Ranked choice voting and the 2016 presidential election (updated)

Various types of alternative voting, other than "first past the post" or "first past the post plus a runoff if no majority" (ignoring the Electoral College in presidential elections) get regularly touted by third-party backers, sometimes to the point of heated argument about which is best. (Common Cause compares a few.

Ranked choice, also known as instant runoff voting, is already used in a few places in the U.S. Approval voting, the normal second-most-common touted option, isn't used anywhere.

That said, in the world of the actual, these event aren't the only ways of voting.

For Congressional, state legislative and local races, FairVote looks at three multi-seat options.

+++

But, back to this year's presidential race.

Let's say we had no Electoral College, that we insisted the winner have a majority, not just plurality, of popular vote, and that we didn't want a messy, time-consuming physical runoff.

I think ranked choice/IRV (some particular Jesuitical types may still claim they're different things) is the best option.

With a mix of actual and idealized options, voting here in Tejas, here you go on my rankings.
1. The Science and Reason Party. This is an idealized desire.

2. Green Party, candidate and party faults and all. (For now)

3. Some Socialist Party. Problems: there's none on the ballot in Texas, and those that exist elsewhere are highly factionalized against each other. That said, I'd gladly not vote in the 2018 Texas Dem primary, should I still be in this state, to sign a Socialist ballot access petition.

Update: The Socialist Party USA candidate is trying to get write-in standing in Texas. If he and his Veep do, you'll get a blog post with analysis of their individual and party positions. If they pass the smell test ...

Update 2: Nope, nope nope. S-USA's party platform looks like Occupy Wall Street on Quaaludes, or flower children embedded in amber. Among the nuttier "wants"? Unilateral disarmament, and NOT just nukes — all weapons. Public referendums on every declaration of war. Soldiers' unions.

SIX weeks paid vacation, which goes beyond even the nice five weeks of Western Europe. Social Security at 55 with $25K/year minimum.

Others I disagree with? Repeal the Hatch Act? Wrong; I do NOT want federal employees having partisan involvement. Yes, this hurts the "little guy" federal employee, but, unless one would say "Hatch Act doesn't apply below GS-7," a unilateral repeal is stupid.

Given that other socialist parties are even more minimalist than S-USA, which has only four statewide affiliates in the nation, and most assuredly does not have more local elected officials than Greens, since the party's website doesn't even list local officials it's gotten elected, that's minuscule indeed. That means smaller Socialist parties aren't at all in play.

Oh, and, as busted on Reddit, it's anti-GMO, as much as Greens, and has a presidential candidate who may be almost as pandering as Stein on the issue. That's in the platform. Also in the platform is opposition to radiation of food.

4. Justice Party. Problems? Besides not being on the Texas ballot, I don't think it's as far left as Greens, and it was created in party from Naderite spite at the Greens.
5. Not voting. I've long said this is an honorable choice if done with due consideration.
6. Libertarian or Democrat. Yes, this is a coin toss. Gary Johnson's not as nutbar as some LP candidates, but the party is still "way out there" on many economic, and even more so, on many economic justice issues. BUT .... Hillary Clinton is Hillary Clinton.

I take voting MORE seriously than duopolists

I love duopolists who claim a vote for Green Party presidential candidate Jill Stein is a wasted vote, or even worse, that it's a vote for Donald Trump, even in the face of the mainstream media's Chicago Tribune totally refudiating them.

Indeed, I've more than once said I wish I had multiple left-liberal choices. Should the Socialist Party USA get on the Texas presidential ballot as a write-in, I'll consider it.

However, unlike the recently delinked Dan Arel, I won't puff up socialists by creating a strawman out of Greens. And as I said there, Dan, lemme know when Socialists of any party conduct a ballot access drive in Texas like Greens.

Also let me know when socialists of various non-Communist stripes can quit splitting, quit renaming, and form one stable, unified party.

And, I mentioned the magic word. Just like the German SPD refusing to coalition in 1932, I'll never vote Communist. (That includes "Socialist Workers" parties, speaking of splinters.)

As for Arel talking about how long Greens have had to become more of a force? Socialist Party USA stem from the old Socialist Party of Eugene Debs and Norman Thomas, which self-destructed in the 1940s by opposing entry to WWII, after in the 1930s wanting to ape the Communist Party by admitting Trotskyites.

Also contra that claim? The SPUSA has run a prez candidate every year since 1976. Greens only since 2004 (there was no national level Green Party in Nader's 2000 run.)

I also take voting third part enough to know that, unlike Dan Arel and his professed thoroughness, Bernie Sanders has been a de facto Democrat for more than 20 years.

So, Dan, it's fine if you wanted to leave the Green Party.

But be honest about both it, and its relatively short history, and the Socialists, and the fact that they've long had the chance to at least get back to 1930s strength and have failed. And that they've continued to splinter, even as the Socialism and Liberation Party also fields a prez candidate.

(Judging by a few of his tweets, Arel may also be a bit more Gnu Atheist friendly than I first thought, but that's another story.)

Update: I don't have a problem starting a Twitter war with him, whether on "call me in 20 years on Socialists," which has already started, or his apparent ongoing belief that Bernie's an actual independent. (And, Bernie's new cash cow bid with "Our Revolution" refutes THAT!) Arel also claims that Bernie's really left (NOT) and that he doesn't get why I bring it up.

I brought it up because it's part of bringing into question your political discernment bona fides.

He also claims she's pro-chemtrails, just because she posted one link about GMOs from a website that also believes in them.

Swiftboating. I'd never heard that accusation before. I've posted links from Faux News before, Dan? Does that make me a wingnut?

In his world, apparently it does. I called Bill Nye an attention whore — because he is — and Arel said that's part of my anti-science stance.

And, Dan, I'll be able to do that about the Socialist candidates too, even with less of an online paper trail.

Took 30 secs of Googling to find out that Socialists USA want to ban all GMOs. And, that, when asked about that, its prez candidate, Mimi Solystik, engaged in either ignorance or pandering of his own, claiming he didn't know where the science stood: "the approaches to the science may have developed since this particular plank was written."

That's from last year, but, from what I know, and from one of Arel's own comments on Twitter, that hasn't changed. The hypocrisy grows.

Arel now claims Solystik's talking to a biochemist. Let's see what happens. (The only claim to that which I've seen is on that same Reddit post.) He also said that he's working to change that. Lemme know when that happens, actually happens. I also pointed out to him that he didn't post anything about S-USA's anti-GMO stance on his blog when throwing Stein under the bus.

It's hypocrisy by non-disclosure. Either he knows that and is in denial, or else he doesn't know that, which makes him even more another overrated Patheos blogger.

Dan also claims that Socialists have more local official than Greens. Given that Socialists USA, on the party's website, don't even have a link to "local candidates," no way to even prove or disprove that.

More hypocrisy on that, via Twitter:

You sound like someone who learned about politics on Google.

SPUSA isn't in the election winning business.  https://t.co/40plMIyWdJ

— Dan Arel (@danarel) August 27, 2016

It also, re the organizational claims, has only four statewide S-USA party organizations; all others are locals, per this webpage.

And, yes, I'll be expanding this into a separate blogpost, in all likelihood.

There's voter suppression and there's duopoly voter suppression

With federal court rulings striking down voter ID laws in North Carolina and Texas, and putting some dings, at least, on voting laws in Ohio and Wisconsin, it's a good time to talk about voter suppression, right?

Liberal activist groups like People for the American Way certainly think it's a good time to talk about it as a fundraiser. My email inbox has been hit by it and others.

But, there's a dirty little secret.

PFAW may truly care about minority voters who can't vote Democrat.

But, it doesn't care at all about voters of any color who can't vote Green (or Libertarian).

But the likes of Black Agenda Report, discussing the Green vice presidential candidacy of Ajamu Baraka, has their number.

What would #Hillbots, and Dems in general, say against Socialists?

Picture if, say, the Socialist Party USA instead of the Green Party, were America's leading left-liberl party.

Instead of attacks claiming the Greens are anti-science, we'd have attacks claiming the Socialists are anti-economics.

We know this from the attacks Hillary Clinton and her allies and surrogates launched against non-socialist social democrat lite Bernie Sanders.

See, national Dems are like Goldilocks, always wanting the bed that's "just right." Hillary just practices a more incremental version of this.

Well, first, the GOP, to turn the old Overton Window into a new parable, keep resizing, or to riff on an employment word, downsizing "just right," and national Dems then keep contorting themselves into tighter quarters.

Eventually, to riff on John Nance Garner, that "just right" isn't worth a warm bucket of piss.

TX Progressives look at state, national races getting more blue

The Texas Progressive Alliance keeps the flame burning as it brings you this week's roundup.

Off the Kuff looks at which legislative races could get interesting if poll numbers get closer in Texas.

Socratic Gadfly looks at Hillary Clinton naming Ken Salazar as her proposed transition head, and shows his long history of anti-environmental stances go far beyond the fracking that many first noticed.

The US Senate looks ripe to flip from red to blue, says PDiddie at Brains and Eggs.

Texas Republicans war on women has cost hundreds of mothers their lives.  CouldBeTrue of South Texas Chisme wants you to know that this is no joke and no exaggeration.

Neil Aquino at All People Have Value updates his photos section.

Egberto Willes calls out a Houston Caddy dealer for scamming him, and finds relief at a local auto repair shop.

==============

And here are some posts of interest from other Texas blogs.

Ken Janda debunks some myths about Obamacare.

Juanita can't even with Rick Perry.

Eileen Smith breaks out the 80s sci-fi analogies for Donald Trump.

Mean Green Cougar Red contemplates the elevated buses of China.

Better Texas Blog explains the recent health insurance marketplace changes in Texas.

The Texas Election Law Blog gives some historical context to the latest voting rights lawsuit victory against the state of Texas.

Grits for Breakfast asks how much could Texas communities save by not arresting people for petty misdemeanors.

#Swiftboating of #GreenParty Veep Ajamu Baraka — who opened himself to it

Corey Pein, who I'd never heard of before, posted last Friday a two minute clip from a one-hour interview that Baraka had with 9-11 Truther and alleged Holocaust denialist Kevin Barrett, claiming it proved Baraka was also at a minimum flirting with Holocaust denialism. (Barrett's position, stated here by him, I would best describe as Holocaust denialism lite.)

It did no such thing. (And, I'm not going to dignify Pein's claims by actually post his short clip.)

Per another Tweeter:

@billmon1 I'd hardly call it denying the jewish holocaust to point out the crimes of Dresden, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.

— robert rizzuto (@RobertOryx754) August 20, 2016

The two were actually discussing the use of the word "Holocaust," and how it can sometimes be used to shut down debate.

Jews as well as goys have raised that issue before.

Let's not forget that the great Simon Wiesenthal often talked about the Nazis' "greater Holocaust" of 11 million, including Slav intellectuals, Roma, etc., along with the 6 million Jews — and regularly got vilified by many Jews.

And, I told Pein bluntly on Twitter – that all you got? If he really is a Holocaust denialist, post me a better clip than that as proof.

Well, Pein blocked me shortly thereafter, and didn't post any better proof.

That said, this issue does connect to other issues, per the part of my header after the em-dash.

Per his Wiki page, Baraka HAS claimed that a 2014 kidnapping of Israeli teens by Hamas is a false flag. And, while he's rejected Holocaust denialism (and Wiki makes no mention of him being a Holocaust denialist), his rejection is pretty weak, about his claim that he didn't think any essays he allowed to be reprinted in a book would appear next to essays by denialists. Once you raise the false flag claim, Baraka, it's in for a penny, in for a pound.

This also reflects poorly on Jill Stein. Did she know about this in advance and brush it aside? Or did she and her assistants do a poor job of vetting him? I mean, she knew that Swiftboating attacks were coming, right?

It also reflects poorly on the Green Party. While it has gotten smeared at times unduly for anti-Semitism, it's got more than its share of anti-Semitic cranks, along with Frankenfooders and anti-vaxxers, even if Stein isn't one herself.

That said, the anti-Semitism issue isn't just Greens; its an issue that hits other left-liberals that don't identify as Green. I delinked Counterpunch from my blog for a number of years because Alex Cockburn's anti-Zionism sometimes crossed the line into anti-Semitism, as I saw it.

The false flags in general? I reject them in general, along with other aspects of conspiracy thinking.

That said, given things like Tuskegee Airmen, I can understand their power for many African-Americans.

And, while the comment is VERY problematic, so is the chickenshit hit-and-run