Do you have adblock enabled?
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Yahoo)   The Good News: Gary Johnson is most sucessful Libertarian candidate for president in the party's history. The Bad News: he achieved that status by capturing a little more than 1% of the popular vote   (news.yahoo.com) divider line 224
    More: Followup, jobless claims, nate, master status, elections, reelection  
•       •       •

957 clicks; posted to Politics » on 08 Nov 2012 at 3:56 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



224 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-11-08 10:34:42 AM  
There is a one percenter joke in here somewhere.
 
2012-11-08 10:45:01 AM  
He did better than John Anderson in 1980, who waged a serious campaign and got real attention? I'd swear he was Libertarian.
 
2012-11-08 10:56:14 AM  
I was wrong, Anderson ran independent, Ed Clark ran Libertarian
 
2012-11-08 10:57:17 AM  
Well, it's some progress. I thought 5% was a lofty goal, but I convinced a few people in states where the race wasn't close to vote for Johnson.
 
2012-11-08 11:02:14 AM  

Earguy: He did better than John Anderson in 1980, who waged a serious campaign and got real attention? I'd swear he was Libertarian.


Anderson ran as an independent. (Ed Clark was the LP candidate in 1980.) At least some of Anderson's policies would fit in with today's LP. In addition, he started his run as a Republican, but continued as an independent after losing the GOP primary, and that's how the last few LP candidates started as well, so it's understandable why you'd think that
 
2012-11-08 11:04:15 AM  
What can you say? It's a start.

My cousin voted for him.
 
2012-11-08 11:33:43 AM  
We need four or five parties. Three won't make it, because the other two crush them out of existence. The only way we'll get more parties is if the Dems and Reps split at the same time.
 
2012-11-08 12:20:26 PM  
He was 1.3% in my state

/Voted for him
 
2012-11-08 12:34:28 PM  
He had my vote. And at least 3 other ppl I know.
 
2012-11-08 12:38:36 PM  
Gary Johnson is most successful Republican pretending to be a Libertarian candidate

FTFY
 
2012-11-08 12:40:03 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Three won't make it, because the other two crush them out of existence.


Not necessarily. The reason 3rd Parties do so badly is that they're basically a wasted vote. There's a lot of right wing Republicans and left wing Democrats that would gladly vote for the Constitution and the Green parties (respectively), but don't because that would be one less vote to a party that they hate less than the other party.

If we required a majority instead of just a plurality to elect people to office and then instituted some sort of run-off system, 3rd Parties would at least be able to throw their weight around a bit more.
 
2012-11-08 12:51:19 PM  
His vote count in Florida was nearly enough to have been what spoiled that state for Romney.
 
2012-11-08 12:52:27 PM  
He got both of my votes too.
 
2012-11-08 12:53:34 PM  
Behold the free market revolution sweeping the country!

Dancin_In_Anson: He got both of my votes too.


That may be the most obvious troll in the history of trolling. I award you zero points and a smack on the nose with a newspaper.
 
2012-11-08 12:59:42 PM  
Gary Johnson: tallest of the Shetland Midgets.
 
2012-11-08 01:42:28 PM  
Woopdie doo.
 
2012-11-08 01:48:33 PM  
But I was assured he was totally going to steal away the youth Obama vote and give Romney the victory?
 
2012-11-08 02:05:45 PM  
50 laboratories of vanishingly small vote totals
 
2012-11-08 02:36:00 PM  

JoeCamelToe: There is a one percenter joke in here somewhere.


My cousin posted this on his Facebook (between rants about GMOs and drone strikes...)
sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net
 
2012-11-08 02:37:42 PM  

GAT_00: Dancin_In_Anson: He got both of my votes too.

That may be the most obvious troll in the history of trolling. I award you zero points and a smack on the nose with a newspaper.


Don't fret, DiA. I chuckled when I saw it. GATa's gonna hate.
 
2012-11-08 02:44:29 PM  
The problem I always see with having multiple equally viable parties is that you end up with an extremely splintered vote. What happens if the vote were to be split Party A: 33% Party B: 33% Party C: 34%? Sure, Party C wins, but now we've just voted in a guy that 66% of the electorate hates and doesn't want in office. It'd be even worse if you had more viable contenders.
 
2012-11-08 02:44:45 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: If we required a majority instead of just a plurality to elect people to office and then instituted some sort of run-off system, 3rd Parties would at least be able to throw their weight around a bit more.


Not really, since they'd still never get into the top 2 in the "first round" in 99.9% of cases. You are just delaying the inevitable.

Only way that 3rd parties could do decently well is going to a "rank" voting system. But, the dem & rep will never allow that, since, you could almost argue, that might blow them both up immediately... since think about how it would be sold to voters by the major parties. "Vote for our candidate 1st, throw your votes to other candidates, and make sure to put the other 'major' guy last".

So, roughly 48% vote for Obama first, probably mostly Gary Johnson 2nd, and Romney last.... the other 48% vote for Romney first, probably mostly Gary Johnson 2nd, and Obama last. Gary Johnson would get that states electoral votes most likely because being 2nd on 98% of the ballots is better than being 1st on half and 4th or 5th on the other half.

Now, you could probably do some "modified" rules to that to be eligible to win the vote, you also have to be listed 1st on a certain % of voting cards (I would only say 10 or maybe 20%, the major parties would probably make it something like 40%, which would essentially not be a significant difference than how we vote now). The supposed benefit of the rank type of voting as well is that, more people who right now believe a vote for a 3rd party is "thrown away", might vote for that candidate #1, knowing they can major the "major" candiate they like #2 and the other guy 3rd or lower.
 
2012-11-08 02:50:30 PM  
And as far as how poorly Libertarians are doing financially in general, the stat I saw just before the election should bear this out:

Rupert Boneham (from Survivor), running for Governor of Indiana, had the most money raised by any Libertarian candidate this year, other than Gary Johnson.

The amount Rupert had raised..... $70,000

Considering that Rupert is to a certain extent had a level of "Celebrity", which is more than you can say for most Libertarian candidates... just goes to show that they are running campaigns on little more than the change they are finding in their couch.
 
2012-11-08 03:04:32 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: We need four or five parties. Three won't make it, because the other two crush them out of existence


That's why there can only be two Sith Lords at a time.
 
2012-11-08 03:14:48 PM  

serial_crusher: Don't fret, DiA. I chuckled when I saw it. GATa's gonna hate.


I saw it but didn't reply. Narcs gonna narc too.
 
2012-11-08 03:24:49 PM  

Dancin_In_Anson: serial_crusher: Don't fret, DiA. I chuckled when I saw it. GATa's gonna hate.

I saw it but didn't reply. Narcs gonna narc too.


I'm sorry that your butt hurts because you can't make up shiat and call people pedophiles.
 
2012-11-08 04:00:32 PM  
I voted for him too, I was hoping they would get enough popular vote so that next election they would have funding and access that would split the republican vote.
 
2012-11-08 04:01:12 PM  
I don't even think he was on the ballot here in Michigan.
 
2012-11-08 04:02:46 PM  
I am the 1%
 
2012-11-08 04:05:15 PM  
It's a start. LP is playing the long game; the GOP is basically imploding on itself and their constituents will have to go somewhere. LP is positioning itself to be the next major party. It's happened before; we used to have Tories and Whigs, after all.
 
2012-11-08 04:05:56 PM  
I predict that the number of conservatives on Fark who will claim to have voted for Johnson will exceed the votes he actually got.
 
2012-11-08 04:06:12 PM  

serial_crusher: JoeCamelToe: There is a one percenter joke in here somewhere.

My cousin posted this on his Facebook (between rants about GMOs and drone strikes...)
[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 708x471]


I like how libertarians claim that the policies that they support are so edgy an unique, it reads like a liberal wishlist from as far back as I can remember minus the libertarian desire to have no safety net for themselves and to burden themselves with regressive taxation models.
 
2012-11-08 04:07:15 PM  
The Libertarian party lost favor with me after they tried to court the Teabaggers for votes and after their 2008 candidate said that druid soldiers didn't have the same rights to worship as Christian soldiers. Fark 'em.
 
2012-11-08 04:07:21 PM  

GAT_00: Behold the free market revolution sweeping the country!

Dancin_In_Anson: He got both of my votes too.

That may be the most obvious troll in the history of trolling. I award you zero points and a smack on the nose with a newspaDidn't per.

Didn't you vote for Jill Stein? Not ragging, but lets be honest, if Gary Johnson and Jill Stein were the major candidates, wars would be over and civil rights would be important. We could debate fiscal policy and fix problems.
 
2012-11-08 04:07:33 PM  
Gary Johnson is a scam.

i.imgur.com

For more information on where Johnson's money is coming from and how Gary Johnson is spending it:

http://nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle

Entirely, the entire campaign is managed by hard core republican operatives who have been responsible for a lot of the dirtiest GOP tactics since the Nixon era, with a strong emphasis on splitting the Obama vote to help a Romney victory.

This explains why pretty much every Gary Johnson promoter will try to sell to liberals based on his views on things like drugs and military policy, while neglecting to mention Gary Johnson's more conservative views that would sell to Romney backers.
 
2012-11-08 04:07:46 PM  

spman: The problem I always see with having multiple equally viable parties is that you end up with an extremely splintered vote. What happens if the vote were to be split Party A: 33% Party B: 33% Party C: 34%? Sure, Party C wins, but now we've just voted in a guy that 66% of the electorate hates and doesn't want in office. It'd be even worse if you had more viable contenders.


That's where approval voting or some alternate selection method comes in.

What if you could pick your top 3 candidates for any office. Assign 3 points for a #1 slot vote, 2 for 2, 1 for 3 etc.
 
2012-11-08 04:07:57 PM  
More like "unpopular vote," am I right?

/high five
 
2012-11-08 04:09:40 PM  
4% to go....

blogs.westword.com 

/What is Obamney's first name, anyway? Barmitt?  Barrillard?
 
2012-11-08 04:10:25 PM  
Geddy Johnson
 
2012-11-08 04:10:32 PM  

LoneWolf343: The Libertarian party lost favor with me after they tried to court the Teabaggers for votes and after their 2008 candidate said that druid soldiers didn't have the same rights to worship as Christian soldiers. Fark 'em.


Note that he wasn't the candidate this time .If the TEA party was telling the truth about fiscal policies being importantand social policies not important they would vote LP.
 
2012-11-08 04:10:44 PM  
If these marijuana bills keep passing, there is going to be no need to hitch your wagon to the lunatic economic ideas of the Libertarian party to end marijuana prohibition. Of course they support legalized drugs, there won't be any budget to enforce laws anyway. Now that is true freedom. Freedom for whatever theocratic redneck who happens to be governor of your state to do whatever they like, states rights! The list just goes on and on...
 
2012-11-08 04:10:47 PM  
I am the 1%
Girlfriend and I voted for him, I know at least 10 who voted for him in Los Angeles.
/Know 5 people who voted for him, in Mississippi.
//Stoners.



Can someone check the math?

//Stoners.
 
2012-11-08 04:11:12 PM  

Headso: I voted for him too, I was hoping they would get enough popular vote so that next election they would have funding and access that would split the republican vote.


Unfortunately, it's actually the opposite.

http://nsfwcorp.com/dispatch/gary-johnson-swindle

But with one honorable exception, David Sirota's excellent piece exposing how GOP operatives were exploiting weed-legalization and Gary Johnson's heavily-PR'd credibility on that issue to split the Obama vote for Romney, no one in the media is bothering to question the consensus meme that Gary Johnson and the Libertarians threaten Romney and siphon votes from Republicans. Even after Gary Johnson himself admitted to the New York Times earlier this year that his campaign strategy and messaging is designed to cut into Obama's base more than Romney's.

In answer to the Times' question "whom do you think your candidacy will hurt the most?" Johnsonanswered:

"Probably, it's going to end up helping Romney. I'm probably going to take more Democrat votes -- the whole civil liberties side of this."

This helps explain why Johnson's campaign has overwhelmingly emphasized pot-legalization and drone-crusading, while clamming up tight about the laundry list of Republican dream-policies in Gary Johnson's platform, such as ending corporate taxes and regulations on banks and pharmaceutical firms, and abolishing the minimum wage as well as child labor laws, treating those core ideas of his as if they're classified state secrets, lest some wobbly Romney voters hear about them and switch their vote to Gary Johnson.
 
2012-11-08 04:12:38 PM  

Vlad_the_Inaner: What is Obamney's first name, anyway? Barmitt?  Barrillard?


Willack.
 
2012-11-08 04:14:39 PM  

violentsalvation: His vote count in Florida was nearly enough to have been what spoiled that state for Romney.


Except that there's no evidence he siphons more Republican votes than Democratic votes.
 
2012-11-08 04:16:36 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: We need four or five parties. Three won't make it, because the other two crush them out of existence. The only way we'll get more parties is if the Dems and Reps split at the same time.


Speaking as an active Democrat since the early '60s, we already have three or four parties. "Sub-parties," anyway. It's the GOP that expects their members to all march in lock-step, breathe in unison, and believe exactly the same thing. But you can believe in any number of different things and we Democrats will be happy to have you. We're kinda like Unitarians that way.
 
2012-11-08 04:16:40 PM  

spman: The problem I always see with having multiple equally viable parties is that you end up with an extremely splintered vote. What happens if the vote were to be split Party A: 33% Party B: 33% Party C: 34%? Sure, Party C wins, but now we've just voted in a guy that 66% of the electorate hates and doesn't want in office. It'd be even worse if you had more viable contenders.


That problem is why our plurality rule system cannot sustain more than two parties over the course of time. Contrary to widespread belief on the internets, the two party system doesn't perpetuate itself via conspiracy. Rather, it perpetuates itself via rational voting behavior.

In the scenario you're talking about, what rational voters do over the course of time is strategically calculate their votes to prevent their least acceptable candidate from winning. They figure that last election, Party A got 27%, and Party B got 32%. But Party C, who I hate the most, got 41% and won the election. I really like Party A, but I just cannot stand Party C. So this year, I'm going to vote for Party B in the hopes of defeating Party A.

This law of voting behavior was first articulated by Maurice Duverger in the middle of the last century.

Link

For a real world example of this in action, note the vanishingly small vote totals of the Green Party in the decade since the 2000 election. It is very plausible that 638 people who voted for Nader in Florida would otherwise have voted for Gore. If so, instead of getting a moderate environmentalist president, they got Bush. Not only was he actively anti-environment, but he opposed almost all of a Green voter's values to boot.

So what should a rational Green Party voter do to prevent the kind of total assault on his values represented by the Bush administration? Obviously: recalculate his vote to defeat Bush and the Republicans. To act otherwise is irrational, because it is counterproductive to your aim of maximizing your influence on public policy.

I'd write more, there's more to say, but I have to go. Just understand that:

1) in our system, voting third party really, truly is irrational, unless you object equally to both major parties, and

2) we should reform our system to encourage third parties by enacting proportional representation, instant runoff, or something like it to replace plurality rule.
 
2012-11-08 04:17:34 PM  

Boxcutta: violentsalvation: His vote count in Florida was nearly enough to have been what spoiled that state for Romney.

Except that there's no evidence he siphons more Republican votes than Democratic votes.


Well, let's look at the image someone posted earlier...

sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net

Clearly, Gary Johnson supporters are attempting to steal votes away from Romney, by praising Gary Johnson for all the things that Romney voters typically support.

After all, why would a hard right republican with a hard right republican campaign staff who's campaign offices are all located in Salt Lake City want to help the Mormon Republican get elected?
 
2012-11-08 04:20:01 PM  

schrodinger: Boxcutta: violentsalvation: His vote count in Florida was nearly enough to have been what spoiled that state for Romney.

Except that there's no evidence he siphons more Republican votes than Democratic votes.

Well, let's look at the image someone posted earlier...

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 708x471]

Clearly, Gary Johnson supporters are attempting to steal votes away from Romney, by praising Gary Johnson for all the things that Romney voters typically support.

After all, why would a hard right republican with a hard right republican campaign staff who's campaign offices are all located in Salt Lake City want to help the Mormon Republican get elected?


Yeah, I skimmed the article you posted. I don't know. Seems a little conspiracy theoryish to me.
 
2012-11-08 04:21:07 PM  

schrodinger: Boxcutta: violentsalvation: His vote count in Florida was nearly enough to have been what spoiled that state for Romney.

Except that there's no evidence he siphons more Republican votes than Democratic votes.

Well, let's look at the image someone posted earlier...

[sphotos-b.xx.fbcdn.net image 708x471]

Clearly, Gary Johnson supporters are attempting to steal votes away from Romney, by praising Gary Johnson for all the things that Romney voters typically support.

After all, why would a hard right republican with a hard right republican campaign staff who's campaign offices are all located in Salt Lake City want to help the Mormon Republican get elected?


Now show us all on the little doll where Gary Johnson touched you. Now, now, we all understand and want to help you. There is nothing to be ashamed of.
 
Displayed 50 of 224 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
Advertisement
On Twitter






In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report