The Queen Is Dead. Anarchy in the U.K.?
Plus: The editors respond to a question about the Forward Party.

In this week's The Reason Roundtable, editors Katherine Mangu-Ward, Matt Welch, Peter Suderman, and Nick Gillespie discuss the death of Queen Elizabeth II and the White House's misguided principles for reforming Big Tech.
0:30: The queen is dead.
10:15: The White House's tech policy push
23:38: Weekly Listener Question:
I see the Forward Party as planting the seeds for the blossoming of a multiparty democracy. As the initial priority of achieving ranked choice voting state by state is laid out, Forward Party is essentially "the third party for third parties." As the saying goes… "may 1000 third parties bloom."
Think of an alliance for a ranked choice voting policy coalition with other third parties. Namely with the other two largest third parties: Libertarian and Green.
This opens up a very interesting dynamic of politics and particularly centrism. No longer is centrism on a binary scale of red or blue, where the center merely takes a little from the left and a little from the right. What is called: "the mushy middle."
Ultimately, should some sort of coalition of libertarians (small and large L), libertarian-adjacent, liberaltarians, and classical liberals join the Forward Party to launch it toward the future?
36:08: This week's cultural recommendations
Mentioned in this podcast:
"If Monarchy Is a Must, Keep It Neutral," by Robert Jackman
"In Defense of Not Mourning Queen Elizabeth," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown
"Maybe a Ceremonial Monarchy Can Show the Way to a Less Powerful State," by J.D. Tuccille
"Everyone Wants To Ban Certain Content Online. No One Wants To Talk Enforcement." by Bonnie Kristian
"Poll: Tech Regulation Should Focus on Privacy and Security—Not Breaking Up Big Tech Companies," by Elizabeth Nolan Brown
"Both Democrats and Republicans Want To Break Up Big Tech. Consumers Would Pay the Price." by Veronique de Rugy
Send your questions to roundtable@reason.com. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.
Today's sponsor:
- We all want to make sure our family is protected in a medical emergency. What many of us don't realize is that health insurance won't always cover the full amount of an emergency medical flight. Even with comprehensive coverage, you could get hit with high deductibles and co-pays. That's why an AirMedCare Network (AMCN) membership is so important. As a member, if an emergency arises, you won't see a bill for air medical transport when flown by an AMCN provider. Best of all, a membership covers your entire household for as little as $85 a year. AMCN providers are called upon to transport more than 100,000 patients a year. This is coverage no family should be without. Now, as a listener of our show, you'll get up to a $50 Visa or Amazon gift card with a new membership. Simply visit AirMedCareNetwork.com/reason and use offer code REASON.
Audio production by Ian Keyser
Assistant production by Hunt Beaty
Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve
Editor's Note: As of February 29, 2024, commenting privileges on reason.com posts are limited to Reason Plus subscribers. Past commenters are grandfathered in for a temporary period. Subscribe here to preserve your ability to comment. Your Reason Plus subscription also gives you an ad-free version of reason.com, along with full access to the digital edition and archives of Reason magazine. We request that comments be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment and ban commenters for any reason at any time. Comments may only be edited within 5 minutes of posting. Report abuses.
Please
to post comments
Ultimately, should some sort of coalition of libertarians (small and large L), libertarian-adjacent, liberaltarians, and classical liberals join the Forward Party to launch it toward the future?
Classical liberals are now known as racists, so I'm not sure where this could lead to.
The Forward Party is nothing but a front for the establishment. All it would do is ensure that nothing ever changes.
I am creating eighty North American nation greenbacks per-hr. to finish some web services from home. I actually have not ever thought adore it would even realisable but (ami-03) my friend mate got $27k solely in four weeks simply doing this best assignment and conjointly she convinced Maine to avail. Look further details going this web-page.
.
---------->>> https://smartpay21.pages.dev
Yeah, the idea is that the Big 2 won't lose your vote, because you will rank one of them second and your protest vote won't hurt them like it does now.
I don't even understand the question. That fucking group of people can't build a coalition within its own parties, why the hell would they suddenly unite behind a completely empty shell that is the Forward Party?
Also, depending on how liberaltarian is being defined, I disagree with them more than Republicans on a ton of things. Might as why bring up the question of why the Libertarian party doesn't explicitly unite with the Republicans or something.
Are these real reader questions? I keep wondering that.
Also, I don't think ranked choice voting is going to do anything like the person is saying since there is still one-person ultimately elected. I'm not sure their assertion is even what people who like ranked choice voting argue. I think they're arguing more for a Parliamentary system.
Which, to be fair, a lot of Americans seem to be confused that we don't have a Parliamentary system.
Man, I'm in a shitty mood because just reading that pissed me off and that's unreasonable.
Ranked choice voting is a scam.
Are these real reader questions? I keep wondering that.
They read each others articles, as well as the NYT, Atlantic, WaPo and Twitter, so I guess they're "reader" questions in some sense.
Yang couldn't answer a single direct policy piece of the party.
Mikes questions are getting worse. Any libertarian upset by the MC should just run and join the forward party. They have no principles anyways.
So go backward, that's your solution? Great.
ON a serious note, I don't have the animosity towards the Forward party that some hand, but on the other hand, I recognize it for what it is: A return to the warm, comfortable womb of center-left Clintonian (Bill, not that terrifying harpy Hillary) politics.
And to be honest... or as the kids say, Not Gonna Lie, at this point, that almost doesn't seem so bad, because it seems the alternative is the rabid, reactionary 'theory-based' racist activism of modern establishment religious left.
The Clintons or Cthulhu, what a choice.
Biden was the warm center moderate too based on media reports....
In what's left of his brain, he probably is. But he's enfeebled, so he's not running anything. He's basically got Oberlin graduate Grievous Wormtongue whispering in his ear.
*snort* Fascism: Industry and capital is left in private hands, but directed towards national goals.
Through the campaign, I also gained a lot of insight into the private sector in meeting public goals and would be interested in working on clean energy development.
Uh-huh-uh-huh-uh-huh.
Da-da-da.
Ding-ding-ding-ding-ding
Da-da-da.
ding-ding-ding-ding-ding.
NAP— Non-Adjacent Party!
Hmmmm, Conservatarians obviously not welcome. Conspicuously, considering they outnumber the other categories combined
How is ranked choice voting a good thing? Elections are supposed to be one man one vote. It shouldn't matter who people's second choice is. You didn't vote for you second choice.
You know who else said "Forward"?
Jean Luc Picard?
Wisconsin state motto?
Me?
Lt. Col. George A. Custer?
The editors of a Jewish newspaper?
Knute Rockne?
Abe Cahan?
The first lemming?
Most book editors?
already spent too much time shedding groupism
Crist, what an asshole.
Charlie Crist Portrays Himself As Jesus Christ Against 'DeSatan' in Bizarre Stump Speech
In just one minute, Charlie Crist compares himself to both Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky and Jesus Christ.
Hey Charlie, what's in your closet?
Now the Sex Pistols will have to work on new lyrics.
The initial lyrics rhymed, because "Queen" rhymes with "fascist regime." Well, close enough for government work.
But what's punk and rhymes with "king?"
God save the King...
...he can't control his dingaling?
...he's not as good as Sting?
Anyway, here are the official mourners, a cover band at the funeral:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Qa1wdUkeuvE
Surely:
God save the King
The fascists ruling
God save the king
The eco fascist regime
Critique Ranked Choice Voting if you want, but equating it with California's jungle party tells me you haven't done very much research. Gavin Newsom literally vetoed RCV back in 2018, CA doesn't have it. Nick in particular is peddling the same strategy the Libertarian Party has used since its inception. Maybe there is some uptick in libertarian sentiment in America but I think he's completely deluded. Ranked Choice Voting allows people to vote for whichever candidate(s) they choose without having to worry about helping the candidate they dislike the most. No more spoiler effect. RCV INCREASES FREEDOM FOR VOTERS so it's mind boggling that nobody here wants to defend it. Like fine maybe Yang won't succeed and if someone else here wants to critique the policy go ahead, but man what a low-quality discussion.
*jungle primary and he vetoed it in 2019. I really can't edit these?
Is there anybody who will miss her? Hope you are in at a better place.
Critique If you want to compare ranked choice voting to California's jungle party, go ahead, but it suggests to me that you haven't done any homework. RCV is not legal in California because Gavin Newsom essentially vetoed it in 2018. Particularly Nick is promoting the same approach the Libertarian Party has had from the beginning. I believe he is entirely delusional, although there may be a rise in libertarian sentiment in America. With ranked choice voting, voters can select whichever candidate or candidates they want without having to worry about endorsing the one they find the least appealing. The spoiler effect is over. It baffles me that nobody wants to support RCV when it increases voter freedom. Okay, so maybe Yang won't succeed, and if anyone else in the room wants to criticise the policy, feel free to do so, but gosh, what a conversation of such poor quality.
Owner: Dental Billing Company
You forgot without replacing welfare programs.
It doesn't inherently help Democrats win. It typically helps the candidate who is the least disliked. If you think that this favours Democrats, this implies that you have an adverse view of Republican candidates.
"One man one vote" is not a constitutional principle.
Lol. It is not the least disliked because not everyone puts a second choice moron. Ranked choice gives everyone but the last loser more than 1 vote. 1 man 1 vote is a principle that has been part of voting forever. Giving some a 2nd vote does not fix the system. It makes the system able to be manipulated. 11k voters in Alaska put no 2nd vote, 5k did. Palin voters never had a 2nd vote.
Do you ever think shit through shrike?
If RCV exists it should simply dilute a vote. If 2 candidates make it .7 1st and .3 2nd. If 3 choices .6, .25, .15. People shouldn't get extra say because their choice lost. The way the system is now is not equitable.
Run offs are fine. RCV as written is shit.
Bugger off, serf.
If someone doesn't want to vote for a second choice, so what? We're looking at voting overall, and my observation about TYPICALLY, not invariably, stands. And as for Palin's loss, stop blubbering and get over it.
And one man one vote has not been part of voting forever. Or have you forgotten the history of voting in the US? Come up with a constitutional argument.
Inflation will be a lot easier to deal with when everyone gets a monthly stimulus check, I guess that's the plan.
Constitutional argument? Like the legislature chooses means and matrer that your side fights in court prior to every election.
I notice you had no actual counter argument shrike. Because RCV is easily shown to be flawed by anyone who takes more than a second to think of it.
Your view is that some voters should have more votes. What a libertarian idea!
You have to understand, Jesse's brain is an open void that is filled daily with the right-wing web sites he exclusively reads every morning. He read that RCV is bad, therefore he is going to denounce it only because those are his marching orders. He doesn't grasp the pros and cons, or even how it actually works. He read that Palin lost because of RCV therefore he is against it end of story.
And, "one person one vote" is absolutely a valid constitutional principle.
https://www.brennancenter.org/our-work/analysis-opinion/supreme-court-upholds-one-person-one-vote
Of course in the past it was very imperfectly implemented. But it is still a valid constitutional principle.
It is not even an issue though with RCV if one views each tally of the votes as a separate election.
People shouldn't get extra say because their choice lost.
So, no runoff elections ever?
In a traditional runoff election, if Candidate Bob lost in the first round, then Candidate Bob's supporters may choose to support one of the remaining candidates as their second choice. That is the "extra say" that Candidate Bob's supporters get. Or, their supporters may choose to stay home and not participate in the runoff because they are upset that their preferred candidate didn't make it. That is also their completely valid choice. In this case, they DON'T get an "extra say". That is their CHOICE. No one took their vote away from them. In an RCV context, that is analogous to leaving the second-choice entry blank.
They also loose the opportunity to think about some more before the runoff election.
Why view them as separate elections? It just changes the definition of a vote from checking a box to submitting a ranked list.