• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

With Instant Run-off Voting, we would determine a true majority winner in one election and banish the spoiler concept.

Razoo

Banned
DP Veteran
Joined
Dec 1, 2017
Messages
24,476
Reaction score
7,808
Gender
Undisclosed
Political Leaning
Undisclosed

With Instant Run-off Voting, we would determine a true majority winner in one election and banish the spoiler concept. Voters would not have to calculate possible perverse consequences of voting for their favorite candidate. They could vote their hopes, not their fears."

http://www.instantrunoff.com

http://www.fairvote.org

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org

http://www.firv.org/

http://www.massirv.org

http://www.nysirv.org

http://www.midwestdemocracy.org
 
Last edited:
With Instant Run-off Voting, we would determine a true majority winner in one election and banish the spoiler concept.

And absolutely nothing would improve.
 
Since when has majoritarianism been a solution for economic or social problems. All it does is make things worse.
you don't know that ..... it's more like you could be disheartened by improvement ....
 
I've been mildly interested in the idea for some time. On many occasions I've voted for someone, in primary or general, that I either wasn't too keen on OR that I feared would be a wasted vote. This sort of thing would help with that. It might give 3rd parties more of a chance too.

However I don't think there's much interest in it among the general population. It adds a level of complexity to the process at a time when the process is under scrutiny and plagued by doubt. This may not be a good time for that.
 
It would be a big improvement to democracy.
 
The IRV would open doors for third party candidates which will not necessarily be radicals just a person
with more practical viewpoints.

The Demo's and RINO's have put in place too many obstacles for better thinkers.

Let's place a cap on campaign spending as a first step toward eliminating special interest funding of our elections.
 
 

With Instant Run-off Voting, we would determine a true majority winner in one election and banish the spoiler concept. Voters would not have to calculate possible perverse consequences of voting for their favorite candidate. They could vote their hopes, not their fears."

http://www.instantrunoff.com

http://www.fairvote.org

http://www.reclaimdemocracy.org

http://www.firv.org/

http://www.massirv.org

http://www.nysirv.org

http://www.midwestdemocracy.org
 
Right now presidential debates are limited to the candidates from the two corporate parties.

The debates are controlled by the so-called Commission on Presidential Debates, a private corporation which was created by the Democratic and Republican Parties in 1987.

Right now, each state sets its own standards and third party and independent candidates must spend hundreds of thousands of dollars and thousands of hours for a chance to get on the ballots of the various states.

In some states, it is fairly simple to get on the ballot.

Check out the requirements in these nightmare states: (And remember, we need to collect double the number required in each state because many are arbitrarily invalidated.)
For 75 years, the American people have lived under the anti-union Taft Hartley law.

It’s passage was a great blow to democracy.

The law was drafted by employers.

The law impedes employees’ right to join together in labor unions, undermines the power of unions to represent workers’ interests effectively, bans secondary boycotts and authorizes an array of anti-union activities by employers.

The political damage of Taft-Hartley was just as severe.

The law kicked off an era of red-baiting with the American labor movement which led to harmful internal division. A now-invalidated provision of Taft-Hartley required union leaders to sign anti-communist affidavits.

The Taft Hartley law sent a message to employers: It was OK to bust unions and deny workers their rights to collectively bargain.



 
Last edited:
In 1886 the Supreme Court, in the case of Santa Clara County v. Southern Pacific Railroad, was interpreted to have ruled that corporations were “persons”—before women were considered persons under the 19th amendment to have the right to vote.

Ever since, corporations have enjoyed most of the same constitutional rights granted to real people.

But corporations are not humans. They don’t vote. They don’t have children. They don’t die in wars.

The people who work for the corporations are of course real people, but the corporate “entity” should never be given equal constitutional rights to real human beings.

Even Business Week magazine, in a 2000 editorial, declared that “corporations should get out of politics.”

We cannot have equal justice under law between real people and corporations like Exxon Mobil.

Multinational corporations can be in 1000 places around the world at the same time obstructing governments, states, buying and renting politicians, and going to Washington to get bailed out by taxpayers.


Work to end corporate personhood

Electoral Reform

 

California Advocates Counterattack Corporate Crime and Control

February 18, 2022
Posted in In the Public Interest
By Ralph Nader February 18, 2022 Want to unite conservatives and liberals in the Red and Blue states? Just mention those unreadable computer-generated bills we all get online or in the mail. Overflowing with abbreviations and codes, they are inscrutable, especially health care bills. If you call the vendors for an explanation, be prepared to…





 
Back
Top Bottom