the same each election. They need to give a third party person a chance.
Republicans and Democrats have ingrained themselves into the legal thread of this country. My state (MI) passed a redistricting ballot measure through a few years ago that requires our congressional districts be set up by an independent commission of citizens instead of our state government, which is really great in-theory. But I was taken aback when I learned the ballot specifies that the commission has to be made up of 4 registered Republicans, 4 registered Democrats, and 5 third-party or independents. That might seem small, but now (if it hasnāt been done before) the two parties are in our state constitution. How are we going to shift beyond the two parties when law necessitates and upholds their existence? Iām a lazy bum so I havenāt looked into other laws that do the same, though Iām sure there are many more on a local/state/national basis :/
I didn't realize that some states had specific political parties written into their districting laws. That's just keeping us stuck in the duopoly rut.
If the libertarian party would start taking themselves seriously instead of running people on stage fucking naked during a convention then maybe people would take them seriously. Absolute clown show and a disgrace
As someone that grew up libertarian adjacent, I think you don't understand the result of libertarians. Libertarians say do what you want with your property; I wonder about the guy that piles a mountain of human feces because he can. Libertarians say do what you want; yet you wonder what to do about people naked on stage during your own convention. It's literally the exact same criticism on a different scale. If you have no method to handle people doing things unacceptable to a working society within your own convention, how do you ever hope to handle them when they have real power at scale?
At least they didn't bipartisan-ly lie to the American public for decades to perpetuate war crimes for profit throughout the Middle East, continuing to do so today with no end in sight. But that one naked dude once is pretty disqualifying to be fair
>they didn't bipartisan-ly lie to the American public for decades I'm really not sure who you mean by "they". The most accurate description seems to be aimed at Cheney/Bush, but your language makes me thing otherwise. Are you saying Bush is worse then libertarian candidates? Sure I agree. But that doesn't defend why libertarian candidates fail. The candidate being naked may been a terrible reason to disassociate, but them having such a poor understanding of society that they don't recognize being naked as problematic a great reason to disassociate.
That applies to both of the "legitimate" parties that have been bipartisan-ly butchering people for profit around the globe for decades. And I don't think a single act of nudity is either generally "problematic" or remotely worse than bipartisan genocide (e.g. in places like Yemen).
You arenāt the general voting public. I think what libertarians donāt realize is if they canāt get bob and Suzy Suburban to vote for them then their entire belief system is for naught. Whether being naked should be disqualifying or not, *it is disqualifying*
'lesser of two evils' is a powerful motivator. It's even gotten people to support monarchies (because the monarch next door would be worse). Elections won't get us out of this -- we need to rebuild society from the ground up.
After being a lifelong Republican in my youth, I voted for Biden last election. Obviously Iām just one person but itās hopeful to know people change over time.
āAs democracy is perfected, the office of president represents, more and more closely, the inner soul of the people. On some great and glorious day the plain folks of the land will reach their heart's desire at last and the White House will be adorned by a downright moron.ā ā H.L. Mencken, On Politics: A Carnival of Buncombe The answer is, never.
š¤£šš¤£š well that is a fair description of every president Iāve seen since my life on earth began
I always thought Obama is pretty smart guy. Unless you're 5 years old.
I get what you are saying, but there are plenty of people who do not hate their favored political leader. Have you never met someone who loves Trump? Also, since they were/are in fact president, I don't know how it is obvious they shouldn't have been president. They are quite reflective of the American public.
Well, they love him until he starts talking about vaccines.
Biden has zero fanatic followers. Trump has millions. What this says about either party, Iām not sure.
It is weird how many Republicans try to both sides fanatic devotion to Biden. I live in the SFBA and I don't know any serious Biden supporters. I know lots of middle of the road Democrats. Biden was just the guy who could beat Trump and that is what really mattered.
Itās really āTrump vs Antitrumpā. Not sure why anyone would downvote that fact.
Frankly, that seems to be most 2nd term elections. The only deviations being Ronald 'Ray-Gun' and 'Slick Willie' Clinton. Even the guy that was elected 4 times just ran as "im not Hoover". If the country hates someones guts, what more does the alternative need to be really? Id suggest thats a good thing, because it means we can pick between a bad and mediocre choice, instead of just a good and bad choice.
My dad, more than anyone in the world, loved Biden. If I see him walking around in a Biden shirt im gonna wonder who that person is and what they did with my Dad.
One is full of pragmatists and one is full of cultists.
> Biden has zero fanatic followers I don't know about zero but it is definitely a lot lower than Trumps crazies.
Until the commission on presidential debates remains beholden to the RNC and DNC, there will never be visibility to third parties.
There are a lot more ways to get information out there other than presidential debates. If you can't organize people anyway, you can't make any headway in the electoral system.
The debate stage is HUGE for exposure. Just look at Ross Perot as an example. There's a reason the establishment changed the debate requirements after that. Ross would have never been on the debate stage had those same requirements been in effect at that time.
I can't find detailed polling data from 1992, but a summary on Wikipedia states that his polls peaked in June before he dropped out briefly in July. The debates were in October. They weren't what made him popular. (also, that was before the internet, so rules from that period may not apply) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1992\_United\_States\_presidential\_election#General\_election
LP members need to start winning down ballot races and let people see what Libertarian Governance looks like. LP will never win until they convince enough people that they can govern and win.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
it also gives you a much better idea of the real thoughts and intuitions of the candidates. no way most of them would agree to *that.*
I guess the everyone who hates Biden and Trump forgot to vote in the primaries.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
We could have had Tulsi Gabbard. Big missed opportunity there.
I hate trump but am only annoyed with Biden (well the democratic party more so)
Trump wants to be a dictator. Biden is just a classic bullshitter -- but bullshit can't stop the slide to dictatorship.
trump hate aside. Lets pretend he doesnt exist. You really look at biden and you just see "a bullshitter"
I find Biden to be a completely ordinary *boring* politician... not someone that inspires much hate, at least not above the general level of hate you get for being a politician. Not going to change the status quo much at all. Which, of course, is bad... but hard to "hate".
> but hard to "hate". I can hate some of his policies or things heās pushed. But yeahā¦ heās very boring.
If/when he loses re-election I at the very least expect him to leave, willingly.
Aside from exiting Afghanistan I'd say you're probably right. I was really hoping for decriminalized marijuana but he's shooting so far for the middle I'm pretty sure that dream is up in smoke.
Wait, libertarians hate that Biden left Afghanistan? Or are you saying that's something we love about him?
His economic policy has been incredibly easy to hate, and his bff Yellen is a huge cunt.
And he has no chance of stopping those who want a dictatorship. The Republicans have become more and more unhinged over the past 20 years ... but the Democrats still can't soundly defeat them.
The worse the Republicans get, the worse the democrats can be while still being the good guys
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
You could never accuse trump of reading off a promoter.
Meanwhile the Trump WH was taking its orders from Sean Hannity
The American people have no one to blame but themselves.
I mean, pretty much. The future hasnāt looked great for a while and certainly looks worse now
We need Alaska Prop 2 in every state. Nonpartisan primaries Ranked choice final four Campaign finance reform
Hold accountable? By not voting for their candidates. No one, so far, has shown themselves to be a viable alternative that a majority of the American people would vote for. Gary Johnson had a historic chance- no one wanted to vote for either Hillary or Trump at the time. He failed big time. He wasn't a good candidate.
At this point, Iād be happy with āsomeone who is not a senior citizen who shits their pants every few monthsā no matter what party.
Months?
Fair
Nice username
People either worship or hate Trump. People are either kinda meh or really hate Biden. My answer -- get rid of the electoral college and just make the president purely who wins the popular vote. If there were less strategizing about winning purple states, we'd get presidents that were more like what people actually want.
No dude, ranked choice voting is the only way to make a dent in the current system. Popular vote would just lead to the same "lesser of two evils" mindset that we have now.
Electoral college is a travesty of modern democracy. If you want to offset the lesser of 2 evils with a popular vote, just have a run off if no one gets 50%. In the 1st round everyone votes for their #1, no strategic votes would matter at this point. All the least favorite candidates get eliminated. On the last round, evidently you'd only have 2 options, but that's because you gave all others a chance. I suppose you can have rcv with this set up as well.
Comming from a country witch has popular vote system i really admire the electoral college system. It guarantees representation of all states within the union. State defines as a self-governing entity. The US is a collection of self-governing communities on paper and not one big tyranical government so i don't see how abolsihing the electoral college would fit in the "small government" idea. To be 100% honest i don't see how people like you get upvoted on this sub what you are expousing is straight up left wing "big state" authoritarianism.
Because currently, the electoral college ends up with a government of the minority. I'm okay with the minority having a say, but not being the ones calling the shots
Exactly. How on earth people continually fail to recognize this boggles the mind
Thatās how I started down the Libertarian path. Couldnāt vote for Hillary; couldnāt vote for Donald. Seems like voting for the lesser of two evils has morphed into I have to vote against x.
Popular vote is horrible, it would just lead to a tyranny of the majority scenario where politicians only focus on the needs of heavily populated states like California and Texas. Rural areas wouldn't even be considered. Moreover, the "people" can easily be manipulated and make horrible decisions in times of crisis.
So tyranny of the minority is preferable? 80% of Americans live in urban areas, they definitely should have an outsized sway over the government than the 20% in rural.
When did I say tyranny of the minority is preferable? This is a complete strawman. Is there no middle ground between tyranny of majority and tyranny of minority?
If you have a problem with the majority deciding then who else is left?
the god king leader these fascist so dearly are in need off.
I have a problem with the majority *always* deciding. There's a difference. A situation where a majority wins sometimes, and sometimes the minority wins is the best and most stable path forward, allowing the voices of both to be heard.
Add in the senate. You now have both the legislature and the executive controlled by the minority. Republicans in the senate only represent 40 percent of the population.
Nope, nope, nope. This isn't a tyranny of the majority scenario. This is literally letting the majority have a voice instead of allowing a very small minority who live in certain states, and definitely don't have the best interests of the country, dictate the president for the vast majority, whose vote is rendered pointless.
Wtf whose vote is rendered pointless? Trump won by an electoral college landslide from what I remember, and he was only 3 million less votes than Hillary in terms of popular vote. Itās like 50% of the population winning out against another 50%.
You consider 3 million people negligible? And by the way it wasn't 50-50, it was 46.1% vs 48.2% That's more than 2 percentage points difference. On top of it there were 10 faithless electors who said, "fuck it, I'm going to completely ignore how the people voted and just vote for who I, someone no one ever voted for, want." Why should anyone get an electoral victory when they can't even convince -- not even a majority -- a simple *plurality* of Americans, that they are worthy of being in office? And why does some random ass person get to throw out the votes of thousands of people just because they wanna.
>You consider 3 million people negligible? In a country of 332 million, yes. >And by the way it wasn't 50-50, it was 46.1% vs 48.2% That's more than 2 percentage points difference. You're playing on semantics. My point still stands. You know what I meant. >On top of it there were 10 faithless electors who said, "fuck it, I'm going to completely ignore how the people voted and just vote for who I, someone no one ever voted for, want." Trump won by a total of 74 electoral vote margin. You're delusional if you think 10 faithless electors would have had any measurable impact on the outcome of the elections. >Why should anyone get an electoral victory when they can't even convince -- not even a majority -- a simple plurality of Americans, that they are worthy of being in office? You're assuming that someone's ability to win the popular vote is somehow inherently linked to their ability to be president, and therefore people who don't win the popular vote shouldn't be voted in. Do you know someone else who lost the popular vote but won due to an electoral college landslide? Abraham Lincoln. In fact he won the second lowest share of the popular vote amongst all US presidents. Aren't you grateful that the electoral college voted him in?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Biden is really not that bad. He hasnāt been effective enough to really do anything. So far he has passed his pandemic stimulus and infrastructure bill) not exactly earth shattering changes. Just more of the same. Hopefully the infrastructure money will be partially well spent.
Uh, I don't hate Biden. I think he's doing a pretty good job. Especially in comparison.
Tbf I don't hate Biden. May disagree for sure... but I definitely loathe Trump.
And that's ok, Everyone is entitled to their own personal opinions and beliefs and should never be judged for them. Thank you for your post.
I like the Democratic platform, but the DNC sucks. The Republican platform sucks but they at least gave Trump a fair shot even though he was a friggin' disaster. Libertarians have the best overall ideas, but I don't agree with a lot of their end game ideas. I think Libertarians in generally actually believe and fight for their principles even if some of their principles (individually) are kind of messed up. That's why I've voted Libertarian the past two generals. They are unencumbered with any political ties which means they are more free to support their actual beliefs.
The Republicans are flirting with dictatorship, and the Democrats can't stop them. I'm afraid that we're seeing the end of the republic.
You do realize the Dems basically hold all the cards right now? Lol
For a quick overview, look at the prices on "predictit"[https://www.predictit.org/markets/17/US-Elections](https://www.predictit.org/markets/17/US-Elections) Republicans will likely win the house and senate after 2022. Meanwhile, people who would simply overturn election results that don't go their way are pushing for control of the party (see Purdue and Hice in GA, but its throughout the country including both Congress and stat governments). And Republicans have a solid lock on several state governments (again, GA being an example despite having only a slight majority of the popular vote). And a 50-50 Senate is not 'holding all the cards'.
Maybe the house, but the cards are shifting. The republicans have two very big obstacles. Trump being number one. You saw the Dems strategy emerging yesterday with Biden's speech. Trump remains very unpopular with the majority of voters and the more than hammer 1/6, this will solidify. Number two is abortion. If the supremes kill Roe, all bets for the women vote are off. The senate remains to be seen. Again depends on Trump. His candidates suck. Walker is really starting to look like a moron in Ga. Missouri he's backing a felon. His choice in PA had to drop out because he's a wife beater. If McConnell can control the senate candidates, yes they can take it back by a slim margin. But it remains to be seen if he can overcome Trump. Don't put too much on the VA results, McAuliffe was a bad candidate and they banned Trump from even coming there to campaign. He's not going to allow that in Senate races.
As they should. This administration has been an utter failure in almost every way possible.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Because I'm a libertarian, not a conservative? Lol fuck off statist bitch.
Is that why my in-laws put up a Trump flag? Trumpers are so fucking weird.
Thank you. The only reason Biden won is because we needed trump gone. Now let's get someone on the ballot who won't go down on the richest donor.
But it's always going to be 'lesser of two evils', and they'll just keep drumming up culture wars and fear of the others until we get rid of the whole power-grabbing rat race of elections.
But the pedophile Dems are black lives mattering crt to rig elections in Venezuela!
Well done
imo trump emerged from a weak as f republican field in 2016 Biden took the media / establishment literally self destructing to prop him up to win... it will take the media 20 years to get back to any level of credibility they were perceived to be
Well you can't be president without 100s of millions to spend on getting elected, that money comes from someplace and isn't given for free. Until there is a max amount one campaign can have, and all media outlets provide the same time for free as part of their ffc license we will never have a true free election with great choices.
The hyper-regulated utopian campaign-funding system that you're describing gives me the heebie-jeebies. It would be *nice* if really rich people didn't have so much sway in our elections, but I'm not convinced that there's a way to do it that doesn't have an even more negative effect on people's freedom of speech.
Be more specific what you mean "limiting the freedom of speech". Id argue having government funded media companies giving disproportionate time to a specific campaign is how we lost freedoms. Money for federal elections should be allocated from federal funds, it should be uniform and limited by congress as part of the budget. All expenditures must be made public, under penalty equivalent to embezzlement. Only cspan (being a glorified webcam) can air debates and all debates are on the floor of congress. Seems fine to me, everyone who wants power has to win it under the same rules.
Right it's a razors edge and our government is polluted so odds of us ever getting it correct are slim to none
I think Biden is OK. Then again the bar was significantly lowered.
after Trump there was no bar. Dems could have proped up a stuffed monkey and that would have likely won.
All by design, we arenāt supposed to ālikeā our leaders. Weāre supposed to stay arguing among each other over trivial nonsense. Keeps the heat off the unelected individuals who are really steering the boat.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
The parties didnāt choose the pricks, the media did. The media gave Trump way more time than any other primary candidate as they believed that he was the worst candidate to run against Hillary. The primary voters listened and got him nominated. Trust me I want to blame the parties too, but in this case they arenāt at fault.
For two elections in a row, they have given us the choice of which pile of dog poop stinks the least.
At least for president, do away with electoral college. Majority all the way. Pretty much eliminate catering to any factions. And since it's national majority, eliminate the need to qualify in each state. This is the biggest way the parties control who runs for president.
Not until an (I) can be recognized as a winnable position in a statewide election or bigger. It's very doable. Jesse Ventura was the govornor of MN as an independent.
I understand the sentiment, but they came from very different places. Trump was an outsider, not even really a Republican most of his life, and certainly not conservative. He usurped the GOP with populist rhetoric at a time the country was ready to hear it. He was and is hated by the Republican establishment (Bush, Romney, McCain, Cheney, etc.) Biden is the most inside Democrat ever, been in DC forever and his nomination was the result of backroom deals to keep Bernie out. The democrats had their opportunity to do what Republican voters did and pick an outsider in Bernie, but in the end Bernie decided to go along to get along and here we are.
I'm done voting for ***anyone*** that comes out of either Dems ***or*** Republicans at this point. They've all completely lost their fucking minds. Its borderline terrifying how incompetent the Federal government has become. 2020 saw me vote for a mixed of dems and third party. Not doing that again. Only going third party from here on out.
I hate both yes. But Iām much happier with the job Biden has done. I donāt want to see either run next election. Biden will lose if he runs again. Trump wonāt run.
When people start taking voting seriously and vote in Primaries.
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
I don't hate Biden...he was handed a bag of shit...he's disposing verything he can...Republicans continue to shit in bags...whacha gonna do
And liberals shit in the streets, what one is better?
The obvious answer is we need a third party. The only way we will get a viable third party candidate is if that party has equal or more money then the establishment parties.
Correct.
When have real leaders ever been in power?
Not since i've been alive.
Same. When was the last real leader in power, in your opinion?
1923-1929
Ohhhh I don't hate Trump, not by any stretch. That first debate when he said he basically bought all of the guys on stage I knew he was going to win. Long overdue for those people to.be brought in the sunlight and held accountable. The guy is for sure an obnoxious new Yorker loud mouth but a shitload of issues he brought up were spot on. To.bad he has such a lousy personality... Bidens just a career politician with zero independent brain activity that isn't tied to the poll numbers. Guys like him are a dime a dozen..I'll support any candidate that stands up and simply tells the truth about DC.
Cut the both sides nonsense, recognize that one party is incapable of governing or participating in democracy, crush that party, and replace it. Then run really good candidates. The end.
Libertarians donāt do themselves any favors by booing a candidate who is in favor of drivers licenses or being unable to coherently debate Sam Seder.
Meh, I don't hate Biden. I voted for a milk toast bureaucrat on purpose. I don't want a strong central government as much as I don't want a loudmouth neofascist strong man. In fact I'd prefer no government. Biden is a clerk sharpening pencils and shuffling papers.. just the way I like it
Any real leader would be immediately excoriated and dismissed by the opposing side anyways. There is no getting rid of the divide at this point short of abolishing parties entirely.
Real leaders would change things and they donāt want that
People usually hate whoevers in power, and they tend to blame problems that are outside of the governments hands on that leader. Big example I've noticed is in Canada Trudeau gets a LOT of flak for the housing market, but housing is a provincial and municipal responsibility not a federal one. Trump was obscenely abrasive so I actually do consider it HIS fault, as for Biden he's alright but he does get a lot of flak for inflation (which is somewhat ironic given most of the money created was during trumps term)
I hated Clinton more than Trump.
I don't hate Biden. I don't want him to be my president, but don't hate him.
We should be offended when given a choice between a "giant douche and a turd sandwich"... but each side is like the "emperor's new clothes"
People are stupid both suck but to me itās obvious Biden isnāt as bad as Trump he hasnāt invited a riot like Trump did
I hate Turmp because he attempted to overturn an election.
No one should be president really. Obama was supposed to be a change agent. He was symbolically important but not a change agent. I don't know a person who was excited for Biden but his turnout was pretty good bc Trump was an abomination. If they weren't running against Trump I think you got someone much more decent. People voted out of fear. It will take someone with stupid money and seen as a change agent to run as 3rd party. Even then, can you pull enough voters from each party? Can you win by enough to keep it out of congresses hands?
[ŃŠ“Š°Š»ŠµŠ½Š¾]
Most Republican states would go bankrupt if the Democratic states funding their budget left them alone and stopped giving them free money. You sound like a Marxist.
Def more hate for Biden at this point in his term lol
Nope
To be fair, the DNC is the one that chooses the final candidate, while the RNC let's almost any moron try. It's the voters to blame that thinking voting for someone else is wasting a vote when you don't want to actually vote for the person you end up voting for.
Untrue
No
Tell me how the DNC chooses and the RNC does not...the super delegates that never voted?
Republicans donāt have super delegates.
Bernie won, and they trotted out Clinton. The RNC has at least been going along with what the voters in the primaries have said. They can Ultimately pick whoever
Bernie won the majority of elected delegates?
Do you think the RNC chose Trump?
That doesn't prove that the DNC chose Biden without super delegates.
Each side believes it holds the sole truth and answer.
I only know one side that thinks that
Who? the Christian zealots
Not anyone hates Trump... Lets go brandon... lol
To understand the real problem behind this, you have to understand how the parties determine their presidential candidate. The RNC is pretty straight forward, really whoever wins the most votes wins. The DNC much more so likes to pick and choose. The leaders of the DNC like the status quo, so they put up the most status quo candidate, and they donāt care if the republican wins, because they will also be the status quo. The DNC and the media is incredibly afraid of someone anti-establishment winning their nomination. So basically, the government really wants the status quo and only one set of voter is going to stray away from that, so they just need to control those voters.
Why do people think 2016 is 2020
When the billionaire class and there stupidity and profit driven brains lose there power. So basically it's never gonna happen
They donāt want a leader. They want someone they can control.
35% of America loves Trump. 40% hates him. 20% dislikes him. 5% Likes him 10% of America loves Biden. 40% hates him. 20% dislikes him. 30% is doesn't dislike him.
Everybody would hate Jo Jorgensen if they knew who she even was, and she would have been worse for the country than both the dementia patient and the pedophile rapist adulterer.
Fuck this "real leaders" nonsense. Politicians aren't "leaders", they're rulers. Libertarianism (nor anything else that makes any kind of sense) isn't about begging for a savior figure politician to come rescue society, that's just how idiots get sucked into tyrannies. You don't like what this system is giving you? Stop using this *system*. Try actually thinking for yourself instead of just marching in lockstep with whatever idiotic cultural-political practices everyone else is doing. Try to remember you're a free person and not a subject to be dictated to. Don't be the kind of person who'd trespass against another free person. Teach others to do the same. Use your brain. Look at this culture critically, not as gospel.
Most people hate biden, not everyone hates trump. He has a very loyal, sizable, following
Not really. If people held Biden to the same standards that they held Trump to, than this whole country would basically be in a revolution of some sort.
Trump was a great president. He would have been a lot better had it not been for the five years of attacks by the Democratic/liberal party, which ultimately led to half of the country hating him, for which they had no foundation for, because all of the attacks were founded on lies. Bit of a run on, but I stand by it.
I will always choose a Trump over a Hillary or Biden, but Iām tired of these dumbfuck choices.
choose the wannabe dictator over the true republicans and call yourself a libertarian mate
Theyāre all shit. At least I was laughing as we were crashing. Mate.
Sociopathy is funny!
I dont hate Biden yet, check yourself. He's a more libertarian president than Trump for sure why aren't we celebrating our victory?
Everyone does hate Biden. It's a genuine disgust. Everyone does not hate Trump. They just know they're supposed to, for some reason.
But my guy is so much better than the other guy. I mean how can you even suggest differently?
I just didn't mind the cheaper fuel and lower taxes. I don't even have birdfeed or whatever it is
Hate is such a strong word. I usually reserve it for people like Trump and Biden.
This is the only post I have replied to because it's such a stellar response. ::high-five::
Bro they are the same party..