Why you should vote Republican this election:

[nikcers]

That each political actor has equal wealth doesn't mean that each candidate has equal funding.

The guy speaking unpopular views will still attract less money, no?

I bet there is much more that goes on behind the scenes. If the establishment wants to they could show an open podium at primetime at a loss and run advertisements off the books and claim its news, they can literally print money to pay for that loss. It's like how the news runs a story on Starbucks adding a new size to their menu or mcdonalds changing their ingredients because they added salt and got rid of a salt substitute.

[Swordsmyth]

That each political actor has equal wealth doesn't mean that each candidate has equal funding.

The guy speaking unpopular views will still attract less money, no?

True, but right now most people who might run don't have the money to speak their views so that people can decide if they are popular.

Remember that I am not claiming that a more equal distribution of money would make everything perfect, just that it would improve things.

[r3volution 3.0]

I bet there is much more that goes on behind the scenes. If the establishment wants to they could show an open podium at primetime at a loss and run advertisements off the books and claim its news, they can literally print money to pay for that loss. It's like how the news runs a story on Starbucks adding a new size to their menu or mcdonalds changing their ingredients because they added salt and got rid of a salt substitute.

That's true, but it only begs the question: how did they become "the establishment" in the first place?

How can it be that elections, in which everyone gets to cast one vote, turn out this way?

The answer is: it can't end up otherwise, it's built into the system.

Elections can't be anything other than a fight between interest groups (be it 1000 thousand-aires seeking business subsidies or 100,000 ten-aires seeking more Obamaphones). Then, whichever faction (or coalition of factions) ends up controlling the state ("the establishment") uses that power to further entrench themselves by subsidizing friendly media and so forth, as you're describing. The essential problem is that everyone has an incentive to steal as much as possible from the public trough, regardless of the cost to society at large. It's a tragedy of the commons.

[Pauls' Revere]

If there's a liberty candidate to support, I'll support them regardless of party. Unfortunately, there are so few.

I really think it's best to look at the candidate instead of the party. Hell, both parties advocate increased spending and new wars. Both want government control over the individual. I don't really get caught up in their games to see which ones "own" the control.

When there's no liberty candidate - just vote against the incumbent. It's not going to matter anyway, so I can't imagine getting emotionally invested. Cast a lot against them and move on with your day.

^^this^^ +rep.

[r3volution 3.0]

True, but right now most people who might run don't have the money to speak their views so that people can decide if they are popular.

Remember that I am not claiming that a more equal distribution of money would make everything perfect, just that it would improve things.

Let's suppose that every candidate has whatever amount of money that is.

But is that really the problem?

Candidates proposing to cut welfare don't get the welfare recipient vote for lack of publicity?

[Swordsmyth]

That's true, but it only begs the question: how did they become "the establishment" in the first place?

How can it be that elections, in which everyone gets to cast one vote, turn out this way?

The answer is: it can't end up otherwise, it's built into the system.

Elections can't be anything other than a fight between interest groups (be it 1000 thousand-aires seeking business subsidies or 100,000 ten-aires seeking more Obamaphones). Then, whichever faction (or coalition of factions) ends up controlling the state ("the establishment") uses that power to further entrench themselves by subsidizing friendly media and so forth, as you're describing. The essential problem is that everyone has an incentive to steal as much as possible from the public trough, regardless of the cost to society at large. It's a tragedy of the commons.

And it's not much different from the power struggles between oligarchs in a monarch except that the common man's interests are abused more in a monarchy because they have no power at all other than the negligible threat of revolution.

[Swordsmyth]

Let's suppose that every candidate has whatever amount of money that is.

But is that really the problem?

Candidates proposing to cut welfare don't get the welfare recipient vote for lack of publicity?

They don't get the tax donkeys' votes for lack of publicity and the same thing goes for every other issue.

[r3volution 3.0]

They don't get the tax donkeys' votes for lack of publicity and the same thing goes for every other issue.

I don't follow.

If every candidate gets sufficient publicity for people to hear their views...

...how will this improve the outcome of elections?

In other words, which voters do you think will vote differently in virtue of knowing about candidates they would otherwise not know about?

[Swordsmyth]

I don't follow.

If every candidate gets sufficient publicity for people to hear their views...

...how will this improve the outcome of elections?

In other words, which voters do you think will vote differently in virtue of knowing about candidates they would otherwise not know about?

The silent majority, those that have given up on politics because they have given up on the two main parties and they don't believe that 3rd parties stand a chance or that challengers stand a chance in the main parties, also those that hold their noses and vote for the "lesser of two evils" because "nobody else stands a chance".

Ron almost crossed the threshold but too many people thought he just couldn't win because he didn't have nearly as much money as so many other candidates and he actually needed more to overcome the media blackout/discouragement campaign.

[nikcers]

That's true, but it only begs the question: how did they become "the establishment" in the first place?

How can it be that elections, in which everyone gets to cast one vote, turn out this way?

The answer is: it can't end up otherwise, it's built into the system.

Elections can't be anything other than a fight between interest groups (be it 1000 thousand-aires seeking business subsidies or 100,000 ten-aires seeking more Obamaphones). Then, whichever faction (or coalition of factions) ends up controlling the state ("the establishment") uses that power to further entrench themselves by subsidizing friendly media and so forth, as you're describing. The essential problem is that everyone has an incentive to steal as much as possible from the public trough, regardless of the cost to society at large. It's a tragedy of the commons.

You have to legalize liberty and to do that we would need to get rid of the legalized theft, legalized fraud, legalized slavery, and end government surveillance and the violations of the fourth amendment and all the abuses of power. Maybe Trump is just going to tell all nonessential government to go home, fire all of the government. That's what I want to believe atleast. What he said about Mattis leaving when he was quoted he said they all go eventually..

[r3volution 3.0]

The silent majority, those that have given up on politics because they have given up on the two main parties and they don't believe that 3rd parties stand a chance or that challengers stand a chance in the main parties, also those that hold their noses and vote for the "lesser of two evils" because "nobody else stands a chance".

Ron almost crossed the threshold but too many people thought he just couldn't win because he didn't have nearly as much money as so many other candidates and he actually needed more to overcome the media blackout/discouragement campaign.

Currently the LP gets about 1% of the popular vote nationally, with 0 seats in the House. Under a proportional representation system, all else being equal, that 1% of the popular vote would translate into about 4 House seats. If we suppose that all else isn't equal (as you argue above), and their support would double (by eliminating the "wasted vote" mindset), that's still only 8 seats. Sure, any improvement is nice in principle, but that doesn't actually change anything in practice, does it? Tinkering with the electoral system doesn't isn't going to solve the underlying problem (namely, that the vast majority of voters want loot, not liberty).

[homahr]

(namely, that the vast majority of voters want loot, not liberty).

Thats because the vast majority of voters are scary brown illegal immigrants, not hard-working whites like me and you.

[Aratus]

Currently the LP gets about 1% of the popular vote nationally, with 0 seats in the House. Under a proportional representation system, all else being equal, that 1% of the popular vote would translate into about 4 House seats. If we suppose that all else isn't equal (as you argue above), and their support would double (by eliminating the "wasted vote" mindset), that's still only 8 seats. Sure, any improvement is nice in principle, but that doesn't actually change anything in practice, does it? Tinkering with the electoral system doesn't isn't going to solve the underlying problem (namely, that the vast majority of voters want loot, not liberty).

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^this^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^

[Aratus]

The current crop/pack of POLITICAL HACK HOGs slopped at
the large & ample 2o18 public trough are GOP members!!!!

[Aratus]

Throwing the bums out at regular intervals slightly reduces corruption.

[EBounding]

I love the voting ritual--the anticipation, the media coverage! Then the day finally comes where I waddle down to my voting precinct with other people who are ALSO voting! If there's a lot of people, I might even stand in line with them...to VOTE! I show my ID to the old person behind the desk and I FINALLY get the ballot! This is my VOTE! I fill in the circles I like very carefully and when I'm done I get the see the machine take my ballot! #247! I VOTED! But it doesn't end there! I finally get to watch the results come in during the evening and experience all the twists and turns--an emotional rollercoaster that I was part of! What an awesome day!

[jmdrake]

Thats because the vast majority of voters are scary brown illegal immigrants, not hard-working whites like me and you.

You cannot give Reputation to the same post twice.

[CCTelander]

Voting is the most sacred sacrament of the religion of statism. It lends the patina of legitimacy to everything the state does thereafter. That alone is reason enoughto abstain, may TheTexan forgive me for saying so.

[CaptUSA]

Throwing the bums out at regular intervals slightly reduces corruption.

They should make ballots with a "non-incumbent" party line vote. It would really speed up the process.

[Swordsmyth]

Currently the LP gets about 1% of the popular vote nationally, with 0 seats in the House. Under a proportional representation system, all else being equal, that 1% of the popular vote would translate into about 4 House seats. If we suppose that all else isn't equal (as you argue above), and their support would double (by eliminating the "wasted vote" mindset), that's still only 8 seats. Sure, any improvement is nice in principle, but that doesn't actually change anything in practice, does it? Tinkering with the electoral system doesn't isn't going to solve the underlying problem (namely, that the vast majority of voters want loot, not liberty).

8 seats might make the difference on close votes and people would start to listen to what they had to say because they would have broken through the "they can't win" barrier, quite a few Republicans would switch and some Democrats might, they wouldn't stay at 8 seats long.

[shakey1]

Throwing the bums out at regular intervals slightly reduces corruption.

There.

[r3volution 3.0]

8 seats might make the difference on close votes and people would start to listen to what they had to say because they would have broken through the "they can't win" barrier, quite a few Republicans would switch and some Democrats might, they wouldn't stay at 8 seats long.

Apart from being fairly insignificant, the benefit is situation-dependent.

As I mentioned in the old thread, it's like gerrymandering; what benefits you today may harm you tomorrow when conditions have changed.

If libertarians became a larger party, they might be overrepresented in the present system, so you wouldn't want proportional representation.

...

Imagine a giant boulder (socialism) on a hill, and a guy trying to push it up (libertarianism).

The guy might occasionally push it up the hill, or at least hold it in place, but eventually gravity will win.

Giving him some coffee and a pep talk can help for a time, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

[Swordsmyth]

Apart from being fairly insignificant, the benefit is situation-dependent.

As I mentioned in the old thread, it's like gerrymandering; what benefits you today may harm you tomorrow when conditions have changed.

If libertarians became a larger party, they might be overrepresented in the present system, so you wouldn't want proportional representation.

...

Imagine a giant boulder (socialism) on a hill, and a guy trying to push it up (libertarianism).

The guy might occasionally push it up the hill, or at least hold it in place, but eventually gravity will win.

Giving him some coffee and a pep talk can help for a time, but it doesn't solve the underlying problem.

That if will never happen under the current system, winner take all in geographical districts makes any 3rd party all but incapable of taking a single seat.

[r3volution 3.0]

That if will never happen under the current system, winner take all in geographical districts makes any 3rd party all but incapable of taking a single seat.

I'm quite certain it won't happen under any electoral system.

I guess we'll see.

Vote hard.