One House Democrat said he spoke for others in the wake of the president’s stunningly feeble debate performance on Thursday: “The movement to convince Biden to not run is real.”
The House member, an outspoken defender of the president, said that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries and Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer should consider “a combined effort” to nudge President Joe Biden out of the race.
Crestfallen by the president’s weak voice, pallid appearance and meandering answers, numerous Democratic officials said Biden’s bet on an early debate to rebut unceasing questions about his age had not only backfired but done damage that may prove irreversible. The president had, in the first 30 minutes of the debate, fully affirmed doubts about his fitness.
A second House Democrat said “reflection is needed” from Biden about the way ahead and indicated the private text threads among lawmakers were even more dire, with some saying outright that the president needed to drop out of the race.
Maybe one of these people? Not that I like them, but they are not trump, have a chance, and are not on their deathbed.
- Gretchen Whitmer
- Pete buttigieg
- Jamaal Bowman
I’m convinced Whitmer refused the first time because she didn’t want to suck the DNC’s requirements so that they’d choose her as the preferred candidate in their sham primary.
I’d take a Whitmer-Buttigieg ticket in a millisecond.
That has a nice ring to it. You’re on to something here.
Gretchen is such a wonderful person, too. I used to deliver groceries to her and her family. She just used an app with the username Gretchen W. She always helped me get the groceries from my car and into the kitchen if she was home.
Her daughters were also extremely polite and willing to help.
Maybe we should’ve had a real primary with debates and interviews and stuff =(
We need an America 2 where we can apply all the lessons we’ve learned, like primary every election and judges that can be recalled easier for corruption.
I am right now drafting a message to send to the White House contact form advocating for just this. Will do nothing most likely, but it’s my drop in the ocean.
“reflection is needed”
I hate being pessimistic, but they’re gonna drag out “reflecting” for so long that they will lose the election.
if our elected officials are actually serious, they better act quickly on this because yesterday was extremely embarrassing. time will tell.
Biden’s big problem in the debate was that, for a few moments, he mumbled a confused answer that sounded like Donald Trump.
That’s a pretty fatal mistake when your average person is only gonna watch a 10 second clip of the debate.
That’s it for me. I’m not voting for anyone who sounds confused for 10 seconds. Unless maybe they ran against someone who sounds confused for 10 years, but only in that circumstance.
It was a no-win situation. The DNC gave in - once again - to their republican-lite mindset of ‘capturing undecided voters’ and agreed to get socked in the face , twice, for absolutely no gain and everything to lose.
DNC consultants have always been morons, but now they’re morons-from-the-90s who still don’t understand what’s changed.
Having a presidential election without debates would have been a big step back and loss for American democracy.
We shouldn’t champion erosion of democratic institutions when it helps our side of the ticket.
And generally, if eroding democratic institutions helps your ticket, it’s a red flag about your ticket.
Having “debates” be this ridiculous mud-wrestling that only benefits trump or another conman is the big step back and the loss to democracy.
They are apparently unable to create a forum in which a position can be taken and defended with facts and reason. UNABLE. Because the republiQans are fielding a demented sociopath and a compulsive liar.
The format is beyond broken, and there isn’t a way to fix it when one party has no intention - never had any intention to follow the rules, or decorum, or common decent behavior.
We found that out eight years ago. I can’t believe they walked right into it again.
Literally any half competent debater could have torn Trump apart up there.
The failure wasn’t the moderators but the opposition candidate to Trump letting him run hog wild.
If Trump claims he’s going to end the war in Ukraine before even taking office, you point out how absurd that claim is and that Trump makes impossible claims without any substance or knowledge of diplomacy. That the images of him photoshopped as Rambo must have gone to his head if he thinks Putin will be so scared of him to give up.
If he says hostages will be released as soon as he’s nominated, you point out it sounds like maybe there’s been a backroom tit-for-tat deal for a hostage release with a hostile foreign nation, and ask if maybe the intelligence agencies should look into that and what he might have been willing to trade for it.
The moderators have to try to keep the appearance of neutrality, but the candidates do not. And the only reason Trump was so successful in spouting BS and getting away with it was because his opposition had the strength of a wet paper towel.
Literally any half competent debater could have torn Trump apart up there.
He’s “debated” a large number of half-competent people in primaries and post-convention. Which one tore him apart? Examples please.
The failure wasn’t the moderators but the opposition candidate to Trump letting him run hog wild.
While the visual of hog-tying trump by a cowboy-hatted Biden is fun, it’s simply not his job to chase the gish. That’s why trumps insane rambling works; it’s not possible to practically address each batshit claim or outright lie. It’s just not. Biden’s already got the job of presenting and defending his own platform.
It is absolutely the moderators’ job to check him and a failure to do so means not only that it’s wide open Crime Time for trump but that the proceedings themselves lend authority to his lies.
The moderators have to try to keep the appearance of neutrality, but the candidates do not.
The appearance of neutrality? As opposed to just neutrality? Okay, well either way, again - no. The moderators have to acknowlege reality and remind the shit-talkers that they can’t say what they just said because it’s bullshit. And once again, they can’t do that with trump because he’s a compulsive liar who is incapable of acknowledging anything but his own reality.
And the only reason Trump was so successful in spouting BS and getting away with it was because his opposition had the strength of a wet paper towel.
Spouting BS and getting away with it is the entirety of what trump does. He’s not an authority on anything, he can’t function as any sort of manager without a stadium’s worth of assistance, and - really, hear me now - he is utterly. incapable. of not lying.
Nothing will stop him from trying to babble nonsense and if the moderators, effectively the referees, the arbitrators, refuse to hold him to any standard, there’s no other outcome than to watch helplessly at his idiot spewhole as it disgorges lie after lie after lie.
Biden blew it, yes, but if you think there was something to be gained by engaging with trump, i encourage you to consider the simple fact that trump is not able to acknowledge truth if it does not directly benefit him, and any attempt to do so will be met with more lies, more vitriol, and no one will succeed.
It’s unconscionable that anyone at this late date would even consider that even a remote possibility.
He does this shit consistently and has been for a couple years. It wasn’t one fucking answer in the debate. Christ. We are so fucked.
The problem is that there was no live fact checking. Wtf can you do against a constant Gish Gallop of blatant lies? Even if they drugged him, I’m not sure what he could’ve done with that debate format.
Bidens about to go down as one of the worst Democrats in the last century because of his hubris if he doesn’t. His decent domestic agenda will be overshadowed by him ushering in another trump presidency by ignoring all the signs for him to drop out. He didn’t early last year when polls repeatedly showed that people thought he was too old. He didn’t when unnamed democrat was leading him by 10 points. He didn’t when his Gaza policy alienated large chunks of his base. If he doesn’t in the next couple weeks when there will probably be polls coming out showing majority support for him stepping down then he’s gone full head in the sand.
It’s like RBG all over again, if these people could just get it through there heads to quit while there ahead they could preserve a decent legacy, instead of tarnishing it by leading the way to a regressive order that overturns everything they’ve done.
It’s like RBG all over again, if these people could just get it through there heads to quit while there ahead they could preserve a decent legacy, instead of tarnishing it by leading the way to a regressive order that overturns everything they’ve done.
This is one of the core problems of the Democrats: hubris. When Obama had a majority in the House and Senate, he could have easily pushed through a Supreme Court appointee to replace RBG. But she wouldn’t go. Because in her mind, there was no one qualified to fill her shoes. She was convinced that she was the GOAT and that to voluntarily step down when it was safe to do so would be an insult. This is coupled with the fact that Democrats were absolutely, completely certain that they would win every election for the presidency after Obama without trying and that the “coalition of the ascendant” would easily put Hillary into the White House, and then she could be the first female president in US history and have an easy PR win by replacing an aging female supreme court justice.
I’m willing to bet we have the the same problem here, but in one person: Biden probably thinks the Democrats could never field anyone for president better than him and that his victory is a lock without any real effort to campaign for it again.
Fun fact: the last time anything like this happened it was with Grover Cleveland. Cleveland was the 22nd president of the United States who lost his re-election bid the first time around, and then got re-elected to be the 24th president of the United States. We are officially in the second Gilded Age.
But we’re already past the primary period… Are we suggesting having a quick partner anyway? Who should we put in his place? I haven’t heard a single suggestion for who else to elect. Are we saying Harris should step in? Who should she run with?
Newsom; Whitmer; Pritzker; Buttigieg; Shapiro; Khanna; Klobuchar; Walz; Booker.
I even saw someone mention Wes Moore and I was reminded that he’s a pretty good moderate governor of Maryland now instead of “only” a West Point graduate and author.
Pritzker is the only name on there with the chops for it. Maybe Walz, but he is DFL so I can’t see the DNC even looking at him.
No mention anywhere of Warren… Did she fail too hard in the primaries?
Gosh I’d love to see her debate Trump. He would never agree to it though, as she’d rip him to logical pieces.
No, in an election where age would be a larger issue than it already is I’m assuming anyone who would hit 80 in office is a non starter.
We need to be training up some younglings.
Wow, you’re right, I didn’t realize she was that old.
Well, half of those were people who ran against Biden, so that makes sense.
I remember being impressed with Klobuchar, and incredibly impressed with Buttigieg (though sadly he’d lose a lot of the religious vote, sigh). I wish I liked Booker more… But yeah there are some acceptable options there, that’s a relief.
So yeah, lightning primary?
quit while
therethey’re aheadif these people could just get it through
theretheir heads to quit whiletherethey’re aheadFuck me that’s just fucking laziness innit?
Dont worry the DNC will find a way to blame Bernie for it
And lemmings and redditors will blame progressives for it.
it wouldn’t be an issue if people didn’t keep saying it
Which is just like ignoring/not testing for covid and calling it over
I don’t blame people for wanting to distance from the topic. The problem with Biden isn’t his ability to lead and govern. It’s his image. Talking about it directly hurts his image. BUT it’s still a discussion that needs to be had.
It would be like Covid if talking about Covid also made it worse.
I’m going to blame the people that have been trying to gaslight everyone into thinking that Biden was fine.
He was fine. He has never sounded like this before. Just look at the State of the Union for what people were expecting.
This was him being unprepared and trying to remember statistics from 3 and a half years of accomplishments, with a cold, while running a country, while being 81. It reminded me of some bad interviews I’ve been in, honestly.
Bullshit homie, he sounds like this all the time, it’s just progressing faster. They made up a new term to cover it up a few weeks ago and then grampa ran off in his bathrobe and CNN had to call some silver alerts.
For all the people that talked about how horrible cnn has been to Biden, they were cutting him off to help him. Look back on his ‘gaffes’. They’ve been bad for a long time.
I literally don’t know what you’re talking about with bathrobes and silver alerts. What are you smoking?
Never work or live near an old folk’s home?
It’s too late for this kind of thinking. We can’t change horses mid stream
Biden will lose against Trump. Changing candidates this late isn’t ideal but it’s better than guaranteed failure, and it’s better than after the convention if Biden deteroriates from where’s currently at.
I’m not worried about him “deteriorating”. Anyone who has paid attention to him at all knows that was not reflective of his actual ability to lead. Hell, right after he sounded fine at the after party for anyone still listening.
I’m only worried about people thinking he’s deteriorating. A lot of people have literally only seen that debate from him in the last year and nothing else.
If we stay with Biden, he needs to get really aggressive with his image. Hang out with influencers, go to games, don’t talk about controversial politics while having fun (like with the ice cream).
If we go a different direction it needs to happen now.
I really don’t care which we do. But it’s an important conversation to have. This debate fiasco is 99% on Biden being unprepared. But image is everything for a candidate.
I thought that, but after last night, I wouldn’t let Biden cook in my kitchen without supervision.
Don’t look up!
Stay the course
It’s not too late now, but it’s absolutely too late in October when Biden needs to appear multiple times per day and across about 5 states. If he can’t do that, then he should step down now.
We can change horses if there’s overwhelming pressure to do it and it’s exceptionally well planned.
What we absolutely can’t do is nominate someone else against Biden’s wishes and still have him on the ballot as an independent… that’s how you get folks like Woodrow Wilson.
I, personally, think it’s doubtful that much pressure will materialize, but I’m prepared to be pleasantly surprised.
Meh. Planning be damned. Just float someone under 60 and they’ll crush it.
I see the down votes, but I took this as a Wag the Dog reference. They’re pointing out just how terrible an idea it is for Biden and the democrats to keep trying to sleepwalk through this election while Trump and the republicans pull out all the rhetorical stops.
I disagree. I actually think you’d see a boost.
-
Acknowledging age concerns of the electorate = good.
-
Running someone fresh that appeals to this American Idol-esque popularity contest = good.
-
Running someone Republicans don’t have their talking-points fleshed out on = good.
Running someone fresh that appeals to this American Idol-esque popularity contest = good.
What if no such person exists?
Then you just lose and Trump becomes President by default. Do you have confidence that Democrats can rally behind an actually named person? And if so, what is the name of that person?
I’m no Democrat. But I wouldn’t consider “replacing Biden by somebody” to be a serious option. You need to say “Replace Biden by SPECIFIC NAME HERE”. Otherwise you’re just throwing away the election before it even begins.
Are you asking that because you believe nobody is lining up wanting to be President, or that there is no candidate who fits that bill? Because I can think of half a dozen who both fit the bill and have obvious political ambitions:
- Whitmer
- Newsom
- Buttigieg
- Booker
- Abrams
- Warnock.
All far more youthful; all far more charismatic. All who have enough national name recognition and would trounce Trump in debates and contrast of age alone.
The question to me isn’t, “who else,” it’s, “Will Biden voluntarily step down and endorse such a person at the convention?”
The polls prove this could work:nobody likes either candidate, people want new faces, and age is a problem. Just give them another choice on the Democratic ticket and it’s game-over for the convicted felon. If I could I’d be money this gives better odds than sticking it out with Biden.
I’m not into Democrats, so I honestly don’t know half the people on that list.
Newsom needs to start resigning today to make the election. I think he’s off on technical grounds. And others have pointed out that he’s lower than Trump on a lot of polls. Buttigieg is homosexual and sad to say it, homophobia is on the rise. After the party’s experimentation with Hillary Clinton / Kamala I’m not sure that its a winning strategy. I know middle-aged white guy WASP is annoying, but its a trope for a reason.
In all cases, Trump will deny the other pick as a “loser” and refuse to debate. You’ll be going into the election without ever getting on National stage. Its a huge set of risks.
I’m not necessarily against it. But I also don’t think Biden’s performance was worse than Trump’s last night. A lot of this seems to be just Democrats getting nervous about themselves and their own choices.
Whitmer
I see she’s getting some press. I wouldn’t be against her, but I also don’t know much about her in general. Can she hold up against the Republican hate machine? We all know that Hillary couldn’t do it, so what makes Whitmer any better or more prepared?
Biden did hold up vs Trump. Better or worse, he did prove himself. I recognize that people are worried about “newer, older Biden”. But there’s severe risks in switching a candidate now, especially as vetting likely hasn’t been completed by either side yet. (Democrats need to vet to figure out how Republicans are going to attack her). Its a complete mystery.
You have to understand that the average American functions off of lizard brain impulses. It would be probably go like this:
Acknowledging age concerns of the electorate = show of weakness.
Running someone fresh that appeals to this American Idol-esque popularity contest = show of weakness.
Running someone Republicans don’t have their talking-points fleshed out on = show of weakness.
America operates on principles of running someone strong who says they will always be strong and that if they ever become weak while in office and they acknowledge this to be replaced, the entire party goes with them like a tug boat latched to a sinking oil tanker. Trump didn’t win because he’s smart or a decent human being. He won because he exudes baseless confidence like a broken nuclear reactor exudes gamma radiation.
You know I agree with much of what you say here. All I’ll say is that while there’s uncertainty in the outcome of this route, I’m convinced there is certainty at this point that Joe Biden will lose. Why? Because there is all there is to know about Joe Biden. Call it media saturation; diminishing returns… There is fundamentally nothing Joe Biden can do or say that people don’t already know and now their minds are pretty much made up. The desperation-play of even asking for that debate shows the Biden campaign knows how bad of a position they’re in… And it of course backfired tremendously.
So at this point, I view it as uncertainty versus a known loss.
And in that respect, I’m looking at this alternate path as appealing to those lizard-brain American Idol-watching popularity-contest voters. If we could distill election cycles down to a handful of things, chief among them would be “People Vote for the more interesting candidate” and “People vote for the fresher face” – Within the backdrop of age being a huge issue for >70% of American voters when polled, that rings even more truthful now.
So personally, I say we take the chance.
Me too. I think you could change to more or less anyone and get a bump.
It really seems as though the populace is extraordinarily weary of these two tired old assholes.
Anyone under 60 would mop the floor with Trump’s toupee.
-
You have to, if your horse literally can’t make it across. It may not go well, but you have no choice.
Okay enjoy drowning I guess.
If your horse is on death’s door. And you’re crossing a stream. You’d better be prepared to swim.
It’s too late. They should have listened when we all said that before. But MMW, if they switch now they’ll not win in November. Stay the course and there’s a squeak of a chance.
Here’s the thing, if they push Biden out and pick Harris, she can’t beat Trump.
If they push Biden out and DONT pick Harris they’re literally telling the public that this presidency is not legitimate.
If they push Biden out and DONT pick Harris they’re literally telling the public that this presidency is not legitimate.
The rest of your post makes sense, but if they choose a new person to run they aren’t admitting that this presidency is not legitimate. How the fuck do you even get yourself to this point? And how does this nonsense even have any upvotes?
Because the DNC would be literally saying neither are competent to do the job.
Okay you know what? That’s it, elections are cancelled until morale improves
You joke, but that’s exactly the next step trump will take if elected to secure “president for life” for the federalist society.
Ah did he do that while being president? I didn’t knew Biden was secretly a trump clone
Not gonna happen. Also, the debate won’t make any difference. People made up their minds a long time ago on Biden vs Trump they are clearly not budging no matter what happens with the candidates. Only if they fall over dead will they be replaced.
The election will come down to like 2000 voters in some swing states. Even if 1% of people in those states changed their minds it could swing the election.
Don’t expect retards to accept this. They’ll just huff their fucking copium as if Thursday didn’t happen.
Clearly the blue team fans will simply abandon their team going into the superbowl.
The conspiracy theorists all say Joe is supposed to step down and Gavin Newsom somehow is added to the ticket which then will win. These conspiracy theorists also say that candidates are selected in advance by the powers that be and it’s all pagentry to deceive the gullible masses. If this is true, then Joe needs no convincing and this is already decided.
I’d be cool with that
I’d like to know what you’re talking so I never take it.
I just had a soda and a vegan burger. So… I guess eat meat and avoid high fructose corn syrup? 🫤
Phew, I ate a beyond burger earlier and I’m still cogent and coherent. Guess it’s the corn syrup, just like my dad warned me.
I don’t believe this conspiracy theory (or.not believe it), I am just saying it exists. But yes, without the corn syrup, I would probably be a better and sexier person.
Then why parrot chafe into the conversation at all?
I am adding it for posterity in case it does happen. I don’t believe or disbelieve this, but I have seem “conspiracy theories” proven true later and sometimes it’s like people forget the “crazy” people mentioned the truth months or years prior. I want this here so that if proven true, the word “misinformation” will start to be viewed skeptically as the Ministry of Truth word that it is, divorced from science and discourse.
Adding distracting points into the public discourse when people are seeking clarity doesn’t seem like a noble goal.
What do you get out of it at the end, the ability to say “told you so”?
What if Kamala does step in due to the very real odds of a medical issue happening, then shall we start believing conspiracy theorists on other points?
My point remains the same, you’re occluding understanding of the situation, both currently and in the future, and I don’t like that.
The conspiracy theorists all say
He pretty clearly stated that it was the conspiracy nuts in his first comment.
Poor fella. Read my question again, but this time try to think about it.
Oh God, Gavin Newsom ruined SF, which gave him the credentials to ruin California. Now it gives him the credentials to ruin the country?
Remember when a huge coalition of people wanted RBG to retire? And then she didn’t, and those people took it as courage or some such other virtue?
There’s a herd mentality that often overrides practical thinking, along with the desire not to offend.
I think for RBG she had worked so hard to get there as a woman, and she probably felt like men don’t retire from the role just to please political concerns so why should she? Could she see the mess the country is in, she would have retired.
Her lack of oversight is one of the only things many of us will ever remember her for. She set all women back 50 years by not stepping down. That’s part of her legacy now, and it always will be.
Her decision is a lesson for all those who will listen. We need to stop gambling with the future of our country. The best decision for everyone always needs to be put forward, and even the best people need to step down, if needed, to preserve and secure progress.
It’s true. Her stubbornness leading to a conservative supermajority is what her legacy is now, instead of her trailblazing. Maybe one day when trans people aren’t considered fourth class citizens and we live in a better world, people will go back to remembering her trailblazing. She made a terrible gamble due to a lack of fear, and it was selfish or naive.
Fucking hate when you get “too old” out of people for one side but not the other.
All these fossils should have been sent to the farm years ago.
Max age for starting a term should be 70. In most places you can’t be in control of a car without regular tests when you reach that age, yet you can be in control of the largest nuclear arsenal on Earth if you can still tell the difference between a cow and a horse.
I only remember people being so pissed that she didn’t, they celebrated when she died. I don’t remember anyone who wanted her to step down calling it ‘courageous’ when she didn’t.
Isn’t it legally too late regardless? Don’t they have to have their application and fee in by a certain date?
Nope, he’s not the official nominee until after the convention. Still not gonna happen, but technically could.
Legally the party can do whatever they want: https://observer.com/2017/08/court-admits-dnc-and-debbie-wasserman-schulz-rigged-primaries-against-sanders/
The court affirmed that the DNC and Debbie Wasserman Schultz held a palpable bias in favor Hillary Clinton.
Wow, what a garbage site that grossly misrepresents what the judge said (and then went on to contradict this in the article). The judge didn’t ‘affirm’ their claims of bias, but just assumed they were true because whether or not they are true makes no difference to the ruling, as they basically claimed it was the wrong place for the suit. They even explain later on that assuming the plaintiffs claims are true is a common practice when dismissing a case.
They should force Hillary on us again.
It’s far too late for that, jackasses.
We need ranked choice voting, and this 2 party system is complete bullshit and needs to go. Obviously, neither will happen, but it should.
Okay. Go convince the Republicans who control over half the states to switched to rank choice voting.
I think we’ll first have to convince the Democratic leadership since they’re about as equally interested in changing things. Both parties want to maintain the status quo because it keeps them both in power.
Funny how people elected under the two party system aren’t super motivated to change it.
This is why it has to come from the bottom up. All of the people saying “im sitting out of this election” or “i’m voting third party” are just acting in vain. It’s all vanity as they want to pretend they are doing something while not actually doing anything. If you want this system to change, you have to go out in local elections and push for people who will change it to ranked/star voting, and then have that move up. Then you have people who have won under those conditions voting for it, which makes it a ton more likely.
Just changing the voting system by itself won’t get rid of the two party system, we also need proportional representation. I much prefer Approval Voting and Sequential Proportional Approval Voting because the results are as good, if not better than RCV, they’re easier for the individual to understand, and it’s impossible to submit an invalid ballot using either method. Plus RCV doesn’t actually change the winner the vast majority of the time. Fargo and St. Louis both use approval voting and folks there appreciate being able to vote for everyone they like and know that their full ballot will always be counted.
RCV will end the two party system. France uses runoff and they have more than two parties
That said, I’m partial to the systems in Sweden and Germany, plenty of options to choose from.
-
RCV and two-round runoff are very different in practice because the two round system encourages strategic voting, has a higher potential for spoilers (RCV has them too), and has an intermediate time where the advancing candidates have to fight over all the voters who didn’t pick them in the first round, which is meaningfully different from when they were a part of the pack.
-
France has some amount of proportional representation at the local level.
-
They’re not starting from an entrenched two party system.
-
They’re honestly simply one of the big exceptions, it’s fairly well-established that single-winner methods tend towards two parties pretty much no matter what you do. Typically when you see more than two parties at the national level, it’s because there are regional pockets where only two parties are competitive, but it’s not always the same two parties. I’m not familiar with the details about the French political situation, but yeah, they’ve got a very unusual number of parties for a single-winner dominated structure. Compare them with Australia, who have proportional representation at the national level, and it should be pretty clear they’re just plain exceptional. If you need more evidence, Texas, Mississippi, and Georgia already use a two round system for their legislatures but they still have a two party system.
I dunno how much you know about representation and voting systems, but the wiki article on two round systems is pretty good.
Ah that makes sense. I guess any time you elect a single person, it ends up being a binary choice. Here in Sweden we have parliamentary PR, but the parties are divided into a social-liberal block and a conservative block, so voting for a party is either a vote for the socialdemokrat prime minister or the moderat prime minister.
Pretty much any power structure is going to coalesce into the “ruling” group and the “opposition” group, because doing so is strategically advantageous. But, proportional representation ensures that those two groups are made up of sub-groups that have to negotiate within themselves and can even threaten to change sides. Compared with an entrenched two party system, you end up with much a more reasonable government.
-
Sounds nice and fair. Also won’t ever happen. Our options will always be giant douche or turd sandwich.
You start from the bottom and work your way up. Switch your local elections to approval with a referendum campaign, and by the time you get up to the state level you’ll have people in office who have already proven they can win under approval. I’m serious. You should run a referendum campaign.
Lol, my state, county, and city are so deep red that there’s no chance. Most local primaries, there’s not even a democrat on the ballots. My options are to write in my favorite fictional characters or vote for the least shitbag republicans. My votes are quite literally a waste.
Just changing the voting system by itself won’t get rid of the two party system
Not immediately, but it is a necessary condition. A third party really can’t exist without ranked choice voting. If allows for a third party candidate to run without pissing everybody off.
There are lots of voting systems that make third parties less damaging to major parties. Approval, RCV, STAR, Score, to name a few. Approval is a better choice because it’s much easier to use and explain to people (RCV disenfranchises minorities, poor people, and under educated voters), while generally agreeing with RCV on the results. Plus, it’s much easier to expand to proportional representation, when we get there.
We’re not trying to force a change in winners though. The elections below president are far more dynamic and the people elected usually win for a reason beyond FPTP.
But also, any kind of proportional representation requires a constitutional amendment. RCV can be installed with a state legislature making a 2 sentence bill.
That linked data is collected from local American races. The winner is overwhelmingly the person who won the first round, which is the only round the majority of the time. When people claim RCV will break the two party system they are trying to claim it will change the winners. The evidence largely shows that no voting system can take a single-winner duopoly and break it.
Any new voting system would require only a simple bill from the legislature. “Ballots instructions for every election at every level shall direct voters to select any number of candidates. The candidates with the most votes wins their respective election.”
Proportional representation specifically refers to how parties divide the available seats in a parliamentary body. Not how you cast your vote.
RCV allows for changes that FPTP doesn’t but that has never meant this would be shaken up right away. Mostly it’s a way to avoid vote splitting. So you can run a progressive, moderate, conservative, and an alt right candidate without the traditional alliances worrying about vote splitting.
Proportional representation specifically refers to how parties divide the available seats
I apologize for not addressing that, but I didn’t think it required expanding on. Yes, that’s correct. I feel the preferred proportional method is Sequential Proportional Approval Voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sequential_proportional_approval_voting)
RCV doesn’t eliminate vote splitting, it only mitigates it. If two candidates have similar support in a non-final round, one can act as a spoiler for the other. The problem is that it’s harder to understand and FairVote used to lie about it, so a lot of people think it’s not a problem. The Alaska special election from a few years back is an example of a spoiler election. If Palin hadn’t run (or fewer Palin voters voted) the other Republican would have won. If you want to completely eliminate vote splitting you have to move to a cardinal voting](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rated_voting?wprov=sfla1) method that satisfies the independence of irrelevant alternatives criterion, which is most of them, including approval voting.
SPAV is specifically constructed to work with proportional representation. It iterates until all seats are filled. But in the US, by Constitutional law, it’s one seat per geographical district.
About RCV though it’s still head and shoulders above FPTP, and easy to understand. About Alaska specifically, I don’t understand why you would call the party backed candidate who got more votes a spoiler?
Palin lost in the second round because roughly half of Begich’s voters did not want Palin. If the less popular Republican candidate wasn’t in the race then Peltola still wins. This was a case of RCV working exactly as advertised. A traditional party primary would have nominated Palin, not Begich, and she would have lost anyways.
SPAV is specifically constructed to work with proportional representation. It iterates until all seats are filled.
Yes, that’s how it works. The first round is functionally identical to regular approval which is why I like using the two. Approval for single-winner, SPAV for multi-winner.
But in the US, by Constitutional law, it’s one seat per geographical district.
I’m pretty sure it’s just federal law, but I would have to double check. Not like Congress would change it anyway.
A traditional party primary would have nominated Palin, not Begich, and she would have lost anyways.
That’s pure speculation. But using the voting data from the general, we Begich was preferred to both Palin and Peltola in head-to-head matchups. Palin pulled enough votes from Begich to eliminate him in the first round and he lost to Peltola in the second. If Palin hadn’t run Begich would have won.
You can read more about it from the linked sources here.
Here’s the most relevant section:
Some social choice and election scientists criticized the election in published opinion pieces, saying it had several perceived flaws, which they technically term pathologies. They cited Begich’s elimination as an example of a center squeeze, a scenario in which the candidate closest to the center of public opinion is eliminated due to failing to receive enough first choice votes. More voters ranked Begich above Peltola, but Palin played the role of spoiler by knocking Begich out of contention in the first round of the run-off. Specialists also said the election was notable as a negative vote weight event, as those who voted for Palin first and Begich second instead helped Peltola win by pushing Palin ahead of Begich in the first round.
Elections scientists were careful to note that such flaws (which in technical terms they call pathologies) likely would have occurred under Alaska’s previous primary system as well. In that binary system, winners of each party primary run against each other in the general election. Several suggested alternative systems that could replace either of these systems.
You have to be careful analysing RCV results, because people tend to only look at what the election did, and fail to look at what it didn’t do. One of the good things about RCV is that it collects a fair bit of information, but then it usually ignores a fair bit of it. When trying to understand whether a candidate was a spoiler or not, you have to ask what would have happened if they didn’t run at all, which requires considering collected information the “unaltered” election didn’t take into account. If removing them from the election changes the winner of the race, then they were a spoiler. We know that removing Palin would have resulted in a Begich win over Peltola, so that makes Palin a spoiler. She’s a losing candidate that changed the winner of the race simply by entering, assuming voter preferences are stable.
Really what needs to happen is removing the 100 year old cap on the size of the house. 800 reps would drastically change both presidential elections and representation of people in general. Using 800 reps puts California at 96 members to Wyoming still having 1.
Honestly I’d go further, let’s get a round thousand and hook it to a ratio. Obliterating the ability to buy house races will result in better high level candidates and better low level representation. I’d say let’s do the full ten thousand if I thought people would for it.
This is how Bernie can still win! /s
In the off chance they do replace him, they’re going to force the worst possible candidate on us (Kamala?). Because what else are you going to do, let the bad guy win?
It would be newsom
Jesus fuck no. He’s basically Hillary 2.0
and joe biden isnt? lateral move
Not worth the risk to lose his governorship for a shot in the dark. I don’t know why the Democrat Party hasn’t been building alternatives for the last 4 years. Hell, I only recall seeing Harris when she was yelling at poor immigrants to stay away. They failed this country.
Newsome would have to resign as Governor and I’m not sure he wants to do that for a long shot presidential campaign.
Newsome polls very poorly against Trump and he also isn’t very popular in his home state as Governor.
At that level, Kamala is hated by her home state as well.
It feels like he’s inevitable at this point. 🙁
I really hope not. He is as corpo as it gets, shielding PGE from actual consequences.
Why would Kamala be the worst candidate?
Running Kamala would be making the same mistake they made back in 2016. She is polarizing, and extremely unlikeable. Anyone that worked with her or her department when she was in law in CA has nothing but bad things to say about her.
Running Kamala would be giving Trump a second term.
She’s not worse than Biden but not great. He should have chosen Stacey Abrams.
She seems vague and even incoherent a lot of the time, I’m not so sure she’s better.
Stacey or Kamala?
Kamala
Yeah hard sell on the whiney voice too
I think Tammy Duckworth would’ve been a good choice.
She would have been such a great choice. Completely unassailable from all sides and sharp as a tack.
Her history as a prosecutor in California makes her significantly worse. She’s personally locked up a lot of POC for drug possession.
Everyone hates her for very good reasons.
There is a reason California didn’t vote for her.
Why do people just go on the internet and tell lies like this? California elected her attorney general for 8 years and senator once.
They might be talking about her primary run for President specifically, but she had dropped out way before then I’m pretty sure. That is, I am not sure if California even had a chance to vote for her. It’s one of the parts that suck about US primaries and being in a late state. Sometimes you don’t even get a chance to vote for the person you wanted to vote for before they drop out.
What are those very good reasons? I really don’t know.
Her background is as a “tough on crime” (read: shitty on civil rights) prosecuting attorney.
She’s not white and female, those reasons alone mean she’s lost over a quarter of the nation.
A bland and unprincipled candidate whose positions shift based on polling numbers. Not to mention her prosecutorial background and close proximity to SF corruption scandals makes her an easy target.
