1. Unfortunately the Green and Libertarian Parties are not interested in hearing about pure proportional representation from their candidates because they use only plurality votes and plurality psychology, and the party bosses want no part of working with the 100%, because they only know hostile conflicts, bad publicity and division, under pluality elections.

   In 2012, I won the only primary for US President that fell before the Libertarian Party with 52.7%, but the party bosses made sure I could not be compared to their hand-picked pluralist, there was no interest in my win and my voice to as snuffed out accordingly.

   In 1994 I ran for Governor of California as a Green and the party bosses favored NOTA who won that primary with less than 50%, I was bullied extensively by their pluralist internet representation for the years that followed; Cameron Spritzer, Gary Swing, Hank Chappy, to name just a few.

   They created a deal with the founders of Google who copied my logo, my business activities using artistic and democratic traits, but Google got it wrong because they missed key components to pure proportional representation.

   Under PR, wille are team players, good Greens, Libertarians and Ecotopian Democratic Party candidates, all parties and independents, working together as a team for pure proportional representation.

   We do not attract pluralistic party bosses, but we do attract individuals who seek equal free speech protections, equal ballot access, equal treatment and people who can think on their feet and act decisively.

   Our team is elected under pure proportional representation and parliamentary procedures which require strict adherence to advanced guidelines which guarantee the unity of pure proportional representation.

   http://www.international-parliament.org/ucc.html

2. “Green and Libertarian Party bosses”. I almost fell out of my chair laughing. A “boss” has power. The LP and GP are powerless and completely irrelevant, existing only to provide a safe space for members to feel superior. Yep, LP and GP activists are virtue signaling idealists who debate with each other, and once every couple of years go through the motions of “participating” in “our democracy”. Hah! Read this to understand reality – https://www.counterpunch.org/2017/12/13/the-u-s-is-not-a-democracy-it-never-was/

3. Pretty good result for Ahmad, particularly given that it’s Florida.

4. Don a Republic simply means not a monarchy. A Republic is not a system of government; What are systems of government are democracy, oligarchy, and plutocracy. A Republic is a framework; democracy is a system that is implemented within a that framework. The intention was for the USA to be a democracy, but it has become a plutocracy.

   And James, the LNC chairman has gone on the record specifically stating proportional representation would be more ideal.

   And here’s Redpath (a LNC member) on prop rep: http://www.fairvote.org/proportional_representation_and_the_libertarian_party

5. So China is a republic? And Cuba?

   Sometimes the historical definition of a word is so outdated that its use is misleading or even opposite, e.g. “liberal”. The example of “democracy” as redefined in the Andrew Jackson era is another good example of the meaning of a word being expropriated for the purpose of fooling we, the sheep.

   It is clear to me that the founders “intention for the USA to be a democracy” is simply not true.

6. Once again, Don is right on!

7. How about some mini respect for the olde Greeks ??? —

   Making of LAWS –

   Democracy = majority rule, more than half

   oligarchy = minority rule, 2 or more

   monarchy = minority rule, 1
   —
   Special utopian —
   anarchy — ZERO
   unanimity — ALL (on ALL laws)

   —
   ALL USA gerrymanders —

   1/2 or less votes x 1/2 gerrymander AREAS = 1/4 or less control.

   Which of the 3 types ??? Duh.

   —
   What is a RFG in 1787 USA Const Art IV, Sec. 4 ???
   —
   What happened to the R in that 1922-1991 USSR regime ???
   —
   PR and AppV

8. https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/-archy

   -archy = way back — about 2,500 years

9. You can sqwalk and squeal all you want, Don; yet with the LP and other minor parties making inroads in electing people to office and achieving ballot access reform in various states, along with declining memberships/voter affiliation for both major parties and more and more people calling for the inclusion of another political party, or parties in our political system -your twin party status-quo you cheerlead for so much is gradually on its way out.

   Voting minor party isn’t as taboo as it used to be with regular voters, and its a question of ‘if’, not ‘when’ our Congress will be like a rainbow in terms of the number of political parties that have elected officials there.

10. Oh Cody…. IF only it were so!

11. CQ – what you wrote could have been written 20 years ago with the same amount of truthiness. At its present rate of growth, the LP should achieve relevance sometime late in the 22nd century.

12. Vote for the alleged lesser of 2 ANTI-Freedom EVILS

    — IE Donkey communism or Elephant fascism

    or- Vote for Freedom.
    —
    PR and AppV

13. Don Willis – I’ve built a database of nearly 14,000 LP election results going back to 1972. Using that database, I can prove that an absolute minimum of 2.25% of all voters cast at least one vote for a Libertarian candidate in 1996. That’s 1 out of every 44.4 voters. (These are minimum numbers. The true number is slightly larger, but finding it would be far too much work.)

    In 2008 that easily found number was 3.13%, or 1 out of 32.0 voters. In 2016 it was 5.33%, or 1 out of 18.8 voters.

    If we use the 2008 – 2016 trend as the “present rate of growth”, then more than 50% of all voters will be casting a vote for a Libertarian candidate in 2044.

    If we assume that 2016 was an anomaly and use the 2008 – 2014 trend as the growth rate, then the 50% mark wouldn’t be reached until 2050.

14. Jim – your comment uses a common trick that is also used by the MSM — use nefarious ‘math’ to write breathless articles that are misleading at best, or even completely dishonest about the underlying trend. One can cherry pick data from a large universe of data to prove almost any premise. I’d bet that I could use other data points to prove how the LP’s peak support was in the 1980’s.

    On point — does anyone here truly believe the LP will achieve relevancy in the next three decades?

15. ALL the *politics* trend stuff is dubious at best.

    1928 D 42, R 58
    1932 D 58, R 42

    Next R winner – 1952 — DDE.

    The USA is one more UNSTABLE regime due to
    — worse and worse minority rule gerrymanders and
    — worse and worse LAWLESS executive tyrants.

    PR and AppV

16. “On point — does anyone here truly believe the LP will achieve relevancy in the next three decades?” – Don Wills

    I wish I could say “yes” but it would be more of a hope than any reality based conjecture.

17. I believe the LP will see some regional success in the coming decades. We already have a caucus of 3 in the NH legislature. I think if RCV spreads then all “3rd” parties will see and increase in support.

18. Don Willis – I didn’t cherry pick data, I used the entire set. But one definitely would have to cherry pick data in order to claim the 1980s as the pinnacle for the LP. I can think of three ways to do it:

    1. The most elected state legislators without a cross endorsement from a major party (All from Alaska, 2 in 1980 and 1 in 1984)

    2. The best result for Governor (Alaska, 1982)

    3. The best result for President in a single state (Alaska, 1980)

    The LP was fairly strong in Alaska in the late 70s and early 80s, no doubt about that. But nationwide, the LP was dismal. And that shows up if we look at, say, the average state legislative result nationwide by decade. In the 1980s it was 4.21% and in the 2010s it has been 8.97% and climbing, with 2016 being the strongest year ever. Unlike Alaska in the 70s and 80s, the LP isn’t strong enough today in any particular state to elect state legislators, but there is a clear, sharply rising trend that shows up in a wide range of metrics.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.