See where the PA Gubernatorial candidates stand

[Nullifidian]

Just like to elaborate on how instant runoff would help make third party votes legitimate. Example:

There are 3 candidates. Dem, Rep, and Lib.

You vote giving Lib "1" and Rep "2"

The first count goes as follows:

Dem: 45%
Rep: 35%
Lib: 20%

In the first round, the Libertarians are eliminated. Let's say 80% of the people who voted for "Lib" as "1" put "Rep" as "2". 20% of them put "Dem" as "2".

Next round:

Dem: 49%
Rep: 51%

In a first past post system, only plurality is needed and thus Democrats would have won the election, and the Libertarian candidate was clearly a "spoiler". Those who voted for the Libertarian actually wound up getting the Democrat elected. In the instant runoff version, the Libertarians are no longer a spoiler for the Republican candidate.

Because voting for a third party in an instant runoff system is not a spoiler, once people realize this, they will be more inclined to vote their conscience for their "1" vote. Currently, which parties are the major parties is determined primarily by the press and perpetuated by the fact that first past post punished people for voting for third parties by virtue of third parties "spoiling" elections for one of the two majors. With instant runoff, this "spoiling" no longer occurs which allows people to vote how they want to vote. The tallies are shown for each party. In the event a third party gains a certain threshold number of votes, the party will begin to be seen as "more acceptable" which in turn will increase it's popularity (herd mentality). This can lead to real three way races, and in some cases cause a change in who the 2 major parties are.


With first past post though, a third party vote only serves to elect the worst case.

[MDJschool]

Maybe I need to read up on this apparently very special nature of the election for Governor where votes evaporate for third party candidates, because I thought, as with pretty much every other election, it worked like this:

Primary shenanigans...
and then a general election with 1 democrat (or gov+lt), 1 repub, and 1 from each 3rd party and perhaps infinite independents or non-affiliateds.

So, let's say that fall ballot has:
Repub guy + Repub dude
Demo man + Demo bro
I. B. Liberty + I. M. Honest

And the voter base is made of 100 people. And lo and behold 90 people vote for Liberty+Honest, 5 vote for Team Demo, and 5 vote for Team Repub. Using this clear and simple math, Liberty+Honest wins, right? Am I somehow mistaken...should some of those third party votes have evaporated...oh, were they just spoiling both the Dem's and Repub's wins?

I didn't know the "two-party democrat-republican system" was built into human nature, and I do recognize that through a cheated system the two parties have established an illegal dominance over the electoral system at all levels. It isn't to the point of evaporating votes or sheer impossibility of third party wins (although some people might dispute that lack of evaporation and also mention some ballot stuffing...)

The system really doesn't need to change for people to start being civic and vigilant. It won't change as long as people are, on such a scale, pumping out the 'lesser of two evils' propaganda that does not suit the People and only suits the two-party system.

There is really more to voting your conscience than the instant election, and unfortunately the US, the states, and their municipalities are so far gone that most in them don't really care to recognize beyond the instant, and it will be only through many 'unprofitable' elections that the condition would change. The candidate is usually worried about HIS immediate campaign and so are all the voters, but the fact is that voting one's conscience would send a message to the two-party two-headed beast that they power dwindles. If instead of 85% of the vote the two-party got 40% of the vote but one of the two still managed to win an office, these two parties would realize their margin for error is not so great and their adherence to the constitution more closely required. The new sizable vote then persuades even more of the people that there is a viable chance for a third party victor, for though they did not win this time, the stranglehold of the two-party is now not so great! So, the instant candidate will be unsuccessful in office but will be successful in putting parties and voters on notice. (Writing in anyone but the nominated also serves the same effect on two-party and the people when it takes from the two-party's total polling and returns the power to the people, even when the vote is 'wasted' for the instant election.)

The reason why we will continually see encroachments on our liberty and see nothing done about them is because 1) we are not vigilant and 2) because we are such a well-managed people. I look through history and see the long trains of abuses and usurpations and see clear points where I would expect any external observer to say, "Wow, they repelled a tyrant in 1776, but why not this day?"

Tom Corbett unfortunately represents exactly the type of incrementalism that will prevent the people from being roused while leaving our liberties infringed. Yes, he negotiated some agreements for license/permit reciprocity. But a look over the attorneygeneral.gov website will quickly show he has no interest in Article I, Section 1 or 25 of the PA Constitution, and therefore no care for his oath. If there's truth to this then it's clear there's little respect for Art. I, Sec. 21 or the 2A either.

[Bruce Eimer]

Please vote for the person you can most trust to represent you.
That is what this is all about.

/Bruce Eimer

[Nullifidian]

Maybe I need to read up on this apparently very special nature of the election for Governor where votes evaporate for third party candidates, because I thought, as with pretty much every other election, it worked like this:

Primary shenanigans...
and then a general election with 1 democrat (or gov+lt), 1 repub, and 1 from each 3rd party and perhaps infinite independents or non-affiliateds.

So, let's say that fall ballot has:
Repub guy + Repub dude
Demo man + Demo bro
I. B. Liberty + I. M. Honest

Ok so far...

And the voter base is made of 100 people. And lo and behold 90 people vote for Liberty+Honest, 5 vote for Team Demo, and 5 vote for Team Repub.

WTF are you smoking?

People vote for the perceived front runners. It's called herd mentality. The reason they vote for the frontrunners is because they are aware that in a first past post system, third parties are spoilers for the one of the two major parties they are closest to.

Voter base is made of 100 people, 45 will vote for one of the majors, 40 will vote for the other, and 15 will vote for Liberty + Honest ... if even that much.

Using this clear and simple math, Liberty+Honest wins, right? Am I somehow mistaken...should some of those third party votes have evaporated...oh, were they just spoiling both the Dem's and Repub's wins?

Stop smoking opium and please use a real example. No third party will win in a modern election unless that third party candidate has an unbelievable amount of money, or is an incumbent who switches parties.

I didn't know the "two-party democrat-republican system" was built into human nature, and I do recognize that through a cheated system the two parties have established an illegal dominance over the electoral system at all levels. It isn't to the point of evaporating votes or sheer impossibility of third party wins (although some people might dispute that lack of evaporation and also mention some ballot stuffing...)

You're missing the point. You keep ignoring the KEY to this: FIRST PAST POST. The problem is with FIRST PAST POST. First past post means plurality wins. You don't have to have a majority to win, you just have to have the most votes of everyone running. First past post races devolve into 2 parties in systems with high degree of information due to the spoiler factor of third parties.

The system really doesn't need to change for people to start being civic and vigilant.

LISTEN TO YOURSELF!! You're saying it's easier to change the fundamental human trait of the herd mentality than it is to switch to an instant runoff system. You CANNOT change herd mentality. It is innate. It's literally encoded in human DNA. It needs to be, because without herd mentality, society would collapse. So rather than fight against herd mentality, you need to change the system to take it into account. Basically, you need to change the voting system so as to marginalize herd mentality.

It won't change

Correct, it won't change.

as long as people are, on such a scale, pumping out the 'lesser of two evils' propaganda that does not suit the People and only suits the two-party system.

Oh, you almost had it.

There is really more to voting your conscience than the instant election, and unfortunately the US, the states, and their municipalities are so far gone that most in them don't really care to recognize beyond the instant, and it will be only through many 'unprofitable' elections that the condition would change. The candidate is usually worried about HIS immediate campaign and so are all the voters, but the fact is that voting one's conscience would send a message to the two-party two-headed beast that they power dwindles. If instead of 85% of the vote the two-party got 40% of the vote but one of the two still managed to win an office, these two parties would realize their margin for error is not so great and their adherence to the constitution more closely required. The new sizable vote then persuades even more of the people that there is a viable chance for a third party victor, for though they did not win this time, the stranglehold of the two-party is now not so great! So, the instant candidate will be unsuccessful in office but will be successful in putting parties and voters on notice. (Writing in anyone but the nominated also serves the same effect on two-party and the people when it takes from the two-party's total polling and returns the power to the people, even when the vote is 'wasted' for the instant election.)

I'm sure that rant made you feel warm and fuzzy, but it ignores reality.

The reason why we will continually see encroachments on our liberty and see nothing done about them is because 1) we are not vigilant and 2) because we are such a well-managed people. I look through history and see the long trains of abuses and usurpations and see clear points where I would expect any external observer to say, "Wow, they repelled a tyrant in 1776, but why not this day?"

It was a lot easier for average Joe Liberty to manipulate (or prevent manipulation) of information back then. Bill the farmer living in South Carolina largely had no idea what was going on in Pennsylvania. It took weeks for information to travel. In such a time, revolutionaries can travel and specifically spread the word and make it sound like the cause is widely adopted to those they talk to far from where the actual conflict is. because of herd mentality, more join the cause or at least don't interfere. Eventually they reach a point where they really do have sizable support; enough to succeed.

In modern times, communication is available immediately and manipulated by the major news networks. If the ABC, CBS, NBC, and Fox say it is so, it is so. If they declare two candidates to be the front runners they will be the front runners. If they marginalize coverage of a candidate, NOTHING can get people to vote for that candidate in large enough numbers to succeed. Without media support, a candidate CANNOT win. Media doesn't necessarily decide the ultimate winner, but they DO decide who the two front runners are. And make no mistake, there are really only 2 candidates in a first past post election.

Tom Corbett unfortunately represents exactly the type of incrementalism that will prevent the people from being roused while leaving our liberties infringed. Yes, he negotiated some agreements for license/permit reciprocity. But a look over the attorneygeneral.gov website will quickly show he has no interest in Article I, Section 1 or 25 of the PA Constitution, and therefore no care for his oath. If there's truth to this then it's clear there's little respect for Art. I, Sec. 21 or the 2A either.

He's good enough for me, because if he doesn't win, the Democrat will. Deny it all you want, but that is how the system works with first past post.

If we had instant runoff, third parties might eventually have a chance, but not in first past post.