I would like to second what Ed said about Dr. Luntz being one of the most important American patriots alive today. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, experience and passion with us.
Totally on board with Frank's comments and have been supporting No Labels. USA is too great a country, as Frank states, to have Trump and Biden as our options for a president.
First, our form of government is supposed to be a constitutional republic based upon rule of law, not a democracy. Secondly, I believe that political polling and situational ethics are both curses upon our nation and are in large part responsible for the division in our country and the multi tiered legal system. Government's only legitimate function is to protect our liberty. It should not do for any individual or group what it can not do for all. I do not see how civility cab be restored with out some form of major crisis. And that could even make things worse rather than better.
In K-12 Education, we are pushing critical thinking skills, learning US Government, and trying to spot deepfakes on Social Media. America gets better when have three to four solid parties!
I don’t agree with the guy in stripes when it comes to Colorado’s decision to get Donald off the ballot. The Sec of State is basing her decision on Sec 3 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
1) Education: agreed, 100%. We need basic literacy (at a minimum) and also need to instill critical thinking (e.g., Is this statement a fact, or an opinion?) My kids got that kind of training in the early 2000s in elementary school. It should probably be a nationwide requirement, yes? 2) Open it up to a 3rd party candidate, but how, exactly? Perhaps ranked-choice/instant-runoff could be imposed, but unless I'm mistaken, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to mandate how states conduct their elections, as long as they don't discriminate based on race, gender, party, etc. It *could* be done with a constitutional amendment, but that seems unlikely, given the two incumbent major parties' grip on state-level government. Summing up, boosting non top-2 party candidates is going to be extremely difficult, and it has essentially zero chance of happening before the first Tuesday in November 2024. I'd love to see either (R) or (D) nominee (or both) champion the idea of such an amendment, but I'm guessing they'll focus on economic and culture-war issues instead, because that's what fires up their base. 3) Social media reform: How's it going to be done if *not* by imposing government regulation? I agree with Luntz 100% that it shouldn't be the government, because of the 1st Amendment, so let's rule that out from the get-go. I suppose in some possible universe, all of the incumbent social media companies might agree to truly independent fact-checking, policing of minimum norms of civility, etc., but that's also problematic, because folks say and write things all the time on the various platforms that a subset of possible viewers will find offensive. In other words, it'd be *really* hard to do.
We have a federal government bureaucracy that is out of control. Anyone that will dramatically downsize that gets my vote. We will know we are winning when real estate tanks in Northern Virginia. No offense to Northern VA realtors:).
if I understand correctly, if a 3rd party candidate wins enough to force the vote to congress, the existing congress will decide the outcome. With more GOP states than Dem, that would favor the GOP candidate. Did I miss something??
Unless I'm mistaken, that's exactly backwards. It's the *new* Congresscritters who'd vote to pick the president (and veep) if no ticket gets a majority of Electoral College votes. And in any case, the important fact to know and consider is that each state gets one vote in that scenario, so most likely, the (R) ticket would win.
@@joelirby8096 It is the newly elected to Congress. The one thing I have been confused by is in a No Labels podcast, a comment was made that they could ensure that Trump does not win by throwing their electorical votes to Biden. Because in the end, with all the negatives of Biden, even No Labels believes Trump is the worst candidate in line with Frank's comments about the threat to our democracy. So would love to learn more about if this is possible, but would love to see a No Label's slate win the election.
Great question - He and I have discussed this in the past, with Andrew Yang. Dr. Luntz agreed that ranked choice voting is a good idea, one that could solve a lot of the problems he addressed in this video. I hope to bring Dr. Luntz back in February or March and I'll be sure to ask again, on camera. Thanks for the comment! -Ed D'Agostino
The problem is that if you vote for Donald Trump you may not get to have an election, and certainly won't have a free and fair election, in 2028. And if you vote for a third party but would otherwise have voted for Joe Biden... let's say because you're a habitual voter for Democrats... then that too is a vote for Donald Trump and against democracy. Look, I've long wished that our elections were maybe not as colorful as those in Italy but offered more than two parties with any national chances. But until we do something different like rank choice voting, that's not going to happen.
I would like to second what Ed said about Dr. Luntz being one of the most important American patriots alive today. Thank you for sharing your thoughts, experience and passion with us.
Totally on board with Frank's comments and have been supporting No Labels. USA is too great a country, as Frank states, to have Trump and Biden as our options for a president.
First, our form of government is supposed to be a constitutional republic based upon rule of law, not a democracy. Secondly, I believe that political polling and situational ethics are both curses upon our nation and are in large part responsible for the division in our country and the multi tiered legal system. Government's only legitimate function is to protect our liberty. It should not do for any individual or group what it can not do for all. I do not see how civility cab be restored with out some form of major crisis. And that could even make things worse rather than better.
In K-12 Education, we are pushing critical thinking skills, learning US Government, and trying to spot deepfakes on Social Media. America gets better when have three to four solid parties!
I just hope that this really happens.
I don’t agree with the guy in stripes when it comes to Colorado’s decision to get Donald off the ballot. The Sec of State is basing her decision on Sec 3 14th Amendment of the Constitution.
1) Education: agreed, 100%. We need basic literacy (at a minimum) and also need to instill critical thinking (e.g., Is this statement a fact, or an opinion?) My kids got that kind of training in the early 2000s in elementary school. It should probably be a nationwide requirement, yes?
2) Open it up to a 3rd party candidate, but how, exactly? Perhaps ranked-choice/instant-runoff could be imposed, but unless I'm mistaken, the Constitution doesn't give the federal government the power to mandate how states conduct their elections, as long as they don't discriminate based on race, gender, party, etc. It *could* be done with a constitutional amendment, but that seems unlikely, given the two incumbent major parties' grip on state-level government. Summing up, boosting non top-2 party candidates is going to be extremely difficult, and it has essentially zero chance of happening before the first Tuesday in November 2024. I'd love to see either (R) or (D) nominee (or both) champion the idea of such an amendment, but I'm guessing they'll focus on economic and culture-war issues instead, because that's what fires up their base.
3) Social media reform: How's it going to be done if *not* by imposing government regulation? I agree with Luntz 100% that it shouldn't be the government, because of the 1st Amendment, so let's rule that out from the get-go. I suppose in some possible universe, all of the incumbent social media companies might agree to truly independent fact-checking, policing of minimum norms of civility, etc., but that's also problematic, because folks say and write things all the time on the various platforms that a subset of possible viewers will find offensive. In other words, it'd be *really* hard to do.
We have a federal government bureaucracy that is out of control. Anyone that will dramatically downsize that gets my vote. We will know we are winning when real estate tanks in Northern Virginia. No offense to Northern VA realtors:).
if I understand correctly, if a 3rd party candidate wins enough to force the vote to congress, the existing congress will decide the outcome. With more GOP states than Dem, that would favor the GOP candidate. Did I miss something??
Unless I'm mistaken, that's exactly backwards. It's the *new* Congresscritters who'd vote to pick the president (and veep) if no ticket gets a majority of Electoral College votes. And in any case, the important fact to know and consider is that each state gets one vote in that scenario, so most likely, the (R) ticket would win.
@@joelirby8096 It is the newly elected to Congress. The one thing I have been confused by is in a No Labels podcast, a comment was made that they could ensure that Trump does not win by throwing their electorical votes to Biden. Because in the end, with all the negatives of Biden, even No Labels believes Trump is the worst candidate in line with Frank's comments about the threat to our democracy. So would love to learn more about if this is possible, but would love to see a No Label's slate win the election.
What does Dr. Luntz think about ranked-choice voting, and would that help on a national scale?
Great question - He and I have discussed this in the past, with Andrew Yang. Dr. Luntz agreed that ranked choice voting is a good idea, one that could solve a lot of the problems he addressed in this video. I hope to bring Dr. Luntz back in February or March and I'll be sure to ask again, on camera. Thanks for the comment! -Ed D'Agostino
Rank choice voting is Three-Card-Monte promoted by desperate politicos who want to steal the election in broad daylight
The problem is that if you vote for Donald Trump you may not get to have an election, and certainly won't have a free and fair election, in 2028. And if you vote for a third party but would otherwise have voted for Joe Biden... let's say because you're a habitual voter for Democrats... then that too is a vote for Donald Trump and against democracy.
Look, I've long wished that our elections were maybe not as colorful as those in Italy but offered more than two parties with any national chances. But until we do something different like rank choice voting, that's not going to happen.
The state’s job is to qualify candidates and Colorado State did their job according to the Constitution!
RFK24! TY FRANK
LOL - Frank luntz is now referring to himself a doctor
as long as it isn't trump that be better
#Vivek2024 is the answer here
Vote third party and help Trump end democracy.
Luntz lost all credibility in 2016. He is not an honest broker.
was he wrong? just wanting to understnad your statement because I don't know anything about his 2016 work.
As stated below Luntz has no credibility. The interviewer doesn't know how elections work in the USA. A waste of time.