Libertarian Candidate for President

[CU Alumnus]

Am I the last person on here that realized that the Libertarian party's presidential candidate - Dr. Jo Jorgensen - is a Clemson professor? Saw something on it last week I think and was pretty surprised.

She doesn't have a chance in hell but I thought it was interesting. Maybe better than the guy they ran the last 2 or 3 elections anyway.

 

[SaltyMeatBallsOO]

https://clemson.forums.rivals.com/t...an-presidential-nom-clemson-professor.202124/

 

[Casa_del_Tigre]

VP of the LP lives in Myrtle Beach. Weirdly enough both spots on the ticket are SC folk.

 

[CU Alumnus]

VP of the LP lives in Myrtle Beach. Weirdly enough both spots on the ticket are SC folk.

You sure? I thought most of Myrtle was from Ohio?

 

[Casa_del_Tigre]

You sure? I thought most of Myrtle was from Ohio?

He’s not from Myrtle, just lives there. Maybe from Ohio originally lol.

 

[treetiger]

Jorgensen? Are the Danish racists?

 

[coop#]

Kanye 2020

 

[scott in nashville]

I voted for Johnson last year as the lesser of 3 evils, but regretted it later as it seems a wasted vote. Of course, in TN, the state goes Republican regardless, so it doesn't seem to matter who I'd want lol

 

[clemsontiger02]

I voted for Johnson last year as the lesser of 3 evils, but regretted it later as it seems a wasted vote. Of course, in TN, the state goes Republican regardless, so it doesn't seem to matter who I'd want lol

Ditto. I was - and still am - passionate about the need for a viable third party option. Ideally one that leaves behind the wacko-fringes of each current side, and embraces the middle-of-the-road viewpoints of millions of Americans.

Gary Johnson was never my choice, but I was a big fan of his running mate, Bill Weld. That guy is a true "Reagan Republican" who served as a multi-term governor in libreral-friendly Massachusetts. Plus I said that I would never cast a vote for either of the other options, and I try to avoid not voting if possible.

 

[clemsontiger02]

LOL @ this getting pushed to the Round Table after 8 innocuous posts, while other threads take pages of personal attacks to achieve that status. Zero consistency.

 

[BAnksMcFadden]

The last thing this country needs is some high and mighty PHD guidance counselor.

 

[cyclotiger]

LOL @ this getting pushed to the Round Table after 8 innocuous posts, while other threads take pages of personal attacks to achieve that status. Zero consistency.

Fascinating

 

[Casa_del_Tigre]

I voted for Johnson last year as the lesser of 3 evils, but regretted it later as it seems a wasted vote. Of course, in TN, the state goes Republican regardless, so it doesn't seem to matter who I'd want lol

Wasn’t a wasted vote. Supporting a 2 party system is a wasted vote.

 

[scott in nashville]

Ditto. I was - and still am - passionate about the need for a viable third party option. Ideally one that leaves behind the wacko-fringes of each current side, and embraces the middle-of-the-road viewpoints of millions of Americans.

Gary Johnson was never my choice, but I was a big fan of his running mate, Bill Weld. That guy is a true "Reagan Republican" who served as a multi-term governor in libreral-friendly Massachusetts. Plus I said that I would never cast a vote for either of the other options, and I try to avoid not voting if possible.

I liked Weld a lot too. Johnson was a bit of a nothing burger, but Weld is the kind of guy I'd like to see in office.

Wasn’t a wasted vote. Supporting a 2 party system is a wasted vote.

That's actually a great point.

 

[FLaw47]

Can someone convince me how a third party is a good thing? I tend to view this sort of statement in the same vein as "we need term limits" - it doesn't make any sense but it sounds good. A third party is a complete non-starter as anything other than a spoiler with our current electoral system. Move us to ranked choice voting or something better and it gets a little more appealing to me.

 

[FLaw47]

Wasn’t a wasted vote. Supporting a 2 party system is a wasted vote.

I believe this means you should be voting for Democratic candidates, then. They're the only ones even slightly interested in electoral reform (e.g. Ranked Choice Voting). Without reform here, you aren't doing anything but screaming into the void and being ignored by voting for a third party. All you're doing is making it more likely that your least favorite option wins.

 

[CU Alumnus]

Can someone convince me how a third party is a good thing? I tend to view this sort of statement in the same vein as "we need term limits" - it doesn't make any sense but it sounds good. A third party is a complete non-starter as anything other than a spoiler with our current electoral system. Move us to ranked choice voting or something better and it gets a little more appealing to me.

It reduces the chance that we have to pick the asshole we dislike the least.

I mean hell - look at what's running for President now?

Ranked Choice is too complicated for the average moron.

 

[clemsontiger02]

A third party is a complete non-starter as anything other than a spoiler with our current electoral system.

Therein lies the issue. It needs to be a legitimate choice for voters, not just a spoiler.

 

[CU Alumnus]

Wasn’t a wasted vote. Supporting a 2 party system is a wasted vote.

If the Libertarians get 5% of the popular vote they have to be (I think) included in the presidential debates for 2024. They had a real shot at this in 2016 but blew it.

 

[scott in nashville]

I believe this means you should be voting for Democratic candidates, then. They're the only ones even slightly interested in electoral reform (e.g. Ranked Choice Voting). Without reform here, you aren't doing anything but screaming into the void and being ignored by voting for a third party. All you're doing is making it more likely that your least favorite option wins.

That's an incredibly narrow viewpoint. I don't agree with about 80% of Democrat viewpoints, but the ones I disagree on, I don't necessarily think the Republicans have right either. Using that math, I shoulda voted for Trump, but would have rather had my eyeballs stabbed out in lieu of voting for he or Hilary.

 

[FLaw47]

It reduces the chance that we have to pick the asshole we dislike the least.

I mean hell - look at what's running for President now?

Ranked Choice is too complicated for the average moron.

I mean I think the 3rd party candidates are bigger assholes than the Democratic/Republican candidate in the overwhelming majority of elections so I don't find this particularly compelling.

If the Libertarians get 5% of the popular vote they have to be (I think) included in the presidential debates for 2024. They had a real shot at this in 2016 but blew it.

It's 15% so no one other than Perot has been within sniffing distance of that number.

Link

 

[CU Alumnus]

I mean I think the 3rd party candidates are bigger assholes than the Democratic/Republican candidate in the overwhelming majority of elections so I don't find this particularly compelling.



It's 15% so no one other than Perot has been within sniffing distance of that number.

Link

Of course a true 3rd party isn't going to draw a decent candidate right now because the system is set up against them. Make them a true viable path to an office and you would probably see better candidates.

Plus finding a bigger a-hole than Trump or Hillary is pretty damn hard. Biden might be a nice guy but I honestly don't think he knows where he is. I don't particularly like Trump but I would have rather castrated myself with a smooth rock than vote for Hillary in 2016.

For 2020 - Is Biden really the best the Dems could come up with?

Is Trump really the best the Republicans could come up with?

Are these two guys the best the country could come up with?

 

[FLaw47]

That's an incredibly narrow of a viewpoint. I don't agree with about 80% of Democrat viewpoints, but the ones I disagree on, I don't necessarily think the Republicans have right either. Using that math, I shoulda voted for Trump, but would have rather had my eyeballs stabbed out in lieu of voting for he or Hilary.

Well then you can pout and be irrelevant to the process, I guess. The parties exist the way they do because:

1) They collectively best represent the most people
2) We can only have two political parties with our system

Your hypothetical party will certainly represent far fewer people than one of the two existing parties. If it did, it'd be one of the two major parties and we'd be right where we are again.

The problem isn't the lack of a viable third party, the problem is that we have a First Past the Post System where a third party cannot exist. The only serve to give us Bush in 2000 and LePage (former Maine Governor).

It is my opinion that you should first and foremost be advocating for electoral reform. And yeah, you probably should have voted for Donald Trump. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate - you're always voting for the one you like the most (or dislike the least).

 

[FLaw47]

Of course a true 3rd party isn't going to draw a decent candidate right now because the system is set up against them. Make them a true viable path to an office and you would probably see better candidates.

Plus finding a bigger a-hole than Trump or Hillary is pretty damn hard. Biden might be a nice guy but I honestly don't think he knows where he is. I don't particularly like Trump but I would have rather castrated myself with a smooth rock than vote for Hillary in 2016.

For 2020 - Is Biden really the best the Dems could come up with?

Is Trump really the best the Republicans could come up with?

Are these two guys the best the country could come up with?

How do you propose changing the system to allow for your 3rd party candidate if you already think something as simple as Ranked Choice Voting is too complicated? I'm asking in good faith.

 

[CU Alumnus]

That's an incredibly narrow of a viewpoint. I don't agree with about 80% of Democrat viewpoints, but the ones I disagree on, I don't necessarily think the Republicans have right either. Using that math, I shoulda voted for Trump, but would have rather had my eyeballs stabbed out in lieu of voting for he or Hilary.

I figure the majority of people care about 2-3 issues max, and then once they pick their guy, they tailor the rest of their opinions to what HE believes. (or SHE I guess).

And this isn't how it's supposed to work.

 

[CU Alumnus]

How do you propose changing the system to allow for your 3rd party candidate if you already think something as simple as Ranked Choice Voting is too complicated? I'm asking in good faith.

We might could get around it by allowing decent debates. Something like not reducing complex questions to 30-second soundbites. Maybe turn it from 'who can scream the loudest' to an actual damn debate. That might make it worse though.

Ranked Choice might work for 3-4 candidates. Get many more than that and people get confused.

It might get around issues like the democrats had in 2016 when they (allegedly) effectively had a rigged system for Hillary. It wasn't TECHNICALLY rigged but it was rigged.

Doesn't the Heisman use something like ranked choice? That might not be the best endorsement though.

 

[FLaw47]

We might could get around it by allowing decent debates. Something like not reducing complex questions to 30-second soundbites. Maybe turn it from 'who can scream the loudest' to an actual damn debate. That might make it worse though.

Ranked Choice might work for 3-4 candidates. Get many more than that and people get confused.

Doesn't the Heisman use something like ranked choice? That might not be the best endorsement though.

I'd argue that if you allow a third party into the debates you're just making it more likely that the party least like the third party will win. That's not an outcome that's desirable, in my estimation.

Ranked Choice is the same amount complicated for 1 million candidates as it is for 2. It's just sorting a larger list. The math has some more iterations but it's not fundamentally different.

I think I'd prefer something like Approval Voting or STAR but I haven't been able to game it all out.

The biggest thing I'd like to see is the elimination of single member districts and have multiple representatives in much larger districts. This profoundly reduces the efficacy of gerrymandering and makes it much more likely that you'll have someone who voted for you represent you.

I'm also going to sanctimoniously note that if third parties were being serious, they'd put more effort into finding candidates for offices below the presidency. You could actually elect a Libertarian or a Socialist into the House in certain districts.

 

[Casa_del_Tigre]

I believe this means you should be voting for Democratic candidates, then. They're the only ones even slightly interested in electoral reform (e.g. Ranked Choice Voting). Without reform here, you aren't doing anything but screaming into the void and being ignored by voting for a third party. All you're doing is making it more likely that your least favorite option wins.

Lol... the dems are fine with changing voting as long as it benefits them. Popular vote is a notion for the ignorant. Populated cities are dependent on rural America for supplies. The idea cities should get more voting power is laughable.

It’s like gerrymandering. Both parties are happy getting rid of the other parties voters.

 

[FLaw47]

Lol... the dems are fine with changing voting as long as it benefits them. Popular vote is a notion for the ignorant. Populated cities are dependent on rural America for supplies. The idea cities should get more voting power is laughable.

It’s like gerrymandering. Both parties are happy getting rid of the other parties voters.

I'm fine with changing voting if it's to something that actually makes sense. The electoral college hasn't made sense in like 200 years and there is NO CHANCE that if we were setting it up today that we'd end up with the electoral college. It was stupid when I thought I was a Republican in 2000 and it's stupid now.

Gerrymandering is wrong when Maryland does it and it's wrong when Wisconsin does it. I'd have thought you'd interacted with me enough to know that I operate in good faith the staggering majority of the time. It's disappointing to see you accuse me of being nothing more than a partisan on this subject (and that you'd resort to such tired arguments in favor of such an obsolete system).

Edit: To clarify, I'd argue that city dwellers (who only account for 12% of our population) deserve 12% of the voting power. And that rural voters (27% of the population) don't deserve such an outsized say in the Senate and Presidency. It's so absurd that we argue that what matters isn't the voters but the arbitrary lines on a map where they happen to live.

 

[Jimmy Green Beans]

I liked Weld a lot too. Johnson was a bit of a nothing burger, but Weld is the kind of guy I'd like to see in office.



That's actually a great point.

I like anyone that is not a crazy fascist. Seems now more fascists on the left than right...

 

[Casa_del_Tigre]

I'm fine with changing voting if it's to something that actually makes sense. The electoral college hasn't made sense in like 200 years and there is NO CHANCE that if we were setting it up today that we'd end up with the electoral college. It was stupid when I thought I was a Republican in 2000 and it's stupid now.

Gerrymandering is wrong when Maryland does it and it's wrong when Wisconsin does it. I'd have thought you'd interacted with me enough to know that I operate in good faith the staggering majority of the time. It's disappointing to see you accuse me of being nothing more than a partisan on this subject (and that you'd resort to such tired arguments in favor of such an obsolete system).

Edit: To clarify, I'd argue that city dwellers (who only account for 12% of our population) deserve 12% of the voting power. And that rural voters (27% of the population) don't deserve such an outsized say in the Senate and Presidency. It's so absurd that we argue that what matters isn't the voters but the arbitrary lines on a map where they happen to live.

America was designed to be a republic. I am 100% sure they wouldn’t be for the popular vote. But hey it’s 2020, I’m not up to date with the new rewrote history of today.

 

[CU Alumnus]

I'd argue that if you allow a third party into the debates you're just making it more likely that the party least like the third party will win. That's not an outcome that's desirable, in my estimation.

Ranked Choice is the same amount complicated for 1 million candidates as it is for 2. It's just sorting a larger list. The math has some more iterations but it's not fundamentally different.

I think I'd prefer something like Approval Voting or STAR but I haven't been able to game it all out.

The biggest thing I'd like to see is the elimination of single member districts and have multiple representatives in much larger districts. This profoundly reduces the efficacy of gerrymandering and makes it much more likely that you'll have someone who voted for you represent you.

I'm also going to sanctimoniously note that if third parties were being serious, they'd put more effort into finding candidates for offices below the presidency. You could actually elect a Libertarian or a Socialist into the House in certain districts.

Some districts elect socialists now. But they call themselves democrats or ‘independents’.

As to the ranked voting, the issue is you confuse the voters. Remember we have voters now who are confused by how a simple ballot works. 3-4 might work. Get much above that and holy hell....

The biggest issue is people decide on who to vote for based on internet memes and what they see on Facebook now. Nobody thinks. And it’s beyond politics. Protesters - SUPPOSEDLY protesting against racism - tore down a state of Fredrick Douglass. Think about that.

 

[MillerHighLife21]

I voted for Johnson last year as the lesser of 3 evils, but regretted it later as it seems a wasted vote. Of course, in TN, the state goes Republican regardless, so it doesn't seem to matter who I'd want lol

Getting a 3rd party to 5% of the popular vote will federally fund their candidates across the next round of elections. That’s ultimately the next step to establish a viable 3rd party.

If Green Party voters had voted LP in the last election, it would have happened too.

 

[FLaw47]

America was designed to be a republic. I am 100% sure they wouldn’t be for the popular vote. But hey it’s 2020, I’m not up to date with the new rewrote history of today.

I really struggle to see how our country being a republic is in any way related to the electoral college. We're still electing someone to represent our interests which is, in fact, what a republic is.

You know what else the founders thought? That black people were worth 60% of a white person or 0%, depending on the circumstance. They thought that women shouldn't vote and that only property owners said. They were wrong about a lot and they were wrong about this too. That's why we should just go ahead and change it. I don't find your appeal to tradition in any way compelling.

 

[cuts1]

ABB. Anybody but Biden

 

[FLaw47]

Some districts elect socialists now. But they call themselves democrats or ‘independents’.

As to the ranked voting, the issue is you confuse the voters. Remember we have voters now who are confused by how a simple ballot works. 3-4 might work. Get much above that and holy hell....

The biggest issue is people decide on who to vote for based on internet memes and what they see on Facebook now. Nobody thinks. And it’s beyond politics. Protesters - SUPPOSEDLY protesting against racism - tore down a state of Fredrick Douglass. Think about that.

If peoples of different political persuasions are able to find homes within the existing major political, it suggests additional parties are not needed.

You haven't proposed a path forward here, you've just doubled down on Ranked Choice Voting being too complicated. What's the part forward with out electoral reform? How do we get multiple viable parties nationally when a plurality will win nearly every election?

 

[FLaw47]

Getting a 3rd party to 5% of the popular vote will federally fund their candidates across the next round of elections. That’s ultimately the next step to establish a viable 3rd party.

If Green Party voters had voted LP in the last election, it would have happened too.

Why would green party voters ever vote for the libertarians? The only reason they'd do that is if the most important thing to them is their hatred of "the establishment" and, bluntly, I take them about as seriously as the green and libertarian parties.

 

[MillerHighLife21]

Why would green party voters ever vote for the libertarians? The only reason they'd do that is if the most important thing to them is their hatred of "the establishment" and, bluntly, I take them about as seriously as the green and libertarian parties.

Just indicating that there were more than enough 3rd party votes in the last election to have hit that threshold.

 

[clemmer]

I'm fine with changing voting if it's to something that actually makes sense. The electoral college hasn't made sense in like 200 years and there is NO CHANCE that if we were setting it up today that we'd end up with the electoral college. It was stupid when I thought I was a Republican in 2000 and it's stupid now.

Gerrymandering is wrong when Maryland does it and it's wrong when Wisconsin does it. I'd have thought you'd interacted with me enough to know that I operate in good faith the staggering majority of the time. It's disappointing to see you accuse me of being nothing more than a partisan on this subject (and that you'd resort to such tired arguments in favor of such an obsolete system).

Edit: To clarify, I'd argue that city dwellers (who only account for 12% of our population) deserve 12% of the voting power. And that rural voters (27% of the population) don't deserve such an outsized say in the Senate and Presidency. It's so absurd that we argue that what matters isn't the voters but the arbitrary lines on a map where they happen to live.

if you think the Electoral College - or more accurately - why it exist - does not make sense then please do research and argue against the idea on its merits or even suggest a replacement system that even better takes care of the need. Doing away with it would require a constitutional amendment. The United States has never been a Democracy and a direct/pure democracy is a horrid form of government- very well understood and considered by the Framers...and movement over time more toward a pure democracy gets a seat at the table when the talk about “How did this get screwed up so bad” starts.

A good start on this subject is to research the “State of Jefferson” movement and the plight of rural California.

I definitely agree gerrymadering is ate up with the dumbass, but change that organizes districts by regions so that those with common interest are represented as a group makes more sense but cant be done Politically. Originally the States would handle but since the Federal government took control, that means a constitutional amendment is required to fix it.

As for term limits, I would agree with you that the concept has cons, but at this point It appears the only way to overcome the inherent advantage incumbents have and the corruption that has set in in Washington. There is too much money involved now and Setting up of Kingdoms that rake cash in...and if this “system” is not broken up while it still can be....

At the end of the day there are certain things in the US that get massively screwed up because politicians (or people) don’t want to be “against” them. “Safety”, “Freedom”, “Democracy”, “Rights”....etc. At this point the Supreme Court will either have to basically overturn some Past decisions that ironically are obviously unconstitutional In the way they get implemented- or the States rewrite the parts of the Constitution so that the original intent can’t be subverted.

 

[FLaw47]

Just indicating that there were more than enough 3rd party votes in the last election to have hit that threshold.

Gotcha. Fair enough.