US Politics Thread 2016-2020

[Buddahaid]

You dismiss half the people then. Zero regard for your opinion.

[Hawk66]

What I do not understand is when you do not like Trump and do not like Clinton, why is there no bigger movement in the US to change the whole process....beginning how candidates are nominated, the de facto dominance of only two parties due to the election system and how the president gets finally elected?

[Sailor Steve]

That was my problem. I didn't want either of them. I voted for a third-party candidate who I know didn't have a chance of winning, and I get accused of stealing votes from the favorite candidate of whoever is doing the accusing. I can't seem to convince them that I didn't want their favorite either.

Of course if I don't vote for either the response is "If you don't vote you don't have a right to complain!" I usually respond with "Of course I have the right to complain. I'll have that right until they put a choice on the ballot that says "None Of The Above".

[Hawk66]

I see.

From my understanding a lot of people have voted for Trump since they want that the establishment has to change. I understand this point.

But, what those people do not seem to realize is that they have voted for the establishment. Not for the typical Washington-er establishment - nevertheless he is within the same power structures, which relies on the influence and power (=money) of the top 1%. A clear sign of that is that (since the unfortunate passing of John Mccain) no one with any power in his party tries to criticize him openly. It is always the second row or some retired military senior officers. A real, smart democratic leader would welcome criticism and feedback because this is the only way to reflect on your decisions and change course if necessary.

If you want that someone does do real changes, you have to identify and elect a proper person, who is outside of the establishment and unites your country and does not do politics for the corporates .
But without realizing that you cannot turn back the time back to the 80s, this will never happen.

[August]

Originally Posted by Hawk66

What I do not understand is when you do not like Trump and do not like Clinton, why is there no bigger movement in the US to change the whole process....beginning how candidates are nominated, the de facto dominance of only two parties due to the election system and how the president gets finally elected?

Why? Well as it is now our Presidents are elected by a majority of states. Would having three bad choices (or four or five) for candidates be somehow better? Especially if it means that Presidents would be elected by 33% (or 20/25%)? How is multiple parties working out for say Italy?

Our constitution is deliberately made difficult to change for a very good reason. Despots throughout history from hitler to Chavez have changed their countries constitution in order to secure their power and/or to marginalize their opposition.

In our country if a would be dictator were to come to power they would need at least 3/4ths of the states (38 of 50) to agree to any changes before they can be implemented. IMO that is the primary reason for our countries longevity. Without it I believe we would have splintered into 50 European like nation states long ago and the resultant wars would make European history seem cordial by comparison.

[Hawk66]

Originally Posted by August

Why? Well as it is now our Presidents are elected by a majority of states. Would having three bad choices (or four or five) for candidates be somehow better? Especially if it means that Presidents would be elected by 33% (or 20/25%)? How is multiple parties working out for say Italy?

Our constitution is deliberately made difficult to change for a very good reason. Despots throughout history from hitler to Chavez have changed their countries constitution in order to secure their power and/or to marginalize their opposition.

I do not agree.

First, there are other presidential-oriented democracies, like France, which work fine with more candidates.

Why do you think that more choices lead to more bad choices ? The US system was fine when it was designed but nowadays your country is more diverse, more individual due to immigration and change of lifestyle like in more or less all Western democracies.

More candidates means that potential more potential voters do actually vote, since they have a candidate they can identify with. Also the discussions will be broader, since the other than the two usual candidates do not have to stick to the well established party lines. They bring new ideas, they are disruptive, but in a positive sense. This applies not only for the president but for the two house of crs also. Actually it would to start there...

My thesis and the polls strengthen that is that Trump got elected by accident since a lot of voters where not happy with Trump, nor with Clinton but voted for Trump since he represented some change or this 'establishment' story. Most of those waving voters for sure do not identify themselves with Trump. They had only the alternative to not vote (if they did not like Clinton).

Second, of crs nobody would design a system, where a president gets elected by 33 %, but you need to apply a run-off system. This can foster also unification, since kicked-out candidates usually advice their supporters to vote for one of the two (or more) remaining candidates.

And finally....if one pillar of the system is so powerful that it can lead to a dictatorship then there is a very dangerous design flaw in the system.

I know, you probably do not agree but for my taste the president is too powerful with his decrees, applying judges and so forth. In theory there is a check/balance system but you see that does not work well currently since some senators seem to vote according their own political survival, which is (or they view it at least) connected to Trump (or any other current president).

Isn't it obvious that lifestyle, technology change and so forth requires changes in the constitution, without touching its foundation ? Only societies which are able to adapt will keep their status over the centuries. History is full of such examples...

Frankly, I would like to see the US will keep it, else it will be China.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Would having three bad choices (or four or five) for candidates be somehow better?

A part of the reason the Constitution is the way it is on Presidential Elections is that the Founders actually envisioned a system in which there would be no parties. This was the reason for having the candidate with the most electoral votes win and the runner-up become vice president. Of course they also didn't imagine what happened in 1800, when both parties ran secondary candidates hoping they would then dominate the top spots, only to have a tie and the opposing major party try to elect the appointed VP rather than the main candidate.

Did I say party? Oh yeah, it took almost no time at all before one of the guiding lights of the new nation had put together a grass-roots movement that grew into the two-party system. As thinkers they tended toward the brilliant, but as politicians they were as cutthroat as any of today's leaders, and probably more so.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Buddahaid

You dismiss half the people then. Zero regard for your opinion.

I hold voters responsible for the votes they make. An uncomfortable concept these days, I know, but thats how I do. If i do like this with the Germans, or the British or the EU fanboys, why should I do different with Trumpomericans and other US voters?


Also, Trump has not "half the people" in support. Not even half of all those who voted. Clinton got more votes, while only 123 million poeple voted in fact o those 223 million who were eligible to vote (74% of total population was eligible to vote, turnout rate on basis of those eligible to vote: 39%). Clinton got 25.6% of all the eligible voters' votes and Trump got 25.5%. Just 59 million people voted for Trump, at a total population of 313 million.

Thats means just 19% of the total US population has voted for Trump. - Or only 40% of the claimed number of yours ("half the people"). Every fifth American only voted actively for Trump.





P.S. I spoiled the math in an earlier version of this post. Corrected now.

[Skybird]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A part of the reason the Constitution is the way it is on Presidential Elections is that the Founders actually envisioned a system in which there would be no parties. This was the reason for having the candidate with the most electoral votes win and the runner-up become vice president. Of course they also didn't imagine what happened in 1800, when both parties ran secondary candidates hoping they would then dominate the top spots, only to have a tie and the opposing major party try to elect the appointed VP rather than the main candidate.

Did I say party? Oh yeah, it took almost no time at all before one of the guiding lights of the new nation had put together a grass-roots movement that grew into the two-party system. As thinkers they tended toward the brilliant, but as politicians they were as cutthroat as any of today's leaders, and probably more so.

Interesting, I did not know that, that idea of not having parties. Interesting to me since I am very sympathetic to the idea myself and often have said that I think all political parties should be forbidden and banned, dissolved - I could imagine for not that different reasons like the founders rejected the idea as well (or did they just not imagine the possibility of parties?) . I only think however, that this can only be had at the cost of enforcing and preventing party bans by the use of force, and that alone makes the idea probably unrealistic for many people, since even the worst possible government and ruining of economy and finances and eroding basic principles of law, constitution or cultural values still seem to be better and more acceptable for most people than using force to push such government - which nowadays base on strong lobby-building and party's power interests overruling national and common interest, not to mention individual networking peoples' careers and ambitions - and parties in general out of existence.


Again my question to you: did the founders just not imagine that there could be parties, or did they indeed recommend not to have parties, trying to prevent them?

[Buddahaid]

Originally Posted by Skybird

I hold voters responsible for the votes they make.

Apparently not, but whatever.

[August]

Originally Posted by Sailor Steve

A part of the reason the Constitution is the way it is on Presidential Elections is that the Founders actually envisioned a system in which there would be no parties. This was the reason for having the candidate with the most electoral votes win and the runner-up become vice president. Of course they also didn't imagine what happened in 1800, when both parties ran secondary candidates hoping they would then dominate the top spots, only to have a tie and the opposing major party try to elect the appointed VP rather than the main candidate.

Did I say party? Oh yeah, it took almost no time at all before one of the guiding lights of the new nation had put together a grass-roots movement that grew into the two-party system. As thinkers they tended toward the brilliant, but as politicians they were as cutthroat as any of today's leaders, and probably more so.

Well maybe it'd be more accurate to say that SOME founders envisioned a party-less system, and they were probably considered as ideological fools by the more realistic ones. Political parties are a natural byproduct of any human devised system of government ever created from republics to monarchies to theocracies to dictatorships, they all have had them. Now they can be public or secret but they have always existed and to wish them away is simply impossible.

Be all that as it may though it'd take nothing less than an entirely new constitution to change our form of government to one that will accommodate multiple parties. If that happens I don't see all 50 states being willing to start from scratch. We'd splinter for sure.

[Sailor Steve]

Originally Posted by August

Well maybe it'd be more accurate to say that SOME founders envisioned a party-less system, and they were probably considered as ideological fools by the more realistic ones.

I can't argue with that. On the other hand I don't know that I'd call the opposition "realistic" in that case, but having a strong agenda. And I'm talking about my own heroes here. Alexander Hamilton accused James Madison of creating the first real American political party as a grass-roots movement to support Jefferson's bid against John Adams. From everything I've seen the accusation was pretty close to the mark.

Be all that as it may though it'd take nothing less than an entirely new constitution to change our form of government to one that will accommodate multiple parties.

I don't see the Constitution as supporting a two-party system now, and I don't think a new one would change that. It might get rid of the Electoral College and change the way we elect the President, but I doubt it would change the way we go about the business of politics.

If that happens I don't see all 50 states being willing to start from scratch. We'd splinter for sure.

Nor do I. I once had a discussion with a college-age man who insisted that we had to have a new Constitutional Convention in order to save the country. When I asked him what he would change he didn't have an answer, but he was sure it had to be done anyway. When I pointed out that starting from scratch was exactly what they did in the first place ("We didn't come to create a new government but to amend the Articles of Confederation." - "We will amend them...right out of existence."), and that once a Convention was actually convened they could do anything they wanted - anything at all, he wasn't quite so sure if that was what he really wanted.

I see some problems with the current form of electioneering, but I'm somewhat leery of changing anything. As a friend of mine liked to say, "Never do anything you can't take back."

[ikalugin]

I wonder if taking away the electoral college would lead to a one party system in the USA.

[Mr Quatro]

[Skybird]

The goal of politics is to simplify life and ease complexity for the people by giving them just one party to chose from.