U.S. Election: It's Gonna Be a Huge Thread, It's Gonna Be the Best Thread!

[Kalbear]

Ventura is precisely the kind of third party that people want to run, and also the kind of third party that shows how you can't build a 'party' based on a person. 

I do think voting at the local and state level is important, but the more research I do into it the more I realize that it will simply be exceptionally hard to change things in the US due to the system we use. And voting third party will do nothing to solve that. It won't even dent it. 

Making third parties able to have more access to ballots and get more money will help, but only a little bit. As long as we have first past the post voting, the system will naturally gravitate towards a two-party system. It has to - because when the cost of your third party vote is to get the candidate that is least like the one you want, the natural strategy is to not want to vote that way any more. 

I'm trying to figure out the best way to resolve this in the US. Abolishing the electoral colleges is a good first step, I guess. It won't solve everything but it'll at least solve a lot. Paradoxically, another way to solve it is to have the electoral colleges per state distributed in something other than FPTP style, and that doesn't require a national change - it requires a state change, which could be doable. Essentially do STV or instant run off voting in a state, and the winner of that gets all the electoral votes for that state. It wouldn't require a change to the constitution, and if enough states did it you would get a reasonable success.

In order to do that, however, you'd need to win a lot of local and state elections. Which means...get out and vote, and specifically vote for candidates that want to fix gerrymandering, fix electoral colleges, fix superdelegates and fix caucuses!

[Swordfish]

3 minutes ago, Maithanet said:

But this is changing your whole argument.  If the problem is that you want one of the two major parties to run candidates that better represent you and your interests, then the key is to vote and be active in the primaries.  Bernie Sanders and Rand Paul both definitely had a chance to win their party nominations, they just didn't get enough votes.  If they had gotten enough primary support to win the nomination, they would have a very good chance at the presidency.

If your political preferences are such that no candidates within the two "big tent" political parties are sufficiently close to you that you could vote for them for president, then there is a good chance that your views are not sufficiently popular nationally to win the presidency anyway.  Which goes back to my statement that you should be focusing on local races, which are actually winnable. 

It changes my argument not at all, actually.

But we can simply agree to disagree.

[lokisnow]

https://mobile.twitter.com/ProfHansNoel/status/729776667640606729

 

Quote

Voting is not about "thinking for yourself." It is about acting in concert with others.

I think that gets to the heart of the problem, third party is great when you're working with others to achieve that third party. Voting for neither the republican nor the democrat party is dumb when you're just trying to be john Galt and wave around your cock flag about what a unique genius snowflake you are, wave that floppy dick, it is PROOF of just how brilliant and special you are.

 

[mormont]

Can I point out, by the way, that voting third party is very different from write-in voting?

[lokisnow]

On 5/8/2016 at 1:31 PM, ThinkerX said:

What makes you think I am a Trump supporter?  I have said this before, but again:

The next president will last one term, period. The scandals, combined with the age issue, will be too great for anything else.  Trump, if elected, faces impeachment within two years.  Clinton has at least a 50-50 shot of facing impeachment proceedings before the end of her term.   Hence, their respective vice presidential picks become crucial.  Am I clear?

 

While you are correct that the next president will only be a one termer, you are incorrect that either will be impeached.

Why?

Because the 2018 election is going to murder the democrat party once and for all. Not only will republicans easily win a filibuster proof majority in the senate in that election, they will also massively increase their numbers in the House far beyond the 2010 numbers.

FAR more significantly than margins in Congress is that 2018 will give republicans unified control of enough state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention. They will do this, then they will enact their favorite planks directly into the constitution and as a result they will probably oust whoever is the sitting president, Trump or Clinton by changing the terms of eligibility for the presidency underneath them.

Its going to be pretty simple for them to get the teeny tiny numbers of additional state legislatures they need in the 2018 elections (2 to 6 additional, depending on how you count and whether or not a call for a convention can be rescinded) and once they do it is game over for the political system as we know it.

This is a far easier way for republicans to amend the constitution than going through the federal legislature, and unique the federal legislature they're already 90% of the way towards their goal and should easily achieve the threshholds they need in 2018.

This is the consequence of democrats not bothering to vote and not caring about elections for anything that isn't blackpresident/womanpresident.

[Kalbear]

16 minutes ago, mormont said:

Can I point out, by the way, that voting third party is very different from write-in voting?

Not in the US, not really. 

[BloodRider]

6 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

While you are correct that the next president will only be a one termer, you are incorrect that either will be impeached.

Why?

Because the 2018 election is going to murder the democrat party once and for all. Not only will republicans easily win a filibuster proof majority in the senate in that election, they will also massively increase their numbers in the House far beyond the 2010 numbers.

FAR more significantly than margins in Congress is that 2018 will give republicans unified control of enough state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention. They will do this, then they will enact their favorite planks directly into the constitution and as a result they will probably oust whoever is the sitting president, Trump or Clinton by changing the terms of eligibility for the presidency underneath them.

Its going to be pretty simple for them to get the teeny tiny numbers of additional state legislatures they need in the 2018 elections (2 to 6 additional, depending on how you count and whether or not a call for a convention can be rescinded) and once they do it is game over for the political system as we know it.

This is a far easier way for republicans to amend the constitution than going through the federal legislature, and unique the federal legislature they're already 90% of the way towards their goal and should easily achieve the threshholds they need in 2018 when democrats fail again.

This is the consequence of democrats not bothering to vote and not caring about elections for anything that isn't blackpresident-womanpresident.

I'd like to make a wager.  In 2 year if that happens (ie Reps amending the Constitutions), I will change my avatar to something of your choice (within reasonable parameters).  Vice versa if no Constitutional Amendment arises.

Same for the one term Pres thing.

[Kalbear]

6 minutes ago, lokisnow said:

While you are correct that the next president will only be a one termer, you are incorrect that either will be impeached.

Why?

Because the 2018 election is going to murder the democrat party once and for all. Not only will republicans easily win a filibuster proof majority in the senate in that election, they will also massively increase their numbers in the House far beyond the 2010 numbers.

FAR more significantly than margins in Congress is that 2018 will give republicans unified control of enough state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention. They will do this, then they will enact their favorite planks directly into the constitution and as a result they will probably oust whoever is the sitting president, Trump or Clinton by changing the terms of eligibility for the presidency underneath them.

 

I think this assumes a whole lot that isn't backed by actual facts. The midterm in 2010 sucked, and that's fair - but the midterm in 2014 wasn't that bad (I believe there was even a small democratic gain in places) and more importantly, this completely ignores the results of this election. Even if 2018 sucks - and it's possible it will - 2016 will probably suck the other direction. 

[mormont]

2 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Not in the US, not really. 

Yes, in the US, really.

You've noted yourself that third parties appear on the ballot in a number of states: that in itself makes it very different.

[Kalbear]

3 minutes ago, mormont said:

Yes, in the US, really.

You've noted yourself that third parties appear on the ballot in a number of states: that in itself makes it very different.

I've noted that third party candidates show up there. The actual parties tend not to, or tend to be vanity projects for people. Or they're just made up things and they show up as 'independent'. 

I'll say that voting for a specific candidate is separate and different (and usually more effective) than voting for a write-in - and at least provides a bit more information to people - but voting on a specific third party in the US almost never matters, because essentially no other party exists. 

[Maithanet]

4 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

I think this assumes a whole lot that isn't backed by actual facts. The midterm in 2010 sucked, and that's fair - but the midterm in 2014 wasn't that bad (I believe there was even a small democratic gain in places) and more importantly, this completely ignores the results of this election. Even if 2018 sucks - and it's possible it will - 2016 will probably suck the other direction. 

Plus, gerrymandering gets weaker as time goes on and the population changes.  It was at it's strongest in 2012 when the districts were drawn to get exactly the result that whoever is drawing the map is looking for.  However, after 6 years of population growth and migration, many "safe" districts aren't safe anymore, and likewise "toss-up" districts might actually look pretty solid for one party or another.  Not that the gerrymandering advantage goes away, but it seems very odd to assume that 2018 will be an apocalypse for the Democrats when 2014 was not. 

Not to mention the obvious caviat that no one really knows what the 2016 election will look like, much less making predictions for 2018 based on what we assume will happen.  The really important midterm year elections were all more or less unpredictable two years out.  In 2000, the assumption was that America was unhappy with how Bush lost the popular vote and Republicans would suffer.  Then 9/11 happened.  In 2004, Republicans seemed unbeatable, but then the Iraq war just got worse and worse, and by 2006 the Republicans were in full retreat.  In 2008, the Democrats had a huge electoral mandate, and big margins in both houses of congress, but after 2010, they no longer controlled the House and barely held the Senate.  These kinds of long term forecasts are folly. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

The Venture comment was a joke. Clearly I failed to stick the landing.

55 minutes ago, NestorMakhnosLovechild said:

Ventura won running as a third party. I'm pretty sure his winning was a fully intended consequence of the people who voted for him. And you know, on some issues, I like Ventura a lot more than I do Clinton or Obama. 

But isn't that true of many politicians, especially when they break with traditional norms? 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

38 minutes ago, mormont said:

Can I point out, by the way, that voting third party is very different from write-in voting?

Funny story, this weekend at a frat party, cabin style, I had about 20 drunk people in their mid 20's screaming at me that it would totally be possible for Sanders to win the presidency if all his supporters just wrote his name in. 

Sometimes you've got to know when to put down the two story beerbong......

[Kelli Fury]

Look, as a Minnesotan, I can say that while I was not old enough to vote for Ventura (and wouldn't have if I was)- he wasn't a bad governor. It's agreed upon he's super fucking odd and has some crackpot ideas, but nobody really has anything particularly bad to say about the job he did as governor. Some people were embarrassed by the idea of him and he put his foot in his mouth here and there, but as far as actual governance he did pretty well and so so much better than Tim Pawlenty.

[Jace, Extat]

 

1 hour ago, Maithanet said:

It is the approach you need to take if you want a third party candidate to win.  If you don't care whether your candidate ever wins, then you can vote 3rd party for President every single election.  You can also go to the gym once every four years and see if you can bench 500 lbs. 

Why would anyone do that when they can get on facebook and declare that the establishment has secretly converted all the weights to the metric system without anyone noticing? The of course, don't forget to demand that your previous best be converted to metric as recompense.

[Kalbear]

1 minute ago, Pony Queen Jace said:

 

Why would anyone do that when they can get on facebook and declare that the establishment has secretly converted all the weights to the metric system without anyone noticing? The of course, don't forget to demand that your previous best be converted to metric as recompense.

Man, you're way more clever than I remember you being. 

[Jace, Extat]

8 minutes ago, Kalbear said:

Man, you're way more clever than I remember you being. 

Absence is the precursor to longing.

[Maester Drew]

For myself, it's not about "sending a message" it's more about going with my conscience. It's that simple.

11 hours ago, mormont said:

Of course, the fact is that the Presidential race is a dichotomy. There are going to be two candidates. It pretty much follows.

I referred in a previous thread to the actual election as being in effect a runoff, with the primaries being the first round. I still think that's true, and the best way to think of it. You supported your first choice candidate in the primary, and with the greatest of respect to Pony Queen Jace and others, I can see no reason why that shouldn't allow you or any other supporter a completely clear conscience to vote for whichever candidate you prefer from the two on offer in the actual election. You already said who you wanted as a first pick. You don't need to say it again. That's not the question any more: the question is, which would you prefer from the final two?

If the answer to that is genuinely 'I couldn't live with the thought of either of them', that's fair, and it's your right to write-in a candidate. But be realistic about it. The effect of write-in votes for Sanders is going to be immeasurably less than the effect of his primary run. The truth is, nobody really cares about write-in votes, except the people casting them.

It seems to me the 'black and white' view here is yours: compromise is wrong, I'm voting for Sanders come what may. And that makes sense, because Sanders is not Tyrion, not by any measure: he's not a morally grey kind of guy. He's Ned Stark, maybe. Tyrion, meanwhile, would see choosing the lesser of two evils as just the way life is, most of the time. He's the character that would be rolling his eyes at the idea of a write-in.

Actually, there will be at least two candidates, others will include Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, etc. Our Constitution doesn't explicitly state that the US is a "two-party state." Now, I'll grant y'all that other than the Democrats and the Republicans, the other parties are small, but the point is that there are still a whole lot more parties than just two. So yeah, I'd argue that no US Election is truly a dichotomy.

 

As for your question: I know who the lesser of two evils are: Hillary. But that doesn't mean I like her, nor that I'll vote for her simply because she's the lesser. When anyone asks, "who'd you vote for: Trump or Hillary?" I hear, "Who'd you vote for: the lunatic or the criminal?" Those are hardly choices, and quite frankly I wouldn't be able to stomach choosing either of them.

 

Addendum: Hmmm... on further thought, there is one way I might vote for Hillary; if she picked Sen. Warren of Massachusetts as her VP.

[Maester Drew]

1 hour ago, lokisnow said:

While you are correct that the next president will only be a one termer, you are incorrect that either will be impeached.

Why?

Because the 2018 election is going to murder the democrat party once and for all. Not only will republicans easily win a filibuster proof majority in the senate in that election, they will also massively increase their numbers in the House far beyond the 2010 numbers.

FAR more significantly than margins in Congress is that 2018 will give republicans unified control of enough state legislatures to call a Constitutional Convention. They will do this, then they will enact their favorite planks directly into the constitution and as a result they will probably oust whoever is the sitting president, Trump or Clinton by changing the terms of eligibility for the presidency underneath them.

Its going to be pretty simple for them to get the teeny tiny numbers of additional state legislatures they need in the 2018 elections (2 to 6 additional, depending on how you count and whether or not a call for a convention can be rescinded) and once they do it is game over for the political system as we know it.

This is a far easier way for republicans to amend the constitution than going through the federal legislature, and unique the federal legislature they're already 90% of the way towards their goal and should easily achieve the threshholds they need in 2018.

This is the consequence of democrats not bothering to vote and not caring about elections for anything that isn't blackpresident/womanpresident.

 Why would any Republican do that? Aren't they the party that constantly espouses how much they love the US Constitution?

[Kalbear]

Quote

As for your question: I know who the lesser of two evils are: Hillary. But that doesn't mean I like her, nor that I'll vote for her simply because she's the lesser. When anyone asks, "who'd you vote for: Trump or Hillary?" I hear, "Who'd you vote for: the lunatic or the criminal?" Those are hardly choices, and quite frankly I wouldn't be able to stomach choosing either of them.

And the notion that Clinton is a criminal is probably the biggest problem here.

Like, of the two Trump has actually been charged several times with crimes and has settled out of court. Including for rape. Clinton...has not. Ever. Not once. There haven't even been indictments.