Originally published on November 6th, 2020
Showing posts with label Electoral College. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Electoral College. Show all posts
Friday, November 6, 2020
Thursday, November 5, 2020
Fifteen States Allow Faithless Electors to Cast Protest Votes Without Limitation or Punishment
If Donald Trump wins Wisconsin and Michigan again in 2020 - and Arizona and Nevada go for Biden - then Biden will win the Electoral College 270 to 268. Proportional allocation in Nebraska and Maine, and/or protest votes in the Electoral College, could make the difference, and potentially produce a tie, or else stop both Trump and Biden from receiving the 270 electoral votes necessary to win.
To learn about the results out of Nebraska and Maine, read the following article (if you can afford it):
http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2020/11/03/us/elections/results-maine-house-district-2.html
Watch the following Instagram videos - posted on November 5th, 2020 - to learn about why these faithless electors may come into play.
The map below shows which states allow electors in the Electoral College to cast protest votes, without being either threatened with fines or punishment, or being required to vote according to how the majority voted in the given state.
If any faithless electors show up in the Electoral College, they will most likely come from one of the states marked as red in the map below. If they come from other states, fines and legal challenges would almost certainly result.
This information is accurate as of November 2020.
Read my explanation of how the president is elected, and how the Electoral College and the 12th Amendment work, at the following link:
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/07/states-where-libertarian-party-and.html
http://aquarianagrarian.blogspot.com/2020/07/states-where-libertarian-party-and.html
Sources:
- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faithless_elector#/media/File:Faithless_elector_states.svg
- http://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/the-electoral-college.aspx#faithless
- http://apnews.com/article/a398c3e7c8d2c4a1b9ad498ed5f86ed7
Written and Published on November 5th, 2020
Tuesday, October 20, 2020
Who Are the Viable Options for President in Your State, Besides Trump, Biden, and Jorgensen?
In all 50 states and the District of Columbia, Donald Trump, Joe Biden, and Libertarian nominee Jo Jorgensen will all appear on the ballot for president on November 3rd.
The only other viable candidates are Howie Hawkins (Green Party), Gloria LaRiva (Party for Socialism and Liberation), and Brian Carroll (American Solidarity Party).
What follows is a list of states, and which viable candidates - besides Trump, Biden, and Jorgensen - voters in that state can vote for. Viability is determined by ballot access in enough states with enough electoral votes to potentially win the election.
Alaska: Hawkins (write-in),
LaRiva (write-in), Carroll (write-in)
Alabama: Hawkins
(write-in), Carroll (write-in)
Arizona: Hawkins (write-in),
LaRiva (write-in)
Arkansas: Hawkins (on ballot), LaRiva (on
ballot), Carroll (on ballot)
California: Hawkins (on ballot),
LaRiva (on ballot)
Colorado: Hawkins (on ballot), LaRiva
(on ballot), Carroll (on ballot)
Connecticut: Hawkins (on ballot),
LaRiva (on ballot), Carroll (on ballot)
D.C.: Hawkins (on
ballot), LaRiva (on ballot)
Delaware: Hawkins (on ballot), LaRiva
(write-in), Carroll (write-in)
Florida : Hawkins (on ballot),
LaRiva (on ballot), Carroll (write-in)
Georgia: Hawkins (write-in), LaRiva
(write-in), Carroll (write-in)
Hawaii : Hawkins (on
ballot)
Idaho: Hawkins (write-in), LaRiva (write-in), Carroll
(write-in)
Illinois: Hawkins (on ballot), LaRiva (on ballot),
Carroll (on ballot)
Indiana: Hawkins (write-in), Carroll
(write-in)
Iowa: Hawkins (on ballot), LaRiva (write-in), Carroll
(write-in)
Kansas : Carroll (write-in)
Kentucky: Hawkins
(write-in), Carroll (write-in)
Louisiana: LaRiva (on ballot),
Carroll (on ballot)
Maine: Hawkins (on ballot), LaRiva
(write-in)
Maryland: Hawkins (on ballot), Carroll
(write-in)
Massachusetts: Hawkins (on ballot), Carroll
(write-in)
Michigan: Hawkins (on ballot), Carroll
(write-in)
Minnesota: Hawkins (on ballot), LaRiva (on
ballot)
Mississippi: Hawkins (on ballot), Carroll (on
ballot)
Missouri: Hawkins (on ballot), Carroll
(write-in)
Montana: Hawkins (on ballot), Carroll
(write-in)
Nebraska: Carroll
(write-in)
Nevada: none (Don Blankenship is on the ballot, but he
is not viable)
New Hampshire: Hawkins (write-in), LaRiva
(write-in), Carroll (write-in)
New Jersey: Hawkins (on ballot),
LaRiva (on ballot), Carroll (write-in)
New Mexico: Hawkins (on
ballot), LaRiva (on ballot)
New York: Hawkins (on ballot),
Carroll (write-in)
North Carolina: Hawkins (on ballot)
North
Dakota: Carroll (write-in)
Ohio: Hawkins (on ballot), Carroll
(write-in)
Oklahoma: none (Kanye West, Jade Simmons, and others
can receive votes, but are not viable)
Oregon: Hawkins (on
ballot), LaRiva (write-in), Carroll (write-in)
Pennsylvania: Hawkins
(write-in), LaRiva (write-in), Carroll (write-in)
Rhode
Island: Hawkins (write-in), LaRiva (on ballot), Carroll (on
ballot)
South Carolina: Hawkins (on ballot)
South
Dakota: none (Jorgensen is the only minor party candidate on the ballot; there are no write-ins)
Tennessee: Hawkins (on ballot), LaRiva (on ballot),
Carroll (write-in)
Texas: Hawkins (on ballot), LaRiva
(write-in), Carroll (write-in)
Utah: Hawkins (on ballot), LaRiva
(on ballot), Carroll (write-in)
Vermont: Hawkins (on ballot),
LaRiva (on ballot), Carroll (on
ballot)
Virginia: none (Jorgensen is the only minor party candidate on the ballot; there are no write-ins)
Washington: Hawkins (on ballot),
LaRiva (on ballot), Carroll (write-in)
West Virginia: Hawkins (on
ballot), LaRiva (write-in)
Wisconsin: Hawkins
(write-in), LaRiva (write-in), Carroll (on ballot)
Wyoming: Hawkins (write-in), LaRiva (write-in), Carroll (write-in)
Source:
Published on October 20th, 2020
Wednesday, September 16, 2020
Most Likely Path to Electoral College Victory for Howie Hawkins and the Green Party
The map below shows what I believe is the Green Party's most likely path to victory in the Electoral College in 2020.
This map assumes that Hawkins will win most of the states in which the Green Party currently has ballot access for the November 3rd, 2020 election. Of those states, the states which supported Jill Stein the least in 2016, are assumed to have too weak a level of support for the Green Party, to muster a Hawkins victory. The map also assumes that it will be easier for Hawkins to win write-in campaigns in Kansas and Wisconsin, than it will be to win the State of Texas.
The map was created on http://www.270towin.com/.
Click to enlarge
Sources used to create the map above:
Green Party ballot access, 2020:
http://howiehawkins.us/ballotaccess/
Support for Jill Stein in each state, 2016:
http://www.google.com/search?q=2016+jill+stein+results&safe=off&sxsrf=ALeKk00dCSbtI8hvpS7CgOL_vATK7xDo_g:1600319190175&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwiC4O3Gte_rAhUFKa0KHdJOAAAQ_AUoAXoECBEQAw&biw=1396&bih=686#imgrc=g1Q0KNCKDQdr8M
Map Created, and Article Published,
on September 17th, 2020
Friday, August 21, 2020
Most Likely Paths to Electoral College Victory for the Libertarian and Green Party Presidential Nominees in 2020
Click on image, and/or open in a new tab or window, to enlarge
Note:
Libertarians had more support in 2016 in California than they did in
Delaware, Nevada, Vermont, and West Virginia
(by percentage of the popular vote in each state).
The map above does not reflect that fact, because
it is extremely unlikely that the Libertarian Party would take California
away from the Democrats; furthermore, that would require a landslide.
It would only require a smaller plurality of Electoral College votes,
for the Libertarian Party nominee to win.
That would require winning Delaware, Nevada, Vermont, and West Virginia,
but winning California would not be necessary.
The Libertarian Party nominee could still receive the most votes in the Electoral College
if the candidate were to win California, but not the other four states mentioned above.
Source:
Click on image, and/or open in a new tab or window, to enlarge
Source:
Images created and published on August 21st, 2020
Friday, July 31, 2020
2020 U.S. Presidential Candidates, Arranged by the Number of States in Which They'll Have Ballot Access
Click, and open in a new tab, to enlarge images
Note:
I previously reported that Vermin Supreme was running a write-in candidate. That is incorrect.
He endorsed Jo Jorgensen, the Libertarian Party's nominee, at the party's national convention.
However, seven states (those shown in green) will likely accept write-in votes
for any American who's eligible to be seated in the White House.
Sources include:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Third-party_and_independent_candidates_for_the_2020_United_States_presidential_election
http://medium.com/@Chris_Powell/2020-alternative-party-ballot-access-updated-a87e3a8f4f3
http://medium.com/@Chris_Powell/2020-alternative-party-ballot-access-updated-a87e3a8f4f3
Originally Created and Published on July 31st, 2020
Images Updated, Replaced,
and Additional Images Created and Published,
on August 14th and 20th, 2020,
Images Updated, Replaced,
and Additional Images Created and Published,
on August 14th and 20th, 2020,
and March 16th, 2021
Wednesday, July 29, 2020
How the President is Actually Elected, and Where You Can Vote for Third Party Presidential Candidates in 2020
Incumbent
president Donald Trump of the Republican Party will almost certainly
be his party's nominee for the presidency in 2020. The Republican
Party Convention hasn't been held yet, but that's almost certain to
be the case, as it has been decades (28 years) since an incumbent
Republican president has faced a significant challenge during a
re-election campaign.
The
Democratic Party, and presumptive nominee Joe Biden, face a similar
situation. However, it's remotely possible that Biden could fail to
secure enough delegates on the first round, which could result in the
nomination of Bernie Sanders.
Still,
that the Democratic Party will nominate Biden, and the Republican
Party will nominate Trump, seems inevitable.
Many
Americans are upset that the president is not elected democratically,
and that the candidate with the most votes does not always win, and
that this "Electoral College upset" has been the case more
and more often over the last twenty years.
In a
recent interview for an internet podcast, Ralph Nader, the Green
Party's presidential nominee in 2000 and 2004, made reference to the
Electoral College, in a manner which, to me, suggests that he does
not understand how it works. In the interview, Nader was referring to
either the 2016 presidential election, or else all elections
in which the Electoral College elected a candidate who did not win
the popular vote. Nader said something like "the Electoral
College kicked in" because the winner of the popular vote didn't
win the majority of votes in enough states to become president.
I
suspect that Nader is either confused, doesn't fully understand the
process, and/or has been distracted by his desire to build support
for the Interstate Popular Vote Compact, to accurately portray how,
and when, and under what circumstances, the Electoral College works.
(Note: The Interstate Popular Vote Compact is a compact between
states which desire to make it legally binding upon Electoral College
electors that they must support whichever candidate received a
majority of votes in each state.)
By
saying "the Electoral College kicked in" after the "popular
vote winner" didn't win enough states, Nader is - intentionally
or not - misleading voters into thinking that the Electoral College
doesn't always meet, and that it only meets when the "popular
vote winner" doesn't win enough states.
Whether
Nader understands how the president is elected or not, there is
no such thing as a "popular vote winner" of the
presidency. Or, at least, there is, if you want to measure things
that way. But as far as constitutional law - the framework for our
government, which outlines the structure of our elections - is
concerned, the "popular vote winner" does not
matter, and for all intents and purposes, does not exist. The
Electoral College elects the president, not the people.
If
there were such a thing as a "popular vote winner", then
Hillary Clinton would be President of the United States right now, or
she would be some sort of bizarre co-president. Donald Trump was
inaugurated on January 20th, 2017, because he won the
Electoral College. The Electoral College that meets every
four years - in early December, about a month after the
election - regardless of who wins "the popular vote".
I'm
not saying that things have to be this way, I'm
simply saying that this is currently how the president is elected. We
can amend the Constitution to change that process any time we want;
any time we get enough public support to change presidential
elections in some particular way. That will require time, effort,
coalition-building, and political willpower. But if a significant
majority of the people think that it's acceptable for the president
to be elected by a narrow majority, or a narrow plurality, of popular
votes, then that's fine; it just requires a constitutional amendment
before presidential elections can be run that way.
Just
keep in mind that, if the popular vote elects the president, we will
have a brand new problem (which is just the same old problem in
disguise): the problem of pluralities. If four people run for
president, and each receives 40%, 30%, 20%, and 10% (as was the case
in the election of 1860), then the candidate who won 40% will become
president without receiving a majority of the popular
vote. And that, in its own way, is just as anti-majoritarian
as the way the Electoral College allows states to override the
majority. Which leaves us back at square one.
Fortunately, thanks to Amendment XII to the U.S. Constitution,
there is a process which allows a "third party" or
"independent" presidential candidate to win the office, if
both Biden and Trump fail to capture the 270 electoral votes needed
to win the presidency.
It is possible for a
“third party” candidate to stop both Biden and Trump
from getting the 270 electoral votes necessary to win the presidency,
forcing a second round of voting in which each state would have one
vote and could choose from among the top three electoral college
vote-getters.
We
shouldn't even be calling these parties “third parties”, because
of how many American voters keep insisting “third parties can't
win”. “Third parties can't win”? Not with that
attitude, they can't! Third
parties can't win if you won't vote for them.
Calling
the Libertarian Party and Green Party “third parties” suggests
that they're third-rate,
or not viable. That is not the case. The proper term is “minor
party”, meaning a party that has not yet received 5% of popular
support in a previous election in any given area. If a party has ever
gotten more than 5% of the vote in any county in a state, then it is
considered a major party in that state.
We
cannot say that we have fair and open elections, if we don't allow a
third, a fourth, and a fifth voice into the presidential debates
(which are now controlled by the Commission on Presidential Debates,
made up of the former heads of the Democratic National Committee and
the Republican National Committee).
We need more options.
Luckily,
there is an even easier way
to elect a Libertarian, a Green, a socialist, a Constitution Party
candidate, etc., to
the White House. Twelfth Amendment tactics are not necessary! It's
simpler than you might think.
All that a “third party” candidate for president has to do to win
the presidency, is receive a majority of the votes in about 25 or 30
of the states in which they've achieved ballot access. That's it!
And
guess what: It's already possible for the Libertarian Party and the
Green Party to win, because each of them has achieved ballot access
in more than 30 states! Moreover, each the L.P. and G.P. will
probably achieve ballot access in somewhere between 45 and 50 states
between now and Election Day (November 3rd,
2020), as they have done during the last several presidential
elections.
So there's still hope! If a Green or a Libertarian wins a clear
majority in more than half of the states, or in about 20 of the
higher-population states, then as long as the electors in the
electoral college respect the majority's vote, that candidate will be
elected president by the Electoral College.
Below are two maps which show the states where American voters will be able
to choose the Libertarian nominee (Jo Jorgensen) and the Green
nominee (Howie Hawkins) for president at the ballot on November 3rd,
2020.
The Libertarian Party presidential nominee
had ballot access in 36 states and the District of Columbia
as of the last week of July 2020.
Yellow = states in which Libertarian Party presidential nominee Jo Jorgensen will be on the ballotGray = states in which the Libertarian Party is still petitioning to get on the ballot
Source:
The Green Party presidential nominee
had ballot access in 25 states and the District of Columbia
as of the last week of July 2020.
Green = states in which
Green Party presidential nominee Howie Hawkins will be on the ballot
Red = states in which the
Green Party is still petitioning to get on the ballot
Orange = states in which
Howie Hawkins will be a write-in candidate
Sources: Green Party website
This information is
presumed accurate as of the last week of July 2020.
.
To be
clear: I stated above that if a candidate receives the majority votes
in enough states, then that person will probably become president.
That is, if the Electoral
College voters abide by that decision. They don't have to.
You see, each state is
allowed to run its presidential election the way it prefers, and to
allocate its Electoral College votes in any manner it pleases. That
includes each state's right to decide whether to allow, or else
punish and impose a fine upon, “protest votes” in the Electoral
College. Electors who cast such “protest votes” are called
“faithless electors” (but only if they go back on their pledge to
support a given candidate).
There are currently 18
states which do not impose any fine or punishment
upon faithless electors: Idaho, Utah, South Dakota, Kansas, Texas,
Iowa, Missouri, Arkansas, Louisiana, Illinois Kentucky, Georgia, West
Virginia, New York, Pennsylvania, New Jersey, New Hampshire, and
Rhode Island. In all other states, state laws may either require a
delegate to keep his pledge, or provide for the replacement of a
delegate who becomes a faithless elector, or provide for a fine to be
imposed upon the elector for attempting to break his pledge.
What
this means is that, theoretically, Electoral College electors in all
of those 18 states could decide that they want to “sabotage” the
vote, by choosing some candidate who didn't win the majority in their
respective states, and they couldn't get punished. That candidate
would have to receive a majority of votes in only a couple states
besides those 18, to win enough Electoral College votes to win the
presidency. Such a candidate could pass 270 votes by adding together
their “legitimate” votes to their so-called “illegitimate” -
but nonetheless legal - faithless elector votes.
And
voilà !
There's yet another way
a third party candidate could become president.
The
power of states and the Electoral College, are not the only “threats”
to the “majority popular vote” method which many desire for
electing the president. The power of faithless electors to vote for a
candidate who did not win the majority in that delegate's state,
could, in fact, be perceived as a threat to both
the “popular vote” and the “states' rights” approaches.
But
when both major party candidates are corrupt, we have to consider
radical approaches, such as refraining from punishing faithless
electors who refuse to cast their vote for someone they don't believe
is competent to assume the office of the presidency (the highest
executive office in the land). And we have to consider radical
approaches such as electing a “third party” candidate to the
White House.
Here
are two maps about faithless electors. The first shows which states
faithless electors can and cannot break their pledges without being
punished. The second shows that five other candidates
received Electoral College votes in 2016; in addition to Hillary Clinton
and Donald Trump.
Map showing the legality of faithless electors
2016 Electoral College results,
showing that seven candidates
won Electoral College votes, not two
Has anybody ever seen this map before? Most Americans haven't.
How is this possible, when all we saw on CNN and FOX and MSNBC were red and blue maps? They were reporting the popular votes in each state. The Electoral College - where the president is actually elected - met a full month later, and some electors were free to pick people who weren't even running. That's the truth!
The major media networks don't tell us this, because 1) they think it's too complicated for the average voter to understand; 2) it's time-consuming to explain; and 3) they don't want to remind American voters that they're not the actual people who pick the president, we actually elect people who elect the president.
All of this begs the question: How many of us can say that we
were taught the whole truth,
in school, about how the president is elected in this country? How
many of us knew that the people don't elect the president; they elect
people who elect the
president? That the Electoral College meets every four years, regardless of what happens with the popular vote?
How
long will this country last, if our government is so complicated,
that we can't even teach our children how it
works, because it doesn't work?
If enough Americans who can't stand Biden or Trump, can choose either Jorgensen or Hawkins or some other candidate to rally around, then it will be possible for that candidate to win the 30-45% of the popular vote which will be necessary to receive in most states, to pull off a clear victory.
That will be especially easy to do, if either Jorgensen, Hawkins, or some other candidate, garners much more public support than all of the other third party candidates, and blows their own competition for "lead third party candidate" out of the water.
I have my own opinion about whom that candidate should be, but it is ultimately up to the public.
One way or another, one of the candidates opposing both Biden and Trump must become president, or corruption will continue to reign, and the republic will risk being lost forever.
This may be our last chance.
Please visit thegreenpapers.com to find the full list of candidates running in races in your area (including the president).
Research Libertarian Party nominee Jo Jorgensen, Green Party nominee Howie Hawkins, Party for Socialism and Liberation nominee Gloria LaRiva, Constitution Party nominee Don Blankenship, Prohibition Party nominee Phil Collins, independent candidates Vermin Supreme and Kanye West.
Find out whether each of them will be on the ballot in your state, and then go to the polls on November 3rd, 2020 and vote your conscience. As former Libertarian Party presidential nominee Gary Johnson has said, "The only wasted vote is a vote for a candidate you don't believe in."
Addendum (added on August 6th, 2020):
On Monday, July 6th,
2020, N.P.R. reported that the United States Supreme Court upheld
state laws that punish faithless electors (which are also known as
Hamilton electors, named after Alexander Hamilton).
However, the fact that the court made
this decision, does not mean that states must pass
laws that punish faithless electors.
It is
also important to note that, according to Article II, Section 1,
Clause 2 of the U.S. Constitution, each state legislature determines
the manner in which delegates are selected and appointed:
“Each
State shall appoint, in such Manner
as the Legislature thereof may direct,
[emphasis mine] a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of
Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in
the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an
Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed
an Elector.”
Written and
Published on July 30th, 2020
Updated on July 31st, 2020
Addendum Added on August 6th, 2020
Updated on July 31st, 2020
Addendum Added on August 6th, 2020
Thursday, June 25, 2020
How a Green or Socialist Presidential Nominee Could Win the Electoral College
The map below shows how a Green Party presidential nominee, or the presidential nominee of a socialist party, could win the electoral college.
In the map below, which was created on http://www.270towin.com/, Republicans are shown in red, Democrats are shown in blue, and Greens (or socialists) are shown in green.
I believe that this is one of the most likely scenarios allowing a Green nominee to win the presidency. That candidate would have to win a simple majority - not even 50% plus one, that candidate just has to get more votes than any other presidential candidate - in each of the respective states shown in green.
The reason why I believe that this is one of the most likely scenarios which would allow a Green nominee to win the presidency, is because of the three assumptions I have made in order to create this graph. Those assumptions are:
1) Donald Trump will be nominated by the Republican Party, and he will win the same states he won in 2016, except for states he would lose to the Democratic and Green candidates as the result of a viable Green candidate entering the race;
2) Joe Biden will be nominated by the Democratic Party, and he will win all states that Trump and the Green nominee do not win; and
3) whomever is nominated by the Green Party in early July (most likely Howie Hawkins) will win the set of states whose voters came out the strongest for Jill Stein (the Green Party's 2016 nominee), but only as many of them as would be necessary to add up to 270 or more.
This may be an unlikely set of assumptions, but that is what it will take to produce a Green Party or socialist victory in the Electoral College. The statistics which I ran, show that Wyoming, Iowa, Ohio, and New Jersey would be the most likely to end up as "swing states", but it's also likely that virtually all of the states shown in gray and blue, could end up being "swing states".
To put that another way, support for Biden and the Democratic Party would shrink drastically, if the top two contenders for the presidency turned out to be Donald Trump and Howie Hawkins (or Dario Hunter, the second most viable candidate in the Green Party's primaries).
To take the Electoral College, the Green Party nominee would have to win all of the states shown in green, plus at least one or two of the states shown in gray (or, if not those, then one or two of the states shown in blue).
Image created by Joe Kopsick on June 25th, 2020
The image below was used to create the set of statistics, regarding support for Jill Stein in each state, which were used to predict the viability of a Green Party candidate in 2020.
Image not created by the author of this blog
Percentages of support for Trump, Hillary Clinton, and Libertarian Party nominee Gary Johnson - but not Jill Stein - can be viewed at the following link:
Information regarding support for Donald Trump in each state, was taken from the above link, in order to calculate the states most likely to turn out for Trump in the event that the Green Party wins the Electoral College by increasing support in all of the states in which Greens are already supported the most per capita.
The 2020 Green Party National Convention will be held from July 9th to 12th, in Detroit, Michigan. The nominating convention will begin at noon Eastern Time on Saturday, July 11th, and it will be broadcast live.
That means we will know that afternoon who the Green Party's 2020 presidential nominee will be, and the stage will be set for the presidential race (the Constitution, Libertarian, and P.S.L. parties having already chosen their candidates; Don Blankenship, Jo Jorgensen, and Gloria LaRiva respectively).
Written and Published on June 25th, 2020
Friday, July 6, 2018
On Limiting the Power of Majorities to Oppress Minorities and Individuals
One common objection to libertarianism, which comes from
the right, is this: Why should people be allowed to ignore the
decisions of the collective, or ignore the results of a democratic
decision?
I
believe that people should be free to ignore democratic decisions,
but only when
the democratic body (or collective) doesn't hold up to its end of the
bargain (or the contract, or social contract, union contract,
Constitution, town charter, business charter, whatever the case may
be).
Libertarians
do not hate democracy,
we are skeptical of
democracy. The same can be said of our position on unions. We
have no problem with forms of democracy that are entered into
voluntarily, especially if they are direct, participatory, inclusive,
and if possible, unanimous.
We
feel that democracy, just like republicanism, should be part of
government, but only in small doses, only if it's limited. And we
feel that democracy should be limited because we worry about what is
called "the tyranny of the majority"; that is, democratic
decisions sometimes cause the oppression of minorities and
individuals.
That's
why most Libertarians feel that something ought to limit what
democracy can do. The point of a democratic republic is not that
government should be able to "steal from the rich and give to
the poor", instead the point is that the people should only be
allowed to vote on how to allocate the resources which
are voluntarily given
to the government, instead of taxed away in our paychecks before we
even receive them.
The
very history of America, and the Constitution, are steeped in the
tradition of having democracy, but in a limited fashion. The whole
reason that we have a Senate and an Electoral College is that
requiring a supermajority - slightly more than 50% - reduces the risk
that individuals and minorities will be oppressed as the result of
the decision.
Supermajoritarianism
thus requires more consensus than a mere 50.1% approval, and
requiring more than a majority protects society from the risks
associated with political change occurring not only too rapidly, but
in a flip-flopping manner (suppose abortion's popularity were 49.9%
one year, and 50.1% the next, for example).
Of
course, protecting "minorities" begs the question: What
kinds of minorities? Certainly we want to protect ethnic, racial,
cultural, and religious minorities, as well as ideological
minorities. But protecting the 1% minority that receives the vast
majority of the new wealth created, is not our priority either,
because the Libertarian Party wants to eliminate corporate welfare.
So of course not all minorities deserve protection; the 1%
already has protections
and privileges, privileges that we want to eliminate.
The
freedom to disregard the results of a democratic election, is
somewhat related to the right to challenge the results of that
election. Nobody who voted Bernie Sanders in the primary was
obligated to vote for Hillary Clinton in the general election.
Another
argument against majorities: We have juries for a reason. Some of the
decisions our government is making put people's lives on the line.
And when someone is in jeopardy of life and limb, we give them a jury
trial. And if even one
person on
the jury isn't convinced that they di the crime, or that the law
being applied is appropriate, they get to cause a deadlock of that
jury by themselves, and a mistrial is declared. That's because the
only way to guarantee that a democratic decision is fully voluntary,
is to make it unanimous.
If
you're curious about the history of conflict between democracy vs.
the rights of individuals and minorities, a great book to read
is Dred
Scott's Revenge by
Judge Andrew Napolitano. He explains the "utilitarian"
nature of democracy, and why he feels that utilitarian thinking led
pre-Civil War Democrats to treat human beings like slaves,
and utilize them
as if they were tools.
Another
thing to consider: What happens when the union chosen by a majority
of the workplace, is a union that is bought and paid for by the
employers and management? What if there is a minority of workers who
have more radical demands
than the union in power?
Wherever
such a situation exists, the majority oppresses the minority, and
democracy hurts workers. I'm not saying that democracy always hurts
workers, I'm just saying that that's the way things are rigged, and
they're that way because of federal labor laws that the Libertarian
Party would like to repeal or amend (like the Wagner Act, the
Taft-Hartley Act, and others).
A
"wildcat strike" is what happens when some workers go on
strike without the permission of the union leader. I believe that
participating in wildcat strikes should be just as easy and legal as
quitting your job.
Originally
Written on June 29th, 2018
Edited
and Published on July 6th, 2018
Wednesday, September 7, 2016
Libertarian Party Electoral College Strategy
Written on July 30th and September 7th, 2016
Edited on October 5th, 2016
Expanded on November 23rd, 2016
Note: all information contained herein - with the exception of the final image - is based on 2012 vote totals. Similar data based on 2016 vote totals will be available soon; either on this page, or in a new blog entry.
In order to reduce the Democrats to the 260-to-269-vote level that is necessary for the Libertarians' potential electoral votes to deny both parties the 270 votes necessary to win the electoral college, Trump would have to take Ohio, North Carolina, Florida, and either or both Iowa and Nevada in order to reduce the Democrats to that level. That would prompt the House of Representatives to elect the president.
The 6 electoral outcomes pictured below would deny Democrats and Republicans the 270 votes necessary to win.
The next map (below) shows which states would go to which party - in the event of Gary Johnson winning just enough states to achieve the 270 electoral votes required to be elected - but only for the Democratic and Republican parties.
Blue = Democratic Party, Red = Republican Party.
The states shown in gray represent Libertarian wins. The darkest states represent the states most likely to be won by Libertarians first; with Florida 28th and last. The numbers represent each state's place in that ranking, ranked according to how many percentage points the Libertarian Party lacks in comparison with the highest polling presidential candidate in each state.
Utah, New Mexico, Alaska, and Colorado appear to be the four states most likely to see Libertarian victories in the electoral college, with Maine, Maryland, and Minnesota in a three-way tie for fifth.
This third and final map (below) shows which states would go to which party, in the event of Gary Johnson winning just enough states to achieve the 270 electoral votes required to be elected to the presidency without the House of Representatives voting on the matter.
Yellow = Libertarian Party, Blue = Democratic Party, Red = Republican Party.
For Gary Johnson to win Florida would secure the Libertarian Party between 291 and 298 electoral votes (depending on the outcomes in Maine and Nebraska).
A map comparing Gary Johnson's total vote percentages in 2012 and 2016.
Some 2016 vote totals may reflect incomplete results.
Source:
https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/politics/2016-election/50-state-poll/#results-table-container
Monday, March 10, 2014
Is This the Electoral Map of the 2016 Presidential Race?
Click to enlarge
For
more entries on election studies, please visit:
Sunday, March 20, 2011
2012 Electoral College Predictions
The following are my predictions for the 2012 U.S. Presidential Election, in which Barack Obama will be seeking re-election. I feel that the most likely Republican challengers are former Massachusetts Governor Mitt Romney and Texas Congressman Ron Paul. I have created electoral college maps which show the closest events to ties which would be possible.
For
more entries on election studies, please visit:
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
How to Fold Two Square Pieces of Card Stock into a Box
This series of images shows how to take two square pieces of card stock (or thick paper), and cut and fold them into two halves of a b...
