Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y. fails to make primary ballot -- sort of

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Snow96

And you probably won’t no matter how many times I explain it. Time to move on.

Ok.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

I still don’t see why it matters how many times a candidate’s name appears.

It doesn’t. On the sample ballot you have, I could vote for Romney (eeew!) as a conservative. Or I could vote for Romney (eeew!) as a republican. He will know how many votes he got from each.

I see it as beneficial. He would know to whom he is beholding.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@WuWei

It doesn’t. On the sample ballot you have, I could vote for Romney (eeew!) as a conservative. Or I could vote for Romney (eeew!) as a republican. He will know how many votes he got from each.

I see it as beneficial. He would know to whom he is beholding.

That’s pretty much the point.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@WuWei

It doesn’t. On the sample ballot you have, I could vote for Romney (eeew!) as a conservative. Or I could vote for Romney (eeew!) as a republican. He will know how many votes he got from each.

I see it as beneficial. He would know to whom he is beholding.

That’s pretty much the point.

No matter how I do it, I can only vote for Romney (eeeew!) once.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Snow96

That shouldn’t be the goal to get as many votes from different parties as you can and call them all yours. I mean seriously, if they are listed under three parties and they win, what party gets the credit?

That right there is the whole point.

No, the point is to game the system.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

No, the point is to game the system.

How does fusion voting “game the system”?

It’s just a slightly different system than you’re used to.

[Samm]

The more times your name is on the ballot, the more likely some fools will vote for you. NEVER underestimate the stupidity of the average voter.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

The more times your name is on the ballot, the more likely some fools will vote for you. NEVER underestimate the stupidity of the average voter.

I don’t think the data supports your claim.

[Samm]

But the results do.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

But the results do.

Do they, though?

New York has always had fusion voting, as far as I know. Every voter in NY understands how it works.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

To the extent that getting cross-endorsements from multiple parties gives that candidate an advantage, that’s the point.

If a candidate wants the endorsement from one of the parties, they’ll have to address the issues that party cares about.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

But the results do.

Do they, though?

New York has always had fusion voting, as far as I know. Every voter in NY understands how it works.

Let’s not get carried away.

[WuWei]

@TheDoctorIsIn

To the extent that getting cross-endorsements from multiple parties gives that candidate an advantage, that’s the point.

If a candidate wants the endorsement from one of the parties, they’ll have to address the issues that party cares about.

Just like endorsements from anywhere else.

[Samm]

@TheDoctorIsIn

@Samm

But the results do.

Do they, though?

New York has always had fusion voting, as far as I know. Every voter in NY understands how it works.

Yes. My comment is in support of the truism “never underestimate the stupidity of the voter.”

But just because it appears that the system works in NY does not mean that it works. Its the only system they have … there is nothing to compare it to.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

Fusion voting used to be commonplace, and used pretty much everywhere.

It wasn’t until the mid to late 1800s when the major parties got sick of sharing power, and pushed through laws in most states banning the practice.

[Samm]

Thanks for the history lesson, but it doesn’t change my opinion neither regarding the system, nor the stupidity of the average voter.

[markdido]

@Snow96

@TheDoctorIsIn

That right there is the whole point.

Typically you can say the Dem candidate won the election.

Do they say the Dem, party b, party c candidate won the election?

It’s a bunch of bull ■■■■ if you ask me.

Concur.

This is just as shady as states awarding their electoral college votes to the winner of the national election, regardless of how their state voted.

[Samm]

Yeah, talk about disenfranchising the voters. I wonder why libs think that is a good idea.

[markdido]

@Samm

Yeah, talk about disenfranchising the voters. I wonder why libs think that is a good idea.

Because they have to cheat to win.

[TheDoctorIsIn]

@Samm

Yeah, talk about disenfranchising the voters. I wonder why libs think that is a good idea.

How exactly does fusion voting “disenfranchise” any voters?