/qresearch/ -  Q Research

all PB

>>25232567, >>25232566, >>25232587, >>25232627, >>25232636, >>25232643, >>25232647, >>25232660, >>25232661, >>25232666, >>25232672, >>25232675, >>25232682 Discussion of DataRepub's posts on chief cause of midterm results/abnormal voting patterns

gonna

DataRepublican on Ranked Choice Voting and the Two-Party System

In our Republic, Power Argues with Power.

Power is not made for coalition-building, deal-making, or "transpartisanship."

(I posted last night in a bad mood. Yesterday I got pinged to dozens of claims which I disagreed with, then flooded with hundreds of "you're defending fraud" accusations, which I wasn't doing. That's on me.)

I made a very dumb post last night on the topic of ranked choice voting where I very poorly argued with horrid wording that the Founding Fathers devised a government that would structurally result in a two-party system by creating a winner-take-all structure. It's deleted, but here goes the larger explanation:

Ranked choice voting purports to pick from a selection of party labels. On its surface, that sounds good. But it's the camel's nose in a tent, and its advocates explicitly say where RCV leads - a consensus-based system.

From the book Electoral Reform in the United States written by "democracy" scholars, Larry Diamond writes:

This has led to a long-standing prominent scholarly and philosophical tradition arguing for the importance of a "culture of moderation, accommodation, cooperation, and bargaining among political elites," so that laws can be made, budgets passed, and governing done even when there are sharp differences among opposing parties.

Lee Drutman, in the same book:

In multiparty systems, parties form coalition governments and voters feel warmly toward other parties in their coalition.

In their views, the two-party system is responsible for gridlock and polarization. Their cure via RCV is coalitions and "bargaining among political elites." That phrase is theirs, not mine.

The Founders started from the opposite premise. They didn't want power cooperating with power. Their stance was that power must be divided against itself.

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/2119431810111373431

(please see CAP for more, cannot post it, there are glitches.)

all PB

>>25232567, >>25232566, >>25232587, >>25232627, >>25232636, >>25232643, >>25232647, >>25232660, >>25232661, >>25232666, >>25232672, >>25232675, >>25232682 Discussion of DataRepub's posts on chief cause of midterm results/abnormal voting patterns

gonna

DataRepublican on Ranked Choice Voting and the Two-Party System

In our Republic, Power Argues with Power.

Power is not made for coalition-building, deal-making, or "transpartisanship."

(I posted last night in a bad mood. Yesterday I got pinged to dozens of claims which I disagreed with, then flooded with hundreds of "you're defending fraud" accusations, which I wasn't doing. That's on me.)

I made a very dumb post last night on the topic of ranked choice voting where I very poorly argued with horrid wording that the Founding Fathers devised a government that would structurally result in a two-party system by creating a winner-take-all structure. It's deleted, but here goes the larger explanation:

Ranked choice voting purports to pick from a selection of party labels. On its surface, that sounds good. But it's the camel's nose in a tent, and its advocates explicitly say where RCV leads - a consensus-based system.

From the book Electoral Reform in the United States written by "democracy" scholars, Larry Diamond writes:

This has led to a long-standing prominent scholarly and philosophical tradition arguing for the importance of a "culture of moderation, accommodation, cooperation, and bargaining among political elites," so that laws can be made, budgets passed, and governing done even when there are sharp differences among opposing parties.

Lee Drutman, in the same book:

In multiparty systems, parties form coalition governments and voters feel warmly toward other parties in their coalition.

In their views, the two-party system is responsible for gridlock and polarization. Their cure via RCV is coalitions and "bargaining among political elites." That phrase is theirs, not mine.

The Founders started from the opposite premise. They didn't want power cooperating with power. Their stance was that power must be divided against itself.

https://x.com/DataRepublican/status/2119431810111373431

page 1 of 3

>>25233680

In Federalist 51 by Madison where he wrote the famous "Ambition must be made to counteract ambition" quote, he goes into detail:

First. In a single republic, all the power surrendered by the people is submitted to the administration of a single government; and the usurpations are guarded against by a division of the government into distinct and separate departments. In the compound republic of America, the power surrendered by the people is first divided between two distinct governments, and then the portion allotted to each subdivided among distinct and separate departments."

In other words, power must be made to argue against power. Not power making backroom deals with power.

Now, "democracy" scholars will invoke the Fathers' distrust of parties to prove that, ACKCHYUALLY, the Founding Fathers would have approved of ranked choice voting resulting in multiple parties. But factionalism is vastly different than consensus. The Founding Fathers wanted factions to check against each other. I wrote this in UNELECTED.

Consensus, not factionalism, is what supporters of RCV are trying to achieve.

What's wrong with consensus?

From Arend Lijphart, one of the most influential academic scholars of "democracy":

This is the crux of the consensus model… Its rules and institutions aim at broad participation in government and broad agreement on the policies that the government should pursue… whereas the consensus model tries to share, disperse, and limit power in a variety of ways.

Sound good?

In practice, a consensus model diffuses accountability and incentivizes deal-making on areas of agreement which benefits small coalitions.

Hamilton warned about exactly this in Federalist 70 (which is a great read):

shared power "tends to conceal faults and destroy responsibility."

page 2 of 3

>>25233682

Even though the Founding Fathers wanted factionalism, the Electoral College requires a majority and the Presidency can't be split. As a result, the two-party system happened almost immediately - Federalists versus the Anti-Federalists. That is what I mean by the two-party system is structurally built in to the design, even if factionalism was the intended outcome.

By contrast, consensus systems run on deals. Every group gets its piece: a subsidy, a spending, a regulation. Add them together, and you've got a system crippled by bureacracy and spending, and nobody can punish the total of it because nobody designed for the total of it.

That's the EU in a nutshell. (It's also what the modern Senate filibuster does. By removing the traditional filibuster mechanism of holding the floor and actually arguing, almost everything has to be bargained. And so we get those awful omnibus bills.)

As the Democracy Files Drop 13 shows, one of the other goals of sneaking multiple party labels into Congress is to eventually get to a place where neither party has a majority - and caucus with whoever will cooperate with them for structural reform. Hence why ex-USAID workers were involved in interviewing and hand-picking a slew of "Independents" to carry this out in red states.

The guardians of "democracy" call themselves "moderate" and believe they are achieving "transpartisanship." When in reality they are working to tear down our Republic in a million different directions.

And the Democratic Party can't even stick to that script. They recruited and ran a second Dan Sullivan in Alaska in a plot to confuse voters into giving their ballot to the wrong Dan Sullivan. The same people who lecture us constantly on "threat to democracy" used their own reforms to entrench their ambitions of a one-party rule.

In the immortal words of the late James Traficant… "Beam me up!"

page 3 of 3