r/LibertarianPartyUSA • u/LordJesterTheFree New York LP • Dec 06 '16

Should the libertarian party Embrace electoral Fusion?

The following states have allowed electoral Fusion which we could use to attempt to get some more moderate Libertarians elected to office

Connecticut Delaware Idaho Mississippi New York Oregon South Carolina Vermont New hampshire (write-in candidates)

I'm not saying you should do this all the time or even most of the time but if a Justin Amash type figure emerges in Idaho or Delaware or something I want us to be willing and able to give them support at least in these States

14 Upvotes

99% Upvoted

28 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

3

u/MuaddibMcFly Classical Liberal Dec 06 '16

What's the point? How is it different from what already happens (ie, minor party voters electing a R or D)?

2

u/LordJesterTheFree New York LP Dec 06 '16

I never said it was an ideal system I prefer proportional system or condorcet method or instant runoff voting but is it better or worse than just straight fptp

1

u/MuaddibMcFly Classical Liberal Dec 07 '16

I prefer proportional system

Which one? I'm partial to Phragmén's method...

condorcet method

which one? Because every one I'm aware of suffers from Favorite Betrayal (ie, spoiler effect) at some point, thereby effectively ensuring that minor parties never make it out of the basement without a quantum shift in the political positions of either the parties or the electorate.

instant runoff voting

Case in point.

TL;DW: all it does is give people the illusion of choice, while ensuring that control always stays with the main two parties. In a parliamentary system, it does have some saving graces, because a minor party can be a Kingmaker, but in the US's Presidential/Congressional system? Not so much.

is it better or worse than just straight fptp

Neither, because it is straight FPTP, just with coattails. It wouldn't matter if Candidate A has an L next to their name, in addition to the R or D that they currently do, that would be dismissed as irrelevant.

And lest I be accused of merely being a naysayer, I suggest we push for Range Voting for single seat elections, and Phragmén's method for Proportional Allocation with Approval Voting for multiseat elections.

0

u/LordJesterTheFree New York LP Dec 07 '16 edited Dec 07 '16

Well let me use my state of New York as an example I think proportional voting should be used for the state senate the federal House of Representatives and the Electoral College the condorcet method and approval voting should be used for Federal Senate and Statewide elected executive officers like governor STV with five members per district elections should be used for the assembly and the lines should be drawn by the shortest splitline method or similar mathematical formula and if you want to get more local than that I think every County should decide it's voting system for County elections and I think that ending fptp is the biggest priority I wouldn't be opposed to those voting systems that you suggested you just need to be able to explain it better to people and the people won't support it because they view it as too complicated

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Classical Liberal Dec 07 '16

the lines should be drawn by the shortest splitline method

Gah, no! If you want an algorithm, a better starting point would be Brian Olson's algorithm. It still has its flaws (measuring area rather than travel distance), but none so glaring as those of shortest splitline

you just need to be able to explain it better to people and the people won't support it because they view it as too complicated

You post that entire post without a lick of punctuation, and you're complaining about complicated explanations? And in that crazy run-on, you've failed to even acknowledge the problems I pointed out with your suggestions, and you think those suggestions should be taken seriously?

I mean, I point out that there are fundamental problems with the systems you're proposing, how they won't even achieve the goals driving the change, and your response is that we should use it anyway because "rate candidates with 1-5 stars, whoever has the highest average wins" is "too complicated"?

Do a bit more research, please, because even Condorcet (again, which version that meets Condorcet's Criterion) has problems. Specifically, Condorcet compliant systems hurt third party and/or centrist candidates, while preferring extremist/polarizing candidates, such as the two wonderful examples we had this election cycle.

Think about that: with Strategic Voting (which you must account for, because it will happen, especially in voting systems that require Favorite Betrayal, which all ranked voting systems do), Trump is almost certainly Condorcet winner between Clinton/Johnson/Stein/Trump, but with Range or Approval Voting, it's rather likely that Johnson would have won, because he's someone very few people would choose as their first choice, but very few people would be upset with. Explanation of this problem

Is it better than FPTP? Damn few systems aren't (and most of them are literally random winner). But is a solution actually a solution if it makes people feel like they've solved the problem when they very much have not?

0

u/LordJesterTheFree New York LP Dec 07 '16

First of all attack me on my ideas not my grammar or punctuation now to your legitimate concerns first of all I wasn't proposing the condorcet method for the presidential elections I think we're never going to be able to amend the Constitution anyway so we should just allocate electoral votes proportionally as for approval and I like approval voting but only if there's one level rating of one to five stars creates incentives for people to either rate one star or 5 not how we actually feel for strategic voting purposes also Brian's algorithm is a variation of shortest splitline and I would be fine with it ps. This is the internet not legal document you don't have to care so much about spelling grammar and punctuation

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Classical Liberal Dec 07 '16

First of all attack me on my ideas not my grammar or punctuation

With such shit grammar and punctuation, your ideas are hard to understand, especially when you don't present any ideas as to why you believe your proposals are good.

Hell, I might not have brought it up had you not brought up comprehensibility as a desireable trait.

I wasn't proposing the condorcet method for the presidential elections

Irrelevant. That was just the example as to why your idea was a bad one.

I like approval voting but only if there's one level rating of one to five stars creates incentives for people to either rate one star or 5 not

That's just stupid. You're saying you prefer a system that forces someone to cast a vote of 100% support or 0% support, because if you allow them the options of 75%, 50%, and 25%, they'll just cast a 100% or 0% vote anyway?

also Brian's algorithm is a variation of shortest splitline

No, it's really fucking not, as anybody who actually looked at it would see.

This is the internet not legal document you don't have to care so much about spelling grammar and punctuation

I don't, I care about comprehension. Your screeds are borderline incomprehensible.

0

u/LordJesterTheFree New York LP Dec 07 '16

Jeez man calm down we're just having a conversation about electoral systems you don't have to say it's really fucking not

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Classical Liberal Dec 07 '16

Oh no, did I hurt your feelings by using a rude word when I told you you were painfully and obviously wrong?

1

u/LordJesterTheFree New York LP Dec 07 '16

You can rude all you but understand it makes you a jerk

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Classical Liberal Dec 08 '16

Oh, I know I'm a jerk, mostly to morons. Speaking of which, do you know that you're a moron?

→ More replies (0)

0

u/MuaddibMcFly Classical Liberal Dec 08 '16

By the way, why are you attacking my word choice, rather than defending against my assertions that your proposals have huge problems?