The Two-Party System Abides

Plus: A listener asks the editors why the Libertarian Party waits until election year to nominate its presidential candidate.

1x 1.1x 1.25x 1.5x 2x 3x

:15 :15

Download

The Two-Party System Abides

In this week's The Reason Roundtable, editors Matt Welch, Katherine Mangu-Ward, Nick Gillespie, and Peter Suderman commend the victories for pot legalization and abortion from last week's elections.

02:56: Election week takeaways

18:41: Sen. Joe Manchin (D–W. Va.) announces he's retiring.

33:33: Weekly Listener Question

38:40: Lightning round on last week's GOP debate

45:20: This week's cultural recommendations

Mentioned in this podcast:

"Abortion's Big Night," by Liz Wolfe

"Ohio Becomes the 24th State To Legalize Recreational Marijuana," by Jacob Sullum

"Is Wichita Mayor-Elect Lily Wu a Libertarian?" by Eric Boehm

"Republicans Blow Another Opportunity at the Ballot Box," by J.D. Tuccille

"Exit poll: Most Ohio voters still largely favor legal abortion," by Ariel Edwards-Levy

"In Defense of Roe," by Nick Gillespie

"The U.S. Needs a Fiscal Commission Because Congress Won't Do Its Job," by Veronique de Rugy

"Joe Manchin Isn't the Fiscal Conservative We Need, but He's the Best We've Got," by Veronique de Rugy

"3 Reasons Mitt Romney and Republicans Lost Big in Election 2012," by Nick Gillespie and Meredith Bragg

"Mitt Romney, Like So Many NeverTrumpers, Was Hobbled by His Own Grubby Political Ambitions," by Matt Welch

"Third Party Candidates Shouldn't Get Their Hopes Up," by Andy Craig

"The Real Worry Behind the Unhinged Freakout Over No Labels," by Matt Welch

"Joe Manchin Is Once Again Telling Republicans and Democrats What They Don't Want To Hear," by Eric Boehm

"Exit Poll: Most Voters Think Trump, Biden Should Not Run in 2024," by Eric Boehm

"Are We Really Doing a Trump vs. Biden Rematch?" by Steven Greenhut

"Are Republicans Finally Getting Serious About Social Security?" by Eric Boehm

"The Libertarian Party's Internal Strife Is as Old as the Party Itself," by Brian Doherty

"What is the Ideal Strategy for the Libertarian Party?" by Nicholas Sarwark, Dave Smith, and Gene Epstein

"'A Tyranny of the Minority': Why This College Dropout Wants To Cancel Cancel Culture," by John Stossel

"The Canceling of the American Mind, by FIRE's Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott," by Eugene Volokh

"Why Are College Kids Terrified?" by Nick Gillespie

"Jeff Flake Is a Casualty of Collectivist Conflict," by Matt Welch

Reason's interview with Vivek Ramaswamy, by Nick Gillespie and Zach Weissmueller

Send your questions to [e-mail]. Be sure to include your social media handle and the correct pronunciation of your name.

Today's Sponsor:

• Left-wing megadonors are shoveling money into pet projects that don't reflect American values. What's more, lawmakers continue to push bloated, big-government policies—like so-called student loan cancellation—and other programs that will inevitably raise prices and fail to reach the people they are meant to help. All isn't lost, though. You can help turn the tide with a charitable-giving account at DonorsTrust. DonorsTrust is a refuge from the storm of harmful, progressive philanthropy and big-government wheeling and dealing that's hurting our institutions and, more importantly, our loved ones. So, take cover and let my friends at DonorsTrust help you maximize your giving while minimizing your tax liability. Whether it's defending speech, empowering entrepreneurs to offer educational alternatives, or fighting green-energy extremists that want to consolidate power and raise prices on individuals and families, DonorsTrust is the charitable-giving-account provider for you. Visit www.donorstrust.org/reason to learn more.

Audio production by Luke Allen; assistant production by Hunt Beaty.

Music: "Angeline," by The Brothers Steve

What are we consuming this week?

Nick Gillespie

• Bitcoin Coffee Table Book: Volume Zero

Peter Suderman

• Pulp Fiction

Katherine Mangu-Ward

• System Collapse (The Murderbot Diaries, 7) by Martha Wells

Matt Welch

• The Canceling of the American Mind: Cancel Culture Undermines Trust, Destroys Institutions, and Threatens Us All—but There Is a Solution by Greg Lukianoff and Rikki Schlott

---

Comments

[Chumby]

Fuck Joe Biden

[Moonrocks]

Fuck Joe Biden

[InsaneTrollLogic]

Fuck Joe Biden

[R Mac]

DON’T FORGET TO SAY FUCK TRUMP TOO!!!

— Lying Jeffy

[Chumby]

Oh, I didn’t forget.

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Why not say Fuck Trump?

Fuck Biden and Fuck Trump.
Fuck Obama and Fuck Bush.
Fuck Team Blue and Fuck Team Red.
Fuck the two party duopoly.

[Nardz]

https://twitter.com/ded_ruckus/status/1724078674507436344?t=dyv1yAXagwdB3cGB5Lmsmw&s=19

occasional reminder that there's a whole office under DOJ devoted to bullying the families of white murder victims into putting out these sorts of statements

[Link]

[VULGAR MADMAN]

That’s fucked up beyond belief.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

The two parties are the democrats and MAGA. There is no republican party.

[NOYB2]

Unfortunately, the ghouls of the old GOP are still running around, stinking, rotten, and out for human blood.

[Dillinger]

Ruling Class v. Everyone Else or the 4-party system currently masquerading as (R) v. (D)?

[Anastasia Beaverhausen]

Transcript please

[JesseAz]

On toilet paper please.

[Minadin]

None of the people cheering for 'abortion rights' ever seem to look like they will need to use those rights any time soon.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

Their mere presence is safe and effective birth control.

[Ersatz]

lol

[mad.casual]

Like the right to bear arms is a right even if you choose not to own a gun, abortion is an abstract right enjoyed equally by all humans, except men.

[Dillinger]

makes sense right up until you stop defining "man"

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

I don't want to get on my high horse about Reason coverage just yet, because I've been about 60% out of pocket lately, but has YIMBY/Libertarian Bake The Cake central talked about this... at all?

This isn't Fox News, this is one of the FCC commissioners giving a warning about Biden's upcoming internet grab.

Some excerpts:

Democrats have been in charge of the FCC and administrative agencies in DC for approaching 12 out of the last 16 years. They have had the opportunity, over that stretch of time, to put in place nearly any federal telecom policy of their choosing. In fact, the federal government has allocated hundreds of billions of taxpayer dollars for the purpose of ending the digital divide while Democrats have run the administrative state. After all of that time and after all of that spending, the Biden Administration has concluded that the Democrats’ policies are not working.

[...]

So last month, President Biden gave the FCC its marching orders. The President called on the FCC to implement a one-page section of the 2021 Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act (Infrastructure Act) by adopting new rules of breathtaking scope, all in the name of “digital equity.” For the first time ever, those rules would give the federal government a roving mandate to micromanage nearly every aspect of how the Internet functions—from how ISPs allocate capital and where they build, to the services that consumers can purchase; from the profits that ISPs can realize and how they market and advertise services, to the discounts and promotions that consumers can receive. Talk about central planning. Needless to say, Congress never contemplated the sweeping regulatory regime that President Biden asked the FCC to adopt—let alone authorized the agency to implement it. Nonetheless, the Commission will vote next week, on November 15th, to put President Biden’s plan in place. A draft of the FCC order implementing President Biden’s plan is available here. I oppose the plan for several reasons.

President Biden’s plan hands the Administrative State effective control of all Internet services and infrastructure in the country. Never before, in the roughly 40-year history of the public Internet, has the FCC (or any federal agency for that matter) claimed this degree of control over it.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

But do not take my word for it. The text of the order expressly provides that the FCC would be empowered, for the first time, to regulate each and every ISP’s:

● “network infrastructure deployment, network reliability, network upgrades, network
maintenance, customer-premises equipment, and installation”;
● “speeds, capacities, latency, data caps, throttling, pricing, promotional rates, imposition of late
fees, opportunity for equipment rental, installation time, contract renewal terms, service termination terms, and use of customer credit and account history”;
● “mandatory arbitration clauses, pricing, deposits, discounts, customer service, language options, credit checks, marketing or advertising, contract renewal, upgrades, account termination,
transfers to another covered entity, and service suspension.”

Thoughts?

[Nardz]

McVeigh might've been right

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Might?

[mad.casual]

Also, only McVeigh?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

Thoughts?

You should get the other side of the story.

As you very well know, this statement was written by Brendan Carr, one of the Republican-appointed commissioners, who is giving a very partisan slant to this proposed new regulation.

So before you make up your mind, perhaps you should get all the facts about what is really going on here.

This source may be helpful to you, it was a webinar put out by the Federalist Society on this topic:

https://fedsoc.org/commentary/fedsoc-blog/spotlighting-the-fcc-s-key-digital-discrimination-rulemaking

I have not listened to it, but I am willing to bet it will be more informative than this statement which seems to be more on triggering an emotional response than on informing the reader.

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

As you very well know, this statement was written by Brendan Carr, one of the Republican-appointed commissioners, who is giving a very partisan slant to this proposed new regulation.

I don't have any issue with anything else in your comment, except this. Were the other commissioners appointed from thin air, in a thoughtful, bipartisan process by unaffiliated persons whose reputation for avoiding internecine party politics beyond reproach? Or are only commissioners appointed by Republicans to be distrusted?

As for the link you provided, it really doesn't give me any technical details (far fewer than Mr. Carr provided) as to what this FCC move will do. The document mentions the word "discrimination" 29 times in what essentially amounts to a 'cover letter' length statement.

Paragraph six is... the most alarming. Aside from mentioning "discrimination" no less than 5x in that paragraph alone, it claims that the FCC can address 'discrimination' literally based on 'disparate impact' (thank you, critical theories departments). It mentions "protected classes" but doesn't describe who or what groups fall within the protected classes. It further assures us that this new authority the FCC is claiming for itself is well within the previous authorities it traditionally has claimed, without providing a shred of evidence that it does.

Paragraph 8 mentions "discrimination" no fewer than 6 times, discussing "digital redlining" but provides no evidence this digital redlining is taking place, nor gives any examples of digital redlined people, persons, protected classes or even neighborhoods or political districts. It also admits that Congress (the representatives of the people) hasn't investigated cases of this digital redlining, and seems to indicate that therefore the FCC has the right to take this process up. As one Supreme Court said to an FCC lawyer: Sorry, you're not a roving agency whose mission is to simply do good works.

Whatever the results here, if the FCCs rules are here merely to make sure... I dunno, black and brown people are no longer digitally redlined... do they have a set of metrics which can show if the rules, once adopted are working? Or is digital redlining a one-way street: It's happening, we know it's happening, but there is literally no metric or circumstance that can reliably show it's happening less, or not happening after the rules have been adopted?

[chemjeff radical individualist]

I don’t have any issue with anything else in your comment, except this. Were the other commissioners appointed from thin air, in a thoughtful, bipartisan process by unaffiliated persons whose reputation for avoiding internecine party politics beyond reproach? Or are only commissioners appointed by Republicans to be distrusted?

No, only that you should take his commentary with a grain of salt. His POV is not a dispassionate one. As I said, get the other side of the story.

I mean, look at the subhead on his statement:

"This Unlawful Power Grab Chooses Central Planning Over Free Market Capitalism"

That doesn't sound like the language of a technocrat. That sounds instead like something that you might find from the press release from a Senator.

In the link that I posted, yes it was just a summary, I think you would have to listen to the whole webinar to get a fuller picture (I did not listen to it in my limited time, frankly I didn't even know about this issue until you raised it).

I guess I would ask, why was this section of the bill added to the Infrastructure Law in the first place to give the FCC the power to do this? What was the rationale? Was Congress trying to address a real problem? If so, what was the precise problem that they were trying to address? Can we better understand it? And then can we understand the FCC's thinking as they went through the rulemaking process to come up with this rule? What were the comments that they got and how did they decide on the particulars of this rule? That would be nice to know.

[DesigNate]

It sounds like something that a Libertarian or a libertarian would say...

[Diane Reynolds (Paul.)]

President Biden’s plan sweeps entire industries within the FCC’s jurisdiction for the first time in the agency’s 90-year history. It would be one thing if the FCC cabined its intrusive new regime to ISPs or even businesses within the communications sector. It does not. The draft FCC order says that “we are not explicitly tasked with regulating entities outside the
communications industry” (a rare moment of regulatory humility) but it then goes on to say that the FCC will do so in this case nonetheless (the moment passed). Landlords are now covered, construction crews are now covered, marketing agencies are now covered, banks are now covered, the government itself is now covered—all newly regulated by the FCC and liable for any act or omission that the agency determines has an impermissible impact on a consumer’s access to broadband. Congress never authorized the FCC to regulate these industries or entities. So, to all the businesses and individuals that will be subject to FCC regulation for the first time ever, welcome, I hope you have good lawyers.

You know, just so you know what you're reluctantly voting for.

[JesseAz]

Yeah. But Biden recognizes the constitution. And Trump promises to do in the future what democrats have done to him for 7 years.

[DesigNate]

I don't understand why y'all can't give this administration the benefit of the doubt that they have the best of intentions.

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Nothing outside the state.

[JeremyR]

While I don't agree with Biden, at the same time the free market has pretty much failed rural people. I cannot get any sort of broadband other than satellite. Highesnet and their ilk are worse than dial up and I can't afford Starlink,

What do you do when an industry just isn't interested in some people's business? Tough luck is the libertarian argument, but then we wouldn't have electricity or phones in rural areas with that.

[mad.casual]

While I don’t agree with Biden, at the same time the free market has pretty much failed rural people. I cannot get any sort of broadband other than satellite. Highesnet and their ilk are worse than dial up and I can’t afford Starlink,

Do you come to the Reason forums and ask someone to dial 911 for you when your house catches fire too? Dumbass.

What do you do when an industry just isn’t interested in some people’s business?

Did you ask the industry and it said "We are many and we are all not interested." or was it more like my multiple experiences across several locations through DSL, 5G, high speed, and fiber where the answer is really more like "We'd love to do that, but unless you're willing to pay more than you would for [existing competing product], we can't afford to."

The libertarian argument, is that if people really wanted it, they'd make it happen without it being handed to them, not just on the backs of other people, like your cable provider averages out the cost over high and low density areas, but on the backs of other people at the point of government guns.

Fuck off slaver.

[CE]

Actually it's the opposite. The government spent disproportionate amounts of money to "electrify up the whole durn valley" and get phone service to rural people, even when it wasn't economical to do so. And all the rural people having subsidized phone service and subsidized electricity delivery (and subsidized mail service) slowed the adoption of wireless phones and solar and wind generators. Countries that didn't have subsidized rural phone land lines ended up getting cheap cell phone service in the boondocks sooner than the USA did.

[JFree]

The function of American capitalism is to make sure that energy is exported from Wyoming via distribution that requires govt to use eminent domain power to make it happen. But it would be socialism for Wyoming to get cell phone reception.

[MatthewSlyfield]

Manchin + Romney, whose the top of the ticket? Is it Romney/Manchin or Manchin/Romney?

[VULGAR MADMAN]

Romneys niece runs the Republican Party. I wonder how she’ll vote.

[Chumby]

Just the manchin of Romney makes me ill.

[A Thinking Mind]

4/10.

[CE]

I would put Sinema on top. Or better yet, Gabbard.

[Cyto]

How cute.... you guys think there are actually two political parties.

[CE]

I expect Joe Manchin to be the LP candidate for President now. Heck, they went with Bob Barr once, and later with Bill Weld for VP.

[NOYB2]

Ah, the trite complaints about "the two party system", with no proposal for anything better.

Name any multi-party system that actually works better than the US system and explain how and why it works better.

[mad.casual]

Name any multi-party system that actually works better than the US system and explain how and why it works better.

The finger guns "Standoff" scene and associated memes from The Office because it's funnier, more concise and illustrative, and the acting is better.

[NOYB2]

And how does that "work better"?

[mad.casual]

Funnier, more concise and illustrative, better acting, and cheaper.

Or is "work better" synonymous with "issuing EOs" or "passing legislation" or something?

[CE]

Medieval Iceland? Where you just buy your seat in the legislature? It was called the “althing” and the “thingmen” voted on laws. But you had to pay for a seat at the table (sort of like our Senate or the British House of Lords), which helped fund it. So only people who paid their fair share of taxes got to vote.

https://www.worldhistory.org/Icelandic_Government/

Were Icelanders incapable of founding a state? More likely they had no interest.

[NOYB2]

Small legislative bodies naturally don't have (US-style) parties, as do bodies composed of wealthy property owners and direct democracies. As such, they are not examples of "multi-party systems", nor are they systems that are possible for modern Western social democracies.

Note also that for most of its existence, the Althing had no legislative power; Iceland was ruled by foreign kings. Since its restoration in the late 19th century, it has become a single house with proportional representation by party.

[JFree]

What do you accept as a definition of 'works better'? There are dozens of examples of countries with governments that are more accountable to their citizens. That choose to represent their citizens. That actually embody res publica. Consent of the governed rather than divide and conquer. That aren't as corrupt.

You are such a tool.

[sarcasmic]

He's got his fingers in his ears while yelling "La la la I can't hear you!"

[NOYB2]

Since neither JFree nor you have actually named specific countries and political systems, indeed, I can't hear you because you refuse to speak.

[JFree]

You define the meaning of ‘works better’. Then I will identify the countries that accomplish that.

For example, the US is involved in permanent wars around the world. It involves a ton of taxes and debt and opportunity costs re govt spending choices. It involves the US spending money on ‘defense’ while other countries spend money on other stuff or have the opportunity to not have govt spend that money at all.

Is the US government more responsive and accountable to the will of its citizens than other places? Or is the govt ignoring us and giving us no choice in what it’s doing? Every multiparty system has that sort of party choice at the core of power changes that occur in elections. We don't. Which ‘works better’?

[NOYB2]

For example, the US is involved in permanent wars around the world. It involves a ton of taxes and debt and opportunity costs re govt spending choices. It involves the US spending money on ‘defense’ while other countries spend money on other stuff or have the opportunity to not have govt spend that money at all.

Yet, Americans are economically much better off than in those other countries. Furthermore, Americans keep voting for politicians who engage in these wars around the world and spend money like there is no tomorrow. You’re complaining that US politicians aren’t doing what you want, but what you want is clearly not what American voters want.

Is the US government more responsive and accountable to the will of its citizens than other places? Or is the govt ignoring us and giving us no choice in what it’s doing? Every multiparty system has that sort of party choice at the core of power changes that occur in elections.

And how do you think that makes multiparty systems more responsive? You don’t get to select your members of parliament, they can’t vote according to their convictions or their constituents’ preferences, and in many systems, their constituents can’t recall them. If you vote them out of office, the party will often just put them right back into parliament anyway. Decisions are made during coalition negotiations in backrooms based on party interests, not constituent preferences. The multi-party system also means that individual politicians are hardly accountable, since they can always blame party discipline and coalition negotiations for the choices they have made.

We don’t. Which ‘works better’?

The US system works better. It’s been stable for far longer than the multi-party systems in Europe, it delivers better results, it is far more open to political newcomers, and it is far more responsive to the will of the people.

The problem in the US is that the people are, in fact, getting what they want, good and hard; despite all the problems that causes, it's still better than having an incompetent, greedy, unaccountable elite run the country, like in Europe.

[NOYB2]

What do you accept as a definition of ‘works better’?

You are welcome to propose your own definitions (as you did) and then we can talk about whether they are reasonable.

There are dozens of examples of countries with governments that are more accountable to their citizens.

Accountability and consent of the governed are good criteria. So, please give specific examples of such countries, how you evaluate whether they accomplish these ends, and then demonstrate how their political systems achieve these ends. Be sure to separate out the effect of demographics/culture from the effects of the political system.)

As for "representation", Puerto Rico is "represented" in Congress but can't actually do anything. Do you mean "representation" in that sense? Or something else?

You are such a tool.

I think the problem here is that you are an ignorant fool.

[JFree]

You define what you deem acceptable. I'm not playing whack a mole

[NOYB2]

You already named the criteria: accountability and consent of the governed. I'll add to that: median family income ($PPP).

Now name the countries whose political systems achieve these objectives better and explain how they do that.

[JFree]

Ok. Re accountability and consent of the governed about issues of military spending and involvement in permanent war, I'll say that every democracy on Earth 'works better' than the US. And they work better precisely because they have political parties in their legislature - not just on the sidelines - forcing those decisions and opportunity costs into public focus.

I think Germany is a free rider but there is no question that their post Cold War reduction in military spending - their peace dividend - was a reflection of their government accountability to and responsibility towards its citizens will.

[NOYB2]

I think Germany is a free rider but there is no question that their post Cold War reduction in military spending – their peace dividend – was a reflection of their government accountability to and responsibility towards its citizens will.

And US military spending reflects US voter preferences. Less than 15% of Americans say that America's national defense is "stronger than it needs to be"; the rest think it's about right or needs to be stronger. This has been true for many decades.

But, in any case, agreement with the government on a single issue is a red herring. The German political system is far less accountable to its citizens. Furthermore, if you express discontent about the legitimacy of the government in Germany, you can get into serious legal trouble. So much for "consent of the governed".

[JFree]

The two party system CREATES the public opinion agenda about military spending. BOTH parties are completely in bed with MIC. Both parties were completely in bed with the post-ColdWar notion that there need be no peace dividend beyond a few base closures. Both parties are completely in bed with the volunteer army so that anti-war protests can no longer even occur. Both parties will ALWAYS agree on the basics of status quo governance because they can at any moment BECOME the governing party. They are big-tent status quo entities. NOT agents of change.

There is no possible public discussion about those issues in the US because there is no party organization that could make those an issue and drive the discussion forward. It is the discussion of an issue that creates public opinions and changes people's mind. Opinions don't bubble up out of nowhere. Absence of discussion merely perpetuates an establishment propaganda line by the established media. And your reliance on simplistic poll numbers is precisely how the two-party system suppresses open discussion and instead channels it into what is deemed acceptable by partisan norms.

Pick a different issue if you don't think military/war spending is significant enough. But a single issue is not a red herring. A single issue is SPECIFIC. It is precisely how real people who are otherwise busy with life engage in politics. All-encompassing principles and abstractions devoid of specifics are red herrings.

[NOYB2]

Pick a different issue if you don’t think military/war spending is significant enough.

I think military spending is quite significant, and it supports my view that Americans are getting what they want. While less than 15% of Americans want a less powerful US military, the majority of Germans want a stronger military but aren’t getting it.

But a single issue is not a red herring.

Reducing accountability and consent of the governed to “majorities are getting what they want on single issues” means that your view of these issues is a majoritarian (“dictatorship of the majority”) point of view AND that you neglect any possible tradeoffs between different policies. That is, in a free society with accountable, representative limited government, most voters would usually not get what they want because representatives are constrained from providing it. Furthermore, voters may well not what they want on one issue because they care more about another issue.

Nevertheless, even if we stipulate that size of the military is an issue that can be decided in isolation and that properly falls within the purview of elected government, it is crystal clear that Americans are getting what they want in terms of size of the military, while Germans (and other Europeans) are not.

The two party system CREATES the public opinion agenda about military spending.

Whether a government represents the will of the people is independent of how the will of the people is formed.

But, in fact, public opinion is shaped by governments and intellectuals around the globe. European governments spend a lot of money on manipulating and indoctrinating citizens, suppressing dissent and criticism, and making the press compliant with government policies. Even the churches and their clerics are subject to government control in Europe. European governments also decide which political parties to finance and which political parties to ban.

American voters are far less indoctrinated and manipulated than Europeans by political parties and governments. Media are far less government dependent, churches are private, and there is far less government censorship in the US.

Pick a different issue

I don't know of any area or criteria in which European parliamentary systems are preferable to the US winner-take-all system of elected representatives. That's true whether you take a majoritarian view of government or a limited form of government, whether you look at long term stability, or look at outcomes.

[JFree]

Reducing accountability and consent of the governed to “majorities are getting what they want on single issues”

Not only are you jousting with a strawman, you don’t even seem to understand what is happening in the current DeRp iteration. Two-party systems are ALWAYS more majoritarian precisely because minorities don’t matter. But they are majoritarian on unrelated issues. eg the R’s are currently wanna-be tyrants when it comes to abortion – D’s when it comes to initiating spending programs. Those aren’t opposites and there is no reason to believe a stance on those issues is correlated. For most voters, the only choice is which majoritarian tyranny you most dislike – and vote against that. But you’re gonna get the other one even if you don't want that either.

[NOYB2]

For most voters, the only choice [in the US] is which majoritarian tyranny you most dislike – and vote against that.

And that is a better choice than people get in multi-party democracies, where voters can vote for their favorite small party but it simply doesn't matter.

Two-party systems are ALWAYS more majoritarian precisely because minorities don’t matter.

The opposite of "majoritarian democracy" is not "minorities have more political power"; the opposite of majoritarianism is strictly limited government, which the US happens to realize better than Europe.

Minorities in Europe have even less power than in the US; that's because the European system is less accountable and less representative than the US system.

[NOYB2]

Not only are you jousting with a strawman

I asked you Name any multi-party system that actually works better than the US system and explain how and why it works better.

You have failed to come up with a single example and any criteria.

You named Germany, a democracy in which politicians are less accountable, less representative, and have less consent of the governed; a democracy that is authoritarian, intrusive, stomps on free speech, and is failing socially and economically.

You're welcome to try again.

[Megan Brewster]

Hello,

While the timing of the Libertarian Party's presidential nominations may seem unconventional compared to the major parties, it is a strategic decision rooted in the party's unique position and resources. By strategically aligning with the election cycle, the Libertarian Party aims to maximize its impact, gain media attention, and present a compelling alternative to voters during the crucial presidential election years. Understanding this timing provides insights into the party's approach to navigating the complex landscape of American politics.

[Kelvis]

FYI, Matt Welch, "Deseret News" is pronounced "DesereTT" not "DeseRAY." It's the Mormon Church owned newspaper in Utah.

"Deseret" means "honeybee" in Ancient Book of Mormon People language. Mormons historically used it to refer to all things Utah ("Deseret" having been the original name proposed by Brigham Young for the state, rejected by those heathens in Congress in favor of Utah).

Lately "deseret" is a term coopted by the Mormon Alt-Right nationalists. Being part of the "Deseret nation" is now a dog whistle indicating that you are Mormon purist stamping out nascent feminism and intellectualism from every corner of the Mormon church. (For example, DezNats, as they call themselves, expose closeted BYU students and faculty.)

Anyway, the "t" is not silent. HTH.

[JFree]

DezNats need to have some humor about Deez Nuts.

[Kelvis]

I don’t know about the alt right Mormon crowd, but ~I~ see the humor.

[Brandybuck]

> A listener asks the editors why the Libertarian Party waits until election year to nominate its presidential candidate

One possible reason: The official government primary doesn't happen until election year. In many states, if not all, the LP primary just take place when the government says it must. Doesn't mean they have to use the primary as a means to determine their nominee, but it's a huge incentive to wait until the primary election day.

If the LP nominates a candidate early enough, they can just place a single name on the ballot. Or actually, attempt to. Because other people can still seek to get on the LP primary ballot. Which happened in my state once where a convicted child molester got on the ballot forcing the LP to denounce him. But the state still marked on (L) after his name.

Quite frankly, states should get out of the business of primaries. Political parties should be wholly private organizations, free to nominate whoever they want. Without using taxpayer funds and government services to hold a state wide election where anyone who merely registers as LP can vote even if they are not party members.

[NOYB2]

The idea of a primary in which any registered party member can vote is itself flawed. Parties ought to pick candidates that are most likely to win in the general election, not candidates that most appeal to party members.

The US has made a number of changes to its democracy over the past 200 years that led to more and more dysfunction: voting by people who don't own property, lowering the voting age, popular election of senators, primary elections, etc. From an intellectual, progressive point of view, these all seem like good ideas; in practice, they lead to authoritarianism and fiscal disaster.

[JFree]

Ought? Who the fuck are you ordering the state to pay for (meaning primary elections) what some political party ought to do itself?

[NOYB2]

To the contrary, I am saying that the state should NOT pay for primary elections.

Let me decode this for you, since you seem to have trouble understanding written English:

Parties ought to [i.e., it is rational for them if they intend to win] pick [i.e., not use state-funded primary elections] candidates that are most likely to win in the general election, not candidates that most appeal to party members [picked via state funded primary elections].