Is cola without corn syrup or artificial sweeteners too much to ask? Time to end the tariff on sugar and get the country healthy again.

Mr. Bartlett references wasted votes on Libertarian candidates. Perhaps it's time for his fellow liberals and conservatives to support instant run-off voting. Then Libertarians can still declare their first preference of a Libertarian candidate, but declare a second, third, etc. preference. This will eliminate the spoiler effect. With a little work, Libertarian candidates will someday reach the final run-off and hopefully achieve victory. But this all probably makes too much sense for Republicans and Democrats to comprehend.

I'm a proud Coca-Cola Classic drinking Libertarian. What does that say about me? :)

Justin, I feel your pain. Instant run-off voting is a great idea but it would have to be enacted by Reps and Dems in power who benefit the most by the current voting scheme.

Libertarians would probably win most elections with instant run-off voting. How many of us know Rep or Dem voters that only vote Rep or Dem because of the lesser of two evils philosophy? The only problem I see is the number of parties on the ballot. It would be unrealistic to expect people to assign a value 50 candidates per office. Most ballots now have 3-8 candidates per post and that's reasonable.

I think the end result would be the complete failure of Rep and Dem candidates because 50% of the population hates one and the other 50% hates the other. LP folks would probably be first or second on everyone's ballot.

I love the relationship of this cola issue to third parties but I do not believe in restricting advertising on the big two or anyone else, which I think would be a Libertarian way of thinking.

Not to get off-subject too much but I also have my doubts about IRV. What's the difference between my number one selection in IRV and my number one selection (only selection) in the current system? Either way, whichever candidate is everyone's first pick (or only pick) is the one that will come out victorious in the end. IRV would never get past peoples' first pick. I think the whole system is completly hollow.

I much more prefer a "pair-voting" system, where multiple votes are conducted with candidates paired up until we are left with two.

I'll stop there before I get so far off-topic we can't come back.

Dennis,

An election outcome can be very different with IRV. An argument I happen to agree with is that Al Gore would have won in 2000 had we used IRV. Most Ralph Nader supporters would have assigned Al Gore as their second preference. Thus, when Ralph Nader was eliminated in the runoff, most of his votes would have been counted for Al Gore, which probably would have put Al Gore over the top in a few states that he lost.

What would be interesting to see with IRV is how many supporters of other third parties would declare the Libertarian candidate their second or third preference. The Libertarians may survive the runoff longer than we think.

Anyone who would like to learn more about IRV, just click on my name below. I have linked a great website that very clearly explains and illustrates IRV.

One thing; RC and LP have exactly the same "position" in the consumers' head and that position is bottom shelf and inferior. And both, without concentrated branding efforts, will remain in that position.
We can learn from RC what not to do.

Maybe I should sue for plagiarism. About 20 years ago I had an Op-Ed piece published in a major daily using a soda vending machine as a metaphor for voting. -- Jeff Daiell

Justin,

Understood that Al Gore was placed second on many Ralph Nader supporters' ballots but why would Ralph Nader possibly have been eliminated to begin with? Wouldn't it be because of all the First Choices that had been selected with a majority going to whoever?

In that case, what's the difference between that and today's typical majority vote?

Perhaps I just don't understand IRV and I'll quit talking about it here and visit your site.

Justin,

I took a look at your site. I understand it now. I also understand why I didn't understand it to begin with; it's not being sold right by others.

I never knew that people were winning elections without a majority of the population voting for them in our current system (it should be obvious, I know).

IRV solves that problem and that is how it should be sold. I bet a lot more people would get on board with it if it was explained in that way.

I apologize again for the hijacking and I now return you to your regular program.

Hopefully the LP will realize that the only way to promote the party is to become the Red Bull of the soft drink industry.