test map

 this is a test of an embedded map

here is the map

and here is what happens after the map

see?

on why the libertarian party isn't winning

TL;DR: while many libertarians think that the reason why their party hasn't gained traction is due to the powers that be of the two major parties are blocking them out, the real reasons have more to do with our election methods, as well as fatal flaws within the libertarian party platform itself.

 

so... why is the libertarian party not winning?

to me, there seem to be at least two compelling reasons.

1)

the first reason is due to how elections work.  

in short, doesn't matter if you have one candidate, two, three, or more, whichever candidate gets the most votes wins.  there are some examples of offices in various places and levels of government that use different schemes, like a two-phase run-off in cases where no one candidate gets 50%+1 of the ballots, but the same problems arise.

that type of election reinforces a two-party system, and only two. if a third party candidate gains traction, that candidate will leech votes away from the candidate prefered by the majority.  

for example, if you have two candidates, left and right, and a third candidate who is right-ish, the advantage goes to the left even though most of the voters went right (example: perot and bush vs clinton).  if the third candidate is left-ish, the advantage goes to the right even though most of the voters went left (example: anderson and carter vs reagan).

more details about this here:

https://jimbarryalloneword.blogspot.com/2020/10/on-voting-3rd-party.html

2)

what i want to hit in this article is another reason why libertarians aren't winning, and that is, their own platform doesn't resonate with enough americans.  imagine that. ;-)

i'll explain:

in short, pretty much every plank in the libertarian platform supports one or both of the following two rough ideas:

1. government: smaller size, shorter reaching, less intrusive, supporting more personal reliance. government can be a platform for achieving cost-benefits of regionalizing some services like public safety, civil law, infrastructure, (see, adam smith) although there are some differences in what direction and how far some of these things go, but in the end, the attitude that every problem must first or solely consider government in the solution needs to philosophically vanish.  in fact, most problems can be solved and most progress can be (and should be) achieved without government.

2. society: individual rights and responsibilities are paramount.  things like decriminalizing drugs, pro-choice, and when it comes to lgbtq, rather than accept and support them, the position is that they don't care and it shouldn't matter at all, to anyone other than the individual themselves.  someone's gender identity and sexual preference is their own business, and not up to anyone else to accept or support.  each human's path in life is theirs to pursue, and as long as their pursuit doesn't infringe on others' similar rights, there should be no judgment or consequence imposed by any other individual, group, religion, or government.

so how does that related to the other parties and social belief systems:

in short, 

a. while conservatives are mostly not fascists, the republican party does remotely point toward fascism, in that you can see it from here.  in other words, the extreme fringe of republicans/conservatives are fascists, and fascists who want to compromise and operate within our current political landscape prefer republicans.

b. while liberals are mostly not socialists, the democratic party does remotely point toward socialism, in that you can see it from here. in other words, the extreme fringe of democrats/liberals are socialists, and socialists who want to compromise and operate within our current political landscape prefer democrats.

then it might be helpful to think of libertarianism this way:

c. while libertarians are mostly not anarchists, the libertarian party does remotely point toward anarchism, in that you can see it from here.  in other words, the extreme fringe of libertarians are anarchists, and anarchists who want to compromise and operate within our current political landscape prefer libertarians.

the problem with libertarian party is that while many of their planks are appealing to both conservatives and liberals, not enough of the planks do.

meaning, those planks that deal with the role of government are very appealing to republicans, but the planks that deal with social progressivism run completely against their grain, to the point of being deal-breakers for them.

and those planks that deal with society are very appealing to democrats, but the planks that deal with personal liberty and smaller government responsibility run completely against their grain, to the point of being deal-breakers for them.

while it might be tempting to think that since the libertarian party has something for everyone, that means that the reason why they're not given a chance to support the true nature of american society must be for some reasons that are corrupt or unfair.  basically, that one of the only things the two major parties agree on is to keep the two-party system.  and when those two parties agree on something, whether the reasons for agreeing are the same or different, then that's what you're going to get.

in other words, the thought is that most americans would support the libertarian party and platform, given the chance, but that the powers that be have a stranglehold on power, preventing them from doing so.

while it might be tempting to believe that, and maybe there is some truth to that, i submit that this isn't the only reason.  some of the reasons why libertarians have failed so far is very fair, in that not enough americans resonate with most or all of their platform.  

basically, for most americans, while some of the libertarian platform is attractive, too much of the platform is abhorrent.  

liberals don't want a system with fewer government services and regulations. to them, government is there to protect individuals from corporations, and the rich and powerful.

conservatives don't want a system that supports the degradation of the moral fabric and obedient order of society.  to them, government is there to protect society from individuals who they feel threaten that.

on social media bias

TL;DR: conservatives have strong reasons to believe social media platforms are biased against them, to the point where they believe their free speech rights are being restricted.  i assert that not only is their point moot, but their conclusions are incorrect due to the premise of their argument being flawed.  social media platforms are only enforcing the terms of service that users have agreed to, and whether or not they exhibit a bias is their right to do, and users are free to use another platform. contrary to what conservatives believe, modern social media platforms do not restrict their free speech, nor do they restrict access to complete and truthful information.

ok so now the conservatives are amping up their whining about how social media is biased, and silences conservative voices, and all that hogwash.

and i'm not saying it's "hogwash" because i don't think it's true.  it very well may be true.  

in a recent joe rogan podcast, jack dorsey himself admitted that, collectively, the staff who do Terms Enforcement work tend to personally bend a bit to the left.  doesn't mean twitter is biased against the right.  it could be that they are.  maybe they're not.  they probably are.

point is... that point is moot.

the social media giants, facebook and twitter for example, created their platforms, they own the hardware, software, and database.  they have Terms of Service, that people agree to when anyone chooses to use their FREE service.  most don't read them.  but just because you don't read them, doesn't mean they don't apply to you.  in fact, you're well within your rights to not read the Terms of Service, but then you can't go whining when your post gets blocked, or you're suspended or banned for breaking the Terms.

and what does it mean to break the Terms of Service?

well, it means whatever the platform says it means.  some violations are intuitively obvious to the casual observer.  some are a bit more arbitrary, depending on the mood of the person making the decision.  either way, it's mostly gray space and subjective.

let's get back to the point being moot...

the reason their bias against the right, even if it does exist (and good chance it does), is moot, is because as a platform they own, they can make the rules the way they want, they can enforce the rules the way they want, and, except for cases where they are actually breaking the law, they are well within their freedom to do so.

you will hear those on the right claiming that their 1A rights are being violated.

no.

the 1A prohibits the GOVERNMENT from restricting your speech.  just the government.  twitter and facebook are not restricting your right to free speech anyway, just free speech on their platform.

you will hear those on the right claiming that they are being censored.  

no.

if by censored, you mean editorial control, then yes, they are exerting editorial control according to Terms of Use they wrote, and all users agreed to.  all websites that allow community interaction do this.

you will hear your "facebook lawyer" friends telling you all about "section 230" and how it unfairly shields twitter from libel lawsuits, and once they mark or block any tweets, they become a "publisher", as responsible for the content as the author.

no.

social media sites have been given reasonable latitude to set and enforce terms of service, and can take action against content they feel is inappropriate.  so unless you want the entire internet to devolve into 8chan, we're all well-served to let platform operators do this kind of policing.  google has been doing this for years, for example, actively removing the most vile, inhumane, violent, and disgusting content from its image search results.  i'm guessing most people aren't even aware of how content has been removed from access from thousands of sites and platforms without them knowing, and being better off for it.

when someone commits libel that appears in a newspaper, it makes sense that the newspaper should be considered part of that liability, because every single word and image in a newspaper was directly and actively edited to be there.  on the other hand, the velocity of twitter content is about 8,000 tweets per second.  there is no practical way for some twitter editorial review board to actively edit in or edit out a tweet before it is posted.  

section 230 does NOT protect twitter against libel that they themselves commit, but if you believe someone has committed libel against you, posted to twitter, then sue the libeler.  sue the owner of the content.  sue the libeler, not the delivery mechanism, any more than you would sue the post office for a letter someone wrote you that hurt your feelings.

while it's true that new tech is an evolving part of the law, we need to mold it so that the law, as it grows, works for us.  and that doesn't mean that we should use the law to force a political angle that agrees with our feelings.  we cannot write laws for social media that use the old newspaper framework.  it's different.  it cannot be all-or-none.  it cannot be left with "the moment you mark or block one thing, that makes you responsible for everything".  that doesn't scale.  the best they can do is police reactively based on reports and on constantly improving algorithms. 

but like a newspaper, and like individual people, social media platforms are allowed to have free speech and a political bias and agenda.  if you don't agree with it, don't use it.  forcing political thoughts and actions onto people is anti-american.

you will hear those on the right claiming that twitter and facebook are monopolies and should be investigated by the government and broken up, sprinkling in words like "anti-trust" and "Sherman Act".

no.

it's very important to remember here, that twitter and facebook are FREE services, and that you are *not the customer* in this scenario.  you are in fact the product being sold.  if you don't like the bias, and you don't like your data being sold, you can close your account and go literally ANYWHERE else on the whole world wide web and have the same access to the internet.

as with any business, its loyalty is to the owner, stockholders, and anyone else with a stake in the business. 

it is in their best interest to also provide loyalty to its customers.  and by "customers", again, i don't mean YOU, i mean its advertisers.  the advertisers are the customers who are paying to gain access to the product.  and by "product", again, i mean YOU.

and because you are not the customer, you are the product being sold, and you're not paying a dime to use the service, and you can go anywhere else, or build your own platform, any crying or whining you do is as valuable as crying and whining is.  which as most conservative agree, crying and whining aren't worth anything.  kind of like "liberal tears".  ;-)

ok... my turn.

conservatives love the crushing and erasing of big government regulations.  businesses work best when they are left alone to do their business without government getting in the way.

i mean, right?

you can tell a lot about conservatives by paying attention to situations where they want big government regulation to be crushed, and when conservatives want big government regulation to crush *you*.

on voting 3rd party

TL; DR: our "winner take all" system for choosing elected officials only supports a two-party system.  when a third-party gains traction, it actually pulls *against* democracy because the direction that party leans bleeds votes off the most similar of the two parties, ending up electing the party that most of the voters don't want.

 

found this article in "America's Coloring Book" the USA Today, from a well-meaning young person who is clearly out of ideas when it comes to promoting the libertarian party in her corner of florida:

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/voices/2020/09/21/republican-democrat-political-parties-voting-third-party-column/3484822001/

in short, the author is simply wrong.  and i don't mean wrong, as in, i have a different opinion.  

no, i mean wrong as in mathematically wrong.

and in doing so, she misses the point and hurts her cause.

during an election, you tend to have 1-n candidates for each office.  typically this means you have 2 candidates, democrat and republican.  if there are more candidates, they either list themselves as independent, or with some other party like green, libertarian, democratic socialist, or straight up socialist, or what have you.

in our voting system, whoever in that list gets the most votes wins.  
simple, right?
fair, right?
straight up democracy, the people have spoken, it's all good.

sometimes a party pulls from the edge of another party.  for example, the green party tends to pull from the far left of the democratic party.  in 1992 ross perot's independent run for president was built on a conservative platform that pulled mostly from bush and the republicans, which contributed to clinton being elected with only 43% of the popular vote.  

in short, a strong 3rd party "splits the vote" away from the platform that americans mostly want.

problem is those 3rd parties are typically a mix of ideals that other parties partially share.  for example, the libertarian party is an interesting 3rd party because it appeals to certain aspects of democrats (socially progressive) and republicans (small, short reaching gov't).

but in the end, given the way our elections work (most votes wins) voting for a 3rd party actually quite often helps the candidate that you dislike the most, and we collectively would not have elected.  for example, it's arguable that if ross perot had not entered the 1992 race, bush would have been re-elected, and bill clinton would've been sent back to arkansas.

even in the case of a libertarian candidate, whichever way we as a nation collectively lean, good chance the election will go away from that lean, not toward it.

for example:

a. if you're voting for the libertarian, but consider trump the "lesser of two evils", you're actually helping biden.  

b. if you're voting for the libertarian, but consider biden the "lesser of two evils", you're actually helping trump.

the only way voting for the libertarian gets the libertarian elected is if you get at least 30% maybe 40% of the voters to vote that way, and too many voters consider the risk to be too high.  that's when you hit the prisoner's dilemma.

the only way you open up elections, for any office, at any level of government, to 3rd parties is to change the voting system.  instead of one vote per office, you have one vote per candidate.  you rank the candidates.  if you want to vote libertarian, but consider democrat as the lesser of two evils, you can vote libertarian as 1, democrat as 2, and then if you want, the republican as 3, or 4, or maybe 7, depending on how many candidates there are.

the reason we don't have that system is due to the fact that keeping a solid two party system is the only thing the two dominant parties currently agree upon, ironically.

the libertarian party has been spinning their wheels in the mud for decades now, trying to get the attention they feel they deserve.  their weak hand, which they think is their strong hand, is to appeal to americans' dissatisfaction with the two major parties, asking them to vote their conscience.  problem is, again, due to the prisoner's dilemma, collective inertia is too strong, and motivating at minimum 15-20% of voters to shift is herculean.  and it's not only that.  recalling perot again, while he did grab 19% of the popular vote, he was never the winner of any state, so pulled down a whopping zero, that's right zero, electoral votes.  not even one vote from a state that allows apportionment.  

that kind of appeal is not going to change things.  the only thing that will help libertarians, or any 3rd party for that matter, is a change to the voting system.  and since legislation is never going to do it, the only appeal left is for the courts, including scotus, the declare the current system unconstitutional.  which up until now, it's not.

no answers here.  no proposed solutions.  just a short exercise in exploring why 3rd parties are doomed given the current systems in place. 

on white supremacists

TL; DR: whether trump himself is a white supremacist or not is moot.  he sees white supremacists as a large untapped market, voting-bloc-wise.  to them, trump is "their guy", and the size of this voting bloc is unfortunately large and valuable.

 

i don't know if donald trump is a racist.  

but what he's told us in no uncertain terms through his words and actions, an inactions, is that he considers white supremacists to be a voting bloc that he owns.  to them, he's "their guy".

magas can post ad infinitum on social media about how the democratic party was the party of slavery and the party of racism, y'know, back in the 1800s, but in the end, the election in 2020 is about 2020.  

and let's ask ourselves, who are white supremacists voting for in 2020?  biden?  i don't think so.  

who did they vote for in 2016?  hillary?  i don't think so.  

republicans in 2020 seem to be taking credit for abolishing slavery when democrats wanted it to continue, y'know, back in the 1860s, but which party do the white supremacists of 2020 belong to?  i guess at some point over the past 160 years, they flipped.

want more proof:

in last night's presidential debate, trump was given the chance to speak to (and we all expected him to denounce) white supremacists, neo-nazis, proud boys, and anti-semites (ie "very fine people") who created mayhem and murder in charlottesville.

his message?: "stand back and stand by"

and what's more?  turns out that was not off the top of his head.  that message was in his prep notes.

let that sink in.

there are dozens if not hundreds of american issues on the line in the election, as with in any election of our chief executive, but maybe if you can single out this one for a second...

who are the white supremacists voting for?

i dunno... maybe vote for the other guy.

 

 

.

on gotchas

TL; DR: the fact that you can find hypocrisy in the things politicians say and do, is nothing new.  in the past, there has been value in effecting change by pointing it out.  however, we have gotten to the point where it no longer matters.  politicians are no longer guided by what they did or said before, and it binds them in no way to what they say or do in the future.  there are no more gotchas.

 

watching and reading the news lately?
discussing and debating recent events with your friends an political foes?

in doing so, ever run across something that someone "on the other team" did or said that is hypocritical to something they did or said before? 

oh boy. that's when you got 'em! nothing wins a debate more solid than catching a politician, especially on video, putting political expediency in front of consistency. right?  i mean... um... right?

guess what? it no longer matters. hypocrisy is no longer a thing.

neither are "gotchas".  there's no more such thing as a "gotcha".

elected officials are going to do what they want, when they want, and their previous positions and behaviors mean nothing.  nor does what they say or do today, have any bearing on what they'll do tomorrow.

in 2016 obama did his constitutional duty and nominated merrick garland to fill the scotus seat vacated by antonin scalia. mcconnell and the senate gop sold a story that with 9 months left in obama's term, and the 2016 campaign underway, seating a new judge should wait until after election day, giving americans a direct choice in who should fill the seat.  as such, mcconnell ignored the advise and consent role of the senate, and wouldn't allow a vote.  wouldn't even consider it, wouldn't even discuss it.

now we have a vacancy within two months of the election, and mcconnell is suddenly all about "defending the constitution as written".

how does the GOP defend this apparent hypocrisy? they don't care. 2016 is history, and as long as they have the discretion, and they do, they'll do whatever they want thanks.

used to be if you could find a politician or party flip-flopping out of convenience, you could call them out on it and embarass them, sometimes into reversing back into consistency.  not anymore.  hypocrisy is so rampant throughout politics, it's normal, and no one cares.

you think you found a "gotcha" that you can yell about, laugh about, point at?  you didn't.  there are no more gotchas.  

maybe just out of habit, mcconnell, graham, and the rest of the trump bootlickers (who just 4 years ago were fighting against trump tooth and nail), cooked up some story about how there's:

1. one rule if the part of the president matches the party power balance of the senate, and 

2. a different rule if the party of the president is different than the party of the power balance of the senate.  

some even cooked up some stats about how it's been this way, past practice and precedent since the 1800s or something, and others who say that's not true.  others who say the democrats pull the same shit in the past.  blah, blah, blah...

none of it escapes the fact that the GOP...  the self-proclaimed party of "the constitution as written", are today, in 2020, abiding by the constitution as written.  that even if the president has one day left in his term, he still has the duties and responsibilities of president.  and by the letter of the law, they're right.  even i believe that's right.  even the late justice ginsberg said that was right.  the constitution isn't specific about a lot, but it is specific about that.

but... thus admitting that in 2016, the constitution as written didn't fit what they wanted to do, they ignored the constitution as written.

mcconnell says that in 2016, obama's duty was to nominate a judge, and he did.

and in 2020 it's trump's job to nominate a judge and he did.

both presidents did their job.  the problem isn't at the white house.  the problem is the senate.

mcconnell says that it was in the discretion of the senate, in it's advise and consent role, to decide not to vote on, consider, or even discuss the nominee, because the people had already spoken when they gave the senate majority to the GOP, thus the people implied that they don't want the democrat president the ability to appoint a judge to the scotus.  

nope. that's not how the constitution works.  the congress and the president are in two different branches, elected in two different ways.  you're not allowed to logically connect them that way.  in fact, they're designed to be separate.  the people are allowed to vote for a republican senator and at the same time vote for a democrat president. they're two different elections.  could be two different reasons.  that's allowed.  and one creates no inferential decision on the other.

if mcconnell had allowed a vote on garland, and it failed, then fine.  but that isn't what happened.

we're in a post-trump, post-truth, post-facts era.  all that matters is today, and what you want to do now. 

so how do we elect officials to represent us if there's no trust for us to understand how they plan on representing us?  well, good news is, you can still tell how your local elected official is going to perform.  you no longer know this by what they tell you.  you only know by what political party they belong to.  because that's what congress is now.  it's no longer hundreds of representatives putting their constituents first.  it's party above everything.  it's party above country, party above constitution, party above the anthem, above americans, even above their own office.  it's party above all.  

there is no more United States of America.  

what we have are the the Two Oppositional Political Parties of America. 

you down with OPP?  yes you are. 

and the nation continues to devolve.

on political divisiveness, part II

you gotta hand it to trump.  until 2016, the engagement of most citizens in political conversation was quite a bit less than it is today.  and in a way, that's a good thing.  we should always stay engaged, learning, exchanging ideas.  it's just that most of us put more energy and time into our work, our families, our friends, our pastimes, and previously perhaps deferred politics to the elected officials that we put in office, specifically so that they could represent us.

but it seems to me, the polarizing affect trump has had on america in general, and each of us in particular, while good for getting us engaged, has been bad if we value unity as a people.  i mean, we're always going to have parties in opposition, differing viewpoints, and that's healthy.  the world has too many bad examples of what happens when one party or one ideology holds singular power for too long.  in a way, america benefits when the democrats and republicans, hold each other in check, to help defend against extremism, and hopefully end up in situation where most of what gets done are things that are agreeable to both sides.

in a more perfect world, we deal with opposing ideas but first starting the conversation finding and laying out the common ground, and then discussing and debating differences from there.  but lately (if ever?) that isn't how it works. when we disagree, we tend to start talking about the aspects of the issue that are the most opposite.

examples: 

1) when talking about abortion, rather than starting from the common ground of where life comes from and why the health of everyone involved is important, and going from there, we tend to start with the ideas of "i should have the freedom to do what i want, unpressured by government", versus "all life must be preserved and protected by government in spite of what those involved want or decide to do". 

2) when talking about immigration, rather than starting from the common ground that we want our immigration policy to best fit the social and economic needs of our country and its healthy growth, we tend to start with "illegals are breaking the law and must be kicked out, and a big wall for keeping them and everyone else out", versus "we should let anyone in who wants to live free".