Cornell West Has Put His Hat In The Ring!

[Tiberius]

Scholar and activist Cornel West announced Monday he’s running as a presidential candidate for the People’s Party.

“I have decided to run for truth and justice, which takes the form of running for president of the United States as a candidate for the People’s Party,” West said in a video announcement on Twitter. “I enter for the quest for truth. I enter for the quest of justice. And the presidency is just one vehicle we pursue that truth and justice.”

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/05/cornel-west-president-00100206

 

[The Frankish Reich]

I saw Cornel West at Disney World about 10 years ago. It was a sweltering Orlando June day and he was there with (his?) kids (grandkids?). He was chatting with a "Cast Member" and certainly seemed to be an amiable visitor.

Here's what struck me: he was wearing his full black suit with suit coat while standing outside in the hazy 92 degree, 80 percent humidity Florida summer. He didn't even seem to be breaking a sweat. You gotta love that kind of dedication to one's brand ....

[Tommy Callahan]

3 minutes ago, Tiberius said:

Scholar and activist Cornel West announced Monday he’s running as a presidential candidate for the People’s Party.

“I have decided to run for truth and justice, which takes the form of running for president of the United States as a candidate for the People’s Party,” West said in a video announcement on Twitter. “I enter for the quest for truth. I enter for the quest of justice. And the presidency is just one vehicle we pursue that truth and justice.”

 

https://www.politico.com/news/2023/06/05/cornel-west-president-00100206

 

 

 

Cornel West is a philosopher who focuses on the role of race, gender, and class in American society1. He draws intellectual contributions from multiple traditions, including Christianity, the Black church, Marxism, neopragmatism, and transcendentalism1. West's philosophy, prophetic pragmatism, has an ethical basis of secular humanism and allows for religious faith as a reasonable choice and the use of faith as a source of inspiration2. West's work combines a political perspective based on democratic socialism, a Christian moral sensibility, and a philosophical orientation informed by the tradition of American pragmatism3. His best-known works include Race Matters and Democracy Matters145. West is a former Professor of the Practice of Public Philosophy at Harvard University and Professor Emeritus at Princeton University.

 

Still remember when the left attacked him for daring to speak out against Obamas BS.

 

https://www.npr.org/2011/10/24/141598911/cornel-west-a-fighter-angers-obama-supporters

 

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cornel_West

 

 

 

 

 

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Hard to know from reading… is he right or left of Biden?

 

Called out just about all the politicians for being bought corrupt corporate shills 

[BillsFanNC]

4 minutes ago, Over 29 years of fanhood said:

Hard to know from reading… is he right or left of Biden?

 

Called out just about all the politicians for being bought corrupt corporate shills 

 

He's a marxist/socialist, therefore little surprise that one of the more prominent PPP commies is excited by this announcement. 

[ChiGoose]

Can we not with these third party candidates?

 

If you want to end the two party system, you need to end First Past the Post voting first. Otherwise you’re just helping the candidate most ideologically opposed to you via the Spoiler Effect.

[reddogblitz]

5 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Can we not with these third party candidates?

 

If you want to end the two party system, you need to end First Past the Post voting first. Otherwise you’re just helping the candidate most ideologically opposed to you via the Spoiler Effect.

 

What would alternatives to First Past the Post voting be?  how would it end the two party system?  

[ChiGoose]

1 hour ago, reddogblitz said:

 

What would alternatives to First Past the Post voting be?  how would it end the two party system?  

The most prominent alternatives are Ranked Choice* and Approval Voting**. Either one would ensure that a candidate had greater than 50% of the vote in order to win, as opposed to our current system where a plurality is often sufficient. 
 

By reducing or eliminating the spoiler effect, we could have a variety of candidates to chose from without having to worry about strategic voting. 
 

Cornell West is clearly on the left. So let’s imagine he makes the ballot on every state. There are few to no voters who would traditionally vote Republican that would also want to vote for West. So West’s votes will come from lefties who might otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate. Without their votes, the Dem candidate may lose and a Republican, who is diametrically opposed to the West voters would win. So by voting for the candidate that most meets their desires, voters inadvertently elected the candidate that most opposes them. 
 

The same could happen if a traditional conservative runs third party and draws votes away from Trump / DeSantis. 
 

We should have a system where voters shouldn’t be punished for their votes through the spoiler effect. If we had that, third parties could survive. Bernie Sanders and AOC shouldn’t be in the same party as Biden or Manchin. Same with Romney and Trump. But they have to be members of the same parties because of our inferior electoral system. 
 

*Ranked Choice: rank the candidates on the ballot and when the votes are tallied, the last place candidate’s votes are redistributed to the voters’ second choices until one candidate has more than 50% of the cote

 

 **Approval voting: everyone votes for as many candidates in a race that they want. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. 

Edited June 6, 2023 by ChiGoose

[Tiberius]

9 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

The most prominent alternatives are Ranked Choice* and Approval Voting**. Either one would ensure that a candidate had greater than 50% of the vote in order to win, as opposed to our current system where a plurality is often sufficient. 
 

By reducing or eliminating the spoiler effect, we could have a variety of candidates to chose from without having to worry about strategic voting. 
 

Cornell West is clearly on the left. So let’s imagine he makes the ballot on every state. There are few to no voters who would traditionally vote Republican that would also want to vote for West. So West’s votes will come from lefties who might otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate. Without their votes, the Dem candidate may lose and a Republican, who is diametrically opposed to the West voters would win. So by voting for the candidate that most meets their desires, voters inadvertently elected the candidate that most opposes them. 
 

The same could happen if a traditional conservative runs third party and draws votes away from Trump / DeSantis. 
 

We should have a system where voters shouldn’t be punished for their votes through the spoiler effect. If we had that, third parties could survive. Bernie Sanders and AOC shouldn’t be in the same party as Biden or Manchin. Same with Romney and Trump. But they have to be members of the same parties because of our inferior electoral system. 
 

*Ranked Choice: rank the candidates on the ballot and when the votes are tallied, the last place candidate’s votes are redistributed to the voters’ second choices until one candidate has more than 50% of the cote

 

 **Approval voting: everyone votes for as many candidates in a race that they want. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. 

That would stop Trump from ruining the GOP's chances in 2024 as he wouldn't be able to split the GOP vote 

[reddogblitz]

3 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

The most prominent alternatives are Ranked Choice* and Approval Voting**. Either one would ensure that a candidate had greater than 50% of the vote in order to win, as opposed to our current system where a plurality is often sufficient. 
 

By reducing or eliminating the spoiler effect, we could have a variety of candidates to chose from without having to worry about strategic voting. 
 

Cornell West is clearly on the left. So let’s imagine he makes the ballot on every state. There are few to no voters who would traditionally vote Republican that would also want to vote for West. So West’s votes will come from lefties who might otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate. Without their votes, the Dem candidate may lose and a Republican, who is diametrically opposed to the West voters would win. So by voting for the candidate that most meets their desires, voters inadvertently elected the candidate that most opposes them. 
 

The same could happen if a traditional conservative runs third party and draws votes away from Trump / DeSantis. 
 

We should have a system where voters shouldn’t be punished for their votes through the spoiler effect. If we had that, third parties could survive. Bernie Sanders and AOC shouldn’t be in the same party as Biden or Manchin. Same with Romney and Trump. But they have to be members of the same parties because of our inferior electoral system. 
 

*Ranked Choice: rank the candidates on the ballot and when the votes are tallied, the last place candidate’s votes are redistributed to the voters’ second choices until one candidate has more than 50% of the cote

 

 **Approval voting: everyone votes for as many candidates in a race that they want. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. 

 

Cool. Thanks.

 

I was aware of ranked choice.  I believe Seattle uses it for some elections.  While it's not a complicated concept, I fear putting it into prayer say a presidential election it may be burdensome. Would require counting the votes multiple times. We have a hard enough time counting them once.

 

Of the 2, I would go for approval voting.

[HomeskillitMoorman]

13 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

The most prominent alternatives are Ranked Choice* and Approval Voting**. Either one would ensure that a candidate had greater than 50% of the vote in order to win, as opposed to our current system where a plurality is often sufficient. 
 

By reducing or eliminating the spoiler effect, we could have a variety of candidates to chose from without having to worry about strategic voting. 
 

Cornell West is clearly on the left. So let’s imagine he makes the ballot on every state. There are few to no voters who would traditionally vote Republican that would also want to vote for West. So West’s votes will come from lefties who might otherwise vote for the Democratic candidate. Without their votes, the Dem candidate may lose and a Republican, who is diametrically opposed to the West voters would win. So by voting for the candidate that most meets their desires, voters inadvertently elected the candidate that most opposes them. 
 

The same could happen if a traditional conservative runs third party and draws votes away from Trump / DeSantis. 
 

We should have a system where voters shouldn’t be punished for their votes through the spoiler effect. If we had that, third parties could survive. Bernie Sanders and AOC shouldn’t be in the same party as Biden or Manchin. Same with Romney and Trump. But they have to be members of the same parties because of our inferior electoral system. 
 

*Ranked Choice: rank the candidates on the ballot and when the votes are tallied, the last place candidate’s votes are redistributed to the voters’ second choices until one candidate has more than 50% of the cote

 

 **Approval voting: everyone votes for as many candidates in a race that they want. Whichever candidate gets the most votes wins. 

There's a reason why Ranked-Choice voting is discouraged by both parties...because it would be the best thing for this country

[ChiGoose]

54 minutes ago, reddogblitz said:

 

Cool. Thanks.

 

I was aware of ranked choice.  I believe Seattle uses it for some elections.  While it's not a complicated concept, I fear putting it into prayer say a presidential election it may be burdensome. Would require counting the votes multiple times. We have a hard enough time counting them once.

 

Of the 2, I would go for approval voting.

Enacting either one would be the single best way to tamp down on polarization and the current negative political environment. It wouldn’t solve it (and there are other reforms I’d like to see too), but it would have the biggest impact of any singular change you could make. 

Just now, HomeskillitMoorman said:

There's a reason why Ranked-Choice voting is discouraged by both parties...because it would be the best thing for this country

It would destroy the Democratic Party and the Republican Party. Which is why we should do it. 

[Boatdrinks]

22 hours ago, ChiGoose said:

Can we not with these third party candidates?

 

If you want to end the two party system, you need to end First Past the Post voting first. Otherwise you’re just helping the candidate most ideologically opposed to you via the Spoiler Effect.

Which is why I completely approve of West entering the race. We don’t need an end run around the electoral college, and we certainly don’t need NY and CA  - the two largest $***hole States in the US - deciding every election. Ranked choice etc etc is simply a way to silence or diminish conservative voices and States. 

[HomeskillitMoorman]

5 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Which is why I completely approve of West entering the race. We don’t need an end run around the electoral college, and we certainly don’t need NY and CA  - the two largest $***hole States in the US - deciding every election. Ranked choice etc etc is simply a way to silence or diminish conservative voices and States. 

 

Because you want conservative voices to be weighted, that's not democratic at all. There's nothing democratic about the electoral college, it actually gives the individual Conservative more of a weighted vote than anyone else. 

 

It should be the popular vote through a Ranked Choice system, that would actually be the most fair way to do this. 

[ChiGoose]

8 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Which is why I completely approve of West entering the race. We don’t need an end run around the electoral college, and we certainly don’t need NY and CA  - the two largest $***hole States in the US - deciding every election. Ranked choice etc etc is simply a way to silence or diminish conservative voices and States. 

Ranked Choice and Approval voting are simply ways to return the power to the people instead of the party elites. 
 

It also would not end up with California and NY deciding every election. That doesn’t make any sense. 

[Boatdrinks]

38 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

 

Because you want conservative voices to be weighted, that's not democratic at all. There's nothing democratic about the electoral college, it actually gives the individual Conservative more of a weighted vote than anyone else. 

 

It should be the popular vote through a Ranked Choice system, that would actually be the most fair way to do this. 

We are a Republic and ought to remain that way. A pure Democracy is too vulnerable to mob rule and bad ideas that have become fashionable. 

[ChiGoose]

3 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

We are a Republic and ought to remain that way. A pure Democracy is too vulnerable to mob rule and bad ideas that have become fashionable. 

Electing representatives based on what the people actually want is pure democracy and also bad?

[HomeskillitMoorman]

16 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

We are a Republic and ought to remain that way. A pure Democracy is too vulnerable to mob rule and bad ideas that have become fashionable. 

 

This is really just you wanting weighted votes on your side of the political spectrum. If you were looking at this objectively, you wouldn't think this is the right thing to do. 

[Boatdrinks]

9 minutes ago, HomeskillitMoorman said:

 

This is really just you wanting weighted votes on your side of the political spectrum. If you were looking at this objectively, you wouldn't think this is the right thing to do. 

Thank goodness the Founding Fathers were smarter than this. There is a reason they didn’t opt for a pure democracy. If you were being objective , you would see it. 

27 minutes ago, ChiGoose said:

Electing representatives based on what the people actually want is pure democracy and also bad?

All the States need to matter. Pretty easy to see why. 

[ChiGoose]

5 minutes ago, Boatdrinks said:

Thank goodness the Founding Fathers were smarter than this. There is a reason they didn’t opt for a pure democracy. If you were being objective , you would see it. 

All the States need to matter. Pretty easy to see why. 

You do realize that the reason the Founders created the electoral college was to appease the slave states, right? 
 

Also, our current system means that most states don’t matter. We talk about 6-8 states every election season. If everyone’s votes counted, then candidates would have to care about all of the states. As it stands today, they don’t.

Edited June 6, 2023 by ChiGoose