The All Purpose Jill Stein Thread

[d4m10n]

If a vote for Stein is a vote for Trump, would a vote for Johnson be a vote for Clinton?

Yes.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

 

[TubbaBlubba]

So the person who gets the most votes wins, and Stein's system only changes who comes in 2nd place? That seems useless.

No, let's say you have Trump, Rubio and Cruz. The first-place vote distribution, is, say,
Trump: 46%
Cruz: 30%
Rubio: 24%

Nobody has an absolute majority, though Trump has a plurality. But let's say everyone who votes for Rubio prefers Cruz to Trump. To account for this, you eliminate the lowest candidate, Rubio, all his votes go to Cruz, so you get
Cruz: 54%
Trump: 46%

Now Cruz has an absolute majority and wins. You can of cf course distribute delegates or electors in all sorts of ways using this system (E.g. absolute majority winner takes all, or last two competitors share them proportionally) but either way, the system ensures that a vote for a third candidate does not disadvantage your preferred candidate among the other two.

The potential drawback is that you could end up with a winning candidate who very few people have as their first choice, but I think most would agree that a generally acceptable consensus candidate is preferrable to a polarizing figure with a core group of maniacal sycophants. E.g., you couls have a list of 5-6 candidates like this:

1.Trump
2. Cruz
3. Rubio
4. Christie
5. Kasich
6. Bush

Eliminate Bush, most votes to Kasich, so he edges past Christie...

1. Trump
2. Cruz
3. Rubio
4. Kasich
5. Christie
Eliminate Christie, same thing...

1. Trump
2. Cruz
3. Kasich
4. Rubio

and so on, and you could end up with 1. Kasich, 2. Trump.

 

[wareyin]

No, let's say you have Trump, Rubio and Cruz. The first-place vote distribution, is, say,
Trump: 46%
Cruz: 30%
Rubio: 24%

Nobody has an absolute majority, though Trump has a plurality. But let's say everyone who votes for Rubio prefers Cruz to Trump. To account for this, you eliminate the lowest candidate, Rubio, all his votes go to Cruz, so you get
Cruz: 54%
Trump: 46%

Now Cruz has an absolute majority and wins. You can of cf course distribute delegates or electors in all sorts of ways using this system (E.g. absolute majority winner takes all, or last two competitors share them proportionally) but either way, the system ensures that a vote for a third candidate does not disadvantage your preferred candidate among the other two.

The potential drawback is that you could end up with a winning candidate who very few people have as their first choice, but I think most would agree that a generally acceptable consensus candidate is preferrable to a polarizing figure with a core group of maniacal sycophants. E.g., you couls have a list of 5-6 candidates like this:

1.Trump
2. Cruz
3. Rubio
4. Christie
5. Kasich
6. Bush

Eliminate Bush, most votes to Kasich, so he edges past Christie...

1. Trump
2. Cruz
3. Rubio
4. Kasich
5. Christie
Eliminate Christie, same thing...

1. Trump
2. Cruz
3. Kasich
4. Rubio

and so on, and you could end up with 1. Kasich, 2. Trump.

Ah, so a system designed to increase the odds for a third party candidate, but not actually designed to be better for anyone else.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Ah, so a system designed to increase the odds of a third party candidate, but not actually designed to be better for anyone else.

Not quite. It's better for all candidates who appeal to the same voter camp as another candidate, typically the more moderate ones. It's worse for starkly polarizing candidates like Trump. The idea is that if a majority of voters hate Trump, that should be taken into account even if they don't all agree on one candidate as their first preference.

 

[stanfr]

Exactly. And in this highly divided land where divisiveness is the biggest threat to democracy, it could be a hopeful way to bring in someone who has a prayer of uniting people. Unfortunately, it seems the electorate loves the drama of polarized candidates. But I think that's partly because people are just so used to the two party system.

 

[wareyin]

It still looks like pokery-jiggery fiddling with the voting so that somehow the candidate who gets 5th place out of 6 becomes the winner, rather than a rational or beneficial way to elect the POTUS.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

It still looks like pokery-jiggery fiddling with the voting so that somehow the candidate who gets 5th place out of 6 becomes the winner, rather than a rational or beneficial way to elect the POTUS.

No, rather than selecting a candidate who is strongly preferred by a plurality but quite disliked by a majority it selects a candidate acceptable to or somewhat preferred by the majority.

If 30% really like Donald Trump and 70% hate him, do you really think of him as a "winner"?


There are other variants as well - e.g you could opt to consider only the top 2 or 3 candidates from the initial round, but I personally think that would not serve the purpose of the system in such a potentially large field (e.g. Cruz could end up in 2nd place and still be quite disliked).

 

[wareyin]

No, rather than selecting a candidate who is strongly preferred by a plurality but quite disliked by a majority it selects a candidate acceptable to or somewhat preferred by the majority.

If 30% really like Donald Trump and 70% hate him, do you really think of him as a "winner"?


There are other variants as well - e.g you could opt to consider only the top 2 or 3 candidates from the initial round, but I personally think that would not serve the purpose of the system in such a potentially large field (e.g. Cruz could end up in 2nd place and still be quite disliked).

Have you ever been around anyone over 60 when they are voting? There is already so much confusion for a large segment of our population when the choice is binary. I can't imagine the confusion when we have to rank candidates, especially when the general population barely knows the positions of 2 candidates, much less 6 or more. No, Stein's system may be beneficial in a primary where few vote, but it is fiddling with the electoral system in order to bias it in favor of unknown candidates, nothing more.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Have you ever been around anyone over 60 when they are voting? There is already so much confusion for a large segment of our population when the choice is binary. I can't imagine the confusion when we have to rank candidates, especially when the general population barely knows the positions of 2 candidates, much less 6 or more. No, Stein's system may be beneficial in a primary where few vote, but it is fiddling with the electoral system in order to bias it in favor of unknown candidates, nothing more.

Obviously such a system would allow people to select a first preference only. It's for those who want to vote for an "irrelevant" (techincal term) candidate without changing the outcome from what it would have been had that candidate not been in play.

 

[wareyin]

Obviously such a system would allow people to select a first preference only. It's for those who want to vote for an "irrelevant" (techincal term) candidate without changing the outcome from what it would have been had that candidate not been in play.

Then the outcome would be no different from the current outcome.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Then the outcome would be no different from the current outcome.

Yes it would, because some people prefer to vote for the candidate they support the most, even if it means increasing the chances of a candidate they dislike strongly.

Furthermore, some people who today choose to vote strategically, rather than for the candidate they support the most, can now give the candidate they support the most more prominence without changing the impact of their vote on the two top candidates.

 

[wareyin]

Yes it would, because some people prefer to vote for the candidate they support the most, even if it means increasing the chances of a candidate they dislike strongly.

Yes. See: the current system.

Furthermore, some people who today choose to vote strategically, rather than for the candidate they support the most, can now give the candidate they support the most more prominence without changing the impact of their vote on the two top candidates.

Again, the top 2 candidates will get the vast majority of the votes, as in the current system. Those few who have heard of, and desire to vote for one of the third party candidates will still be able to do so, just as in the current system. The only way this benefits anyone is if the majority of voters choose to rank the candidates, and they pick people they have never heard of over those they dislike;i.e. this system would be biased towards unknown candidates.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

Again, the top 2 candidates will get the vast majority of the votes, as in the current system. Those few who have heard of, and desire to vote for one of the third party candidates will still be able to do so, just as in the current system. The only way this benefits anyone is if the majority of voters choose to rank the candidates, and they pick people they have never heard of over those they dislike;i.e. this system would be biased towards unknown candidates.

No, because it will allow third-party candidates to rise to prominence, get federal funds for their party, etc, while the front-runners do not miss out.

 

[wareyin]

No, because it will allow third-party candidates to rise to prominence, get federal funds for their party, etc, while the front-runners do not miss out.

As I said, the system will be biased in favor of third party candidates. Candidates like Stein can come out of the woodwork every 4 years, have no national party, no coherent or well thought out platform, but be put in the same category as one of the front runners.

It would be far better for the Greens and Libertarians, as well as any other third party, to build a national party, have candidates for state offices, Senators, etc, with all of the exposure that brings, rather than by trying to rewrite the rules so that they can be taken seriously without putting forth the effort.

 

[TubbaBlubba]

As I said, the system will be biased in favor of third party candidates. Candidates like Stein can come out of the woodwork every 4 years, have no national party, no coherent or well thought out platform, but be put in the same category as one of the front runners.

It would be far better for the Greens and Libertarians, as well as any other third party, to build a national party, have candidates for state offices, Senators, etc, with all of the exposure that brings, rather than by trying to rewrite the rules so that they can be taken seriously without putting forth the effort.

It is literally impossible to build a working third party under the current voting system, bar the breakdown of one of the dominant two. What the change seeks to accomplish is to enable them to actually be able to do what you propose.

The reason they don't have all of those things you suggest is PRECISELY BECAUSE they can't establish a national presence when people can't even vote for them without enabling a candidate they may despise.

 

[Tony Stark]

It is literally impossible to build a working third party under the current voting system, bar the breakdown of one of the dominant two. What the change seeks to accomplish is to enable them to actually be able to do what you propose.

The reason they don't have all of those things you suggest is PRECISELY BECAUSE they can't establish a national presence when people can't even vote for them without enabling a candidate they may despise.

Agreed.

Changing the system would require a constitutional amendment. Never going to happen.

 

[lobosrul]

Agreed.

Changing the system would require a constitutional amendment. Never going to happen.

I don't think it would exactly. Each state can decide how they want to allocate their electors. I don't believe there is anything preventing a state from having an instate runoff or preferred candidate type ballot. Forcing every state in doing so would require an amendment, which ain't happening.

 

[wareyin]

It is literally impossible to build a working third party under the current voting system, bar the breakdown of one of the dominant two. What the change seeks to accomplish is to enable them to actually be able to do what you propose.

The reason they don't have all of those things you suggest is PRECISELY BECAUSE they can't establish a national presence when people can't even vote for them without enabling a candidate they may despise.

You appear to be claiming that people can't vote for a Green candidate for Governor, or a Libertarian candidate for Mayor because the system is preventing them from doing so, rather than because the Greens don't bother to run for Governor or Senator or dog-catcher. I disagree. Most of the time, people are not aware enough of the positions of their local Mayor (Senator, Governor, Dog-Catcher, etc) well enough to despise them, so Greens or Libertarians ought to be able to run for those positions. Get a few Green Governors in, and suddenly you have the beginnings of a real, nationwide party.

With today's technology, creating a national party is easier than ever, and we don't need to change the current voting system to give preferential treatment to those who don't put forth the effort to do so. Not least because if the Greens can't get enough people voting for them to have Green Party Dog-Catchers and Green Party State Senators, the Greens won't have enough votes to pass a sweeping change that only benefits their unknown Presidential candidate.

 

[ZirconBlue]

You appear to be claiming that people can't vote for a Green candidate for Governor, or a Libertarian candidate for Mayor because the system is preventing them from doing so, rather than because the Greens don't bother to run for Governor or Senator or dog-catcher. I disagree. Most of the time, people are not aware enough of the positions of their local Mayor (Senator, Governor, Dog-Catcher, etc) well enough to despise them, so Greens or Libertarians ought to be able to run for those positions. Get a few Green Governors in, and suddenly you have the beginnings of a real, nationwide party.

With today's technology, creating a national party is easier than ever, and we don't need to change the current voting system to give preferential treatment to those who don't put forth the effort to do so. Not least because if the Greens can't get enough people voting for them to have Green Party Dog-Catchers and Green Party State Senators, the Greens won't have enough votes to pass a sweeping change that only benefits their unknown Presidential candidate.

I don't pay much attention to the Green Party, but I do see Libertarian candidates on the ballot fairly often. For example.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

You claimed she was employing "bad science"
Where is you evidence of that? How do any of your accusations here demonstrate "bad science"??
And while you're at it, perhaps you can demonstrate how religious beliefs constitute "good science"--since apparently you feel her agnosticism is irrelevant.

Yes, it is bad science to make statements about the science of vaccine recommendations that are based on conspiracy theories. It is bad science to lump all the thousands of dedicated public health and medical researchers in with corporate profiteers. It is bad science to seriously consider a bunch of claims about vaccines from people who have little or no expertise.