U.S. Elections 2016 - Polls in mirror appear closer than they are

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

55 minutes ago, Roose Boltons Pet Leech said:

We had a duopoly too (albeit a duopoly that favoured one side more than the other). Didn't stop a change away from FPP:

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

One question: The British "first past the post" (FPTP) model in a parliamentary system has allowed for two major parties and a number of smaller parties with whom the two majores have had to work with to build coalition majorities.  How is your reform of a British style system that is already more open to third parties that the US style of government comperable to such an effort here where almost all efforts to get non-major party candidates into elected offices are sqwelched at their inceptions?

[SeanF]

1 minute ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

One question: The British "first past the post" (FPPP) model in a parliamentary system has allowed for two major parties and a number of smaller parties with whom the two majores have had to work with to build coalition majorities.  How is your reform of a British style system that is already more open to third parties that the US style of government comperable to such an effort here where almost all efforts to get non-major party candidates into elected offices are sqwelched at their inceptions?

In the UK, the principal challenges to FPTP have come from political parties that are specific to individual nations of the UK (the Irish Parliamentary Party from 1885-1918), the Scottish National Party now.  Labour didn't so much challenge the electoral system as destroy the Liberal Party between 1922 and 1935.

The Conservatives (and allies) and Labour had more or less complete dominance (in terms of seats) from 1935 to 2010, although the combined vote share for Conservatives and Labour has been declining more or less since 1964.  The Liberal Democrats seemed to have broken the mould in 2010, when we had a hung Parliament, only for them to get wiped out in 2015.

[The Marquis de Leech]

Just now, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

One question: The British "first past the post" (FPPP) model in a parliamentary system has allowed for two major parties and a number of smaller parties with whom the two majores have had to work with to build coalition majorities.  How is your reform of a British style system that is already more open to third parties that the US style of government comperable to such an effort here where almost all efforts to get non-major party candidates into elected offices are sqwelched at their inceptions?

Britain's duopoly features a permanent third party (now a fourth party) and assorted regional extras. New Zealand under post-war FPP was a much more clear-cut duopoly, to the extent the Big Two not only had majority government, but were generally the only two parties in Parliament (1946-1966, 1969-1978, and 1987-1990). What ultimately broke the system was a combination of one of the Big Two winning the popular vote on consecutive occasions but losing the election, and minor parties cracking 20% of the vote but getting a maximum of 2 (out of 97) seats. Imagine a succession of US elections where 1992 meets 2000 - high third party vote for no result, and one of the Big Two keeps getting screwed by the Electoral College.

As for how you'd go about it in the US, widespread encouragement of IRV would be the logical step. Perhaps even have a state experiment with proportional representation in the legislature (I think it'd have to be tried at the state level before pushing it at federal level).

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

SeanF,

But the US doesn't have strong regional parties that can wedge their way to change the existing system.  Every time a Third party starts to gain traction one of the two majors works to pull them back into the dupoply.  The cultural distinctions of Scotland and NI don't help us here.  Our federalism is so watered down it makes the type of move RBPL suggests very difficult under our structure.

That's why it seems to me that the only real hope for change is a rapid electoral shift where a third party gains real power in a very short period of time.  It makes it much more difficult for the two major parties to act to prevent reform.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

11 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

SeanF,

But the US doesn't have strong regional parties that can wedge their way to change the existing system.  Every time. Third party starts to gain traction on of the two majors works to pull them back into the dupoply.  The cultural distinctiona of Scotland and NI don't help us here.  Our federalism is so watered down it makes the type of move RBPL suggests very difficult under our structure.

That's why it seems to me that the only real hope for change is a rapid electoral shift where  third party gains real power in a very short period of time.  It makes it much more difficult for the two major parties to act to prevent reform.

This is true, but they weren't pulled back in for nothing. Populist, Progressive, even Socialist Party policies made their way into the mainstream. The Populist Party supported the direct election of Senators well before the 17th Amendment, for instance. So I think it's less likely that a third party could ever win than that by making some waves (and taking some votes) around electoral reform they could push the major parties to adopt the issue. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

9 minutes ago, OnionAhaiReborn said:

This is true, but they weren't pulled back in for nothing. Populist, Progressive, even Socialist Party policies made their way into the mainstream. The Populist Party supported the direct election of Senators well before the 17th Amendment, for instance. So I think it's less likely that a third party could ever win than that by making some waves (and taking some votes) around electoral reform they could push the major parties to adopt the issue.

OAR,

I'd rather have a system where third parties are part of the existing positions of power to allow them to bring in new ideas rather than having the existing power structure adopt one new idea and then freeze out the people who proposed them.  This is why I favor multi-party democracy and major reforms to the electoral process in the US.  Reforms that the existing major parties have every incentive to oppose.

[OnionAhaiReborn]

10 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

OAR,

I'd rather have a system where third parties are part of the existing positions of power to allow them to bring in new ideas rather than having the existing power structure adopt one new idea and then freeze out the people who proposed them.  This is why I favor multi-party democracy and major reforms to the electoral process in the US.  Reforms that the existing major parties have every incentive to oppose.

Sure, but what I'm saying is that it's more likely that a moderately successful third party could push a major party to support and pass electoral reform that would allow for multi-party democracy post-reform than it is that a third party could ever outright win given the existing structural barriers. 

[Mr. Chatywin et al.]

It's really disturbing watching all the Trump surrogates blatantly lie on the Sunday morning news circuit. They know that Clinton didn't start the birther rumor but they're still trying to push it. I hope this blows up in their face. 

[Commodore]

interesting Obama quote

http://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-berates-black-caucus-insult-legacy-vote-hillary-clinton/

Quote

“There’s no such thing as a vote that doesn’t matter. It all matters, and after we have achieved historic turnout in 2008 and 2012, especially in the African-American community, I will consider it a personal insult, an insult to my legacy, if this community lets down its guard and fails to activate itself in this election,” he said. “You want to give me a good sendoff? Go vote!”

 

[James Arryn]

46 minutes ago, Commodore said:

interesting Obama quote

http://freebeacon.com/politics/obama-berates-black-caucus-insult-legacy-vote-hillary-clinton/

 

What's interesting about it to you?

[SerPaladin]

Things are getting grim on FiveThirtyEight. Trump flipping Pennsylvania (difficult), or a combination of Nevada and Michigan (less difficult), and he gets 269 or 270. The debates were always going to be important, but the race may be down to less than a percent on popular vote when the show begins. (blah, blah, blah, accuracy of polls, someone else is better than Nate Silver, blah,blah, blah). And after the first one is over, we will be talking about Clinton winning on substance, Trump on style, and how that affects the outcome.

I'm in New Jersey, so my Gary Johnson vote continues to be a safe one. But fellow libertarians in Virginia are (anecdotally) starting to consider holding their nose and voting for Trump, and they are more "true believers" in libertarian-ism than I've ever been. Should not make a difference in VA, but if Gary voters peel off for Trump, even just a third, the math gets challenging in a few states.

[Free Northman Reborn]

What I find disturbing is how malleable the average voter's opinion is. The extent to which a rather simple and obvious change in delivery style, artificial change in message and superficial campaign revamp can swing large numbers of the voting public really is an indictment of the entire concept of democracy.

Trump is still Trump. Hillary was always Hillary. And yet suddenly we have Trump leading, where before he had no hope in hell. Now, don't get me wrong, I prefer Trump to Hillary, and hope we wins, even if he is far from my favourite type of candidate. But the fickle nature of the voting public is just ridiculous. How can these masses be trusted to elect the leader of a nation?

It boggles the mind. 

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

5 minutes ago, Free Northman Reborn said:

What I find disturbing is how malleable the average voter's opinion is. The extent to which a rather simple and obvious change in delivery style, artificial change in message and superficial campaign revamp can swing large numbers of the voting public really is an indictment of the entire concept of democracy.

Trump is still Trump. Hillary was always Hillary. And yet suddenly we have Trump leading, where before he had no hope in hell. Now, don't get me wrong, I prefer Trump to Hillary, and hope we wins, even if he is far from my favourite type of candidate. But the fickle nature of the voting public is just ridiculous. How can these masses be trusted to elect the leader of a nation?

It boggles the mind.

So, let you pick from now on?  Call it FNRocracy?

[Free Northman Reborn]

9 minutes ago, Ser Scot A Ellison said:

So, let you pick from now on?  Call it FNRocracy?

Democracy...worst form of government except for all others, and so on and so forth. Old, tired, rehashed debate.

That said, considering the average voter in this day and age, I seriously think some kind of qualified franchise might be a better option. Make it complex, and well designed. Spend years developing it. Find checks and balances in it, to protect the vulnerable. Get smarter people than me to design it. But just do something to improve the damn system.

Some people simply need smarter people than themselves to decide government policy on their behalf. I don't know what that system will look like, but hell, currently you could swing half a million votes by having Kim Kardashian appear on stage with a candidate. (I exaggerate, but not by much.)

 

[Shryke]

19 hours ago, Notone said:

 

 

[Shryke]

It helps to remember that democracy is not designed to elect good governments, it's designed to elect legitimate ones.

[Free Northman Reborn]

1 minute ago, Shryke said:

It helps to remember that democracy is not designed to elect good governments, it's designed to elect legitimate ones.

Fair point.

[Ser Scot A Ellison]

13 minutes ago, Shryke said:

It helps to remember that democracy is not designed to elect good governments, it's designed to elect legitimate ones.

Shryke,

I hadn't heard it phrased that way.  Excellent point.  It's sort of anlaogus to people having the mistaken opinion that evolution has a "direction".

[The Marquis de Leech]

I also suspect that there are comparatively few voters switching directly between Trump and Hillary. Much more likely are voter switches between one of those two and a third party candidate, or between being likely to vote and unlikely to vote.

[Boris the Blade]

Stein being the piece of shit she is and also showing just how fucking ignorant she is as well. More reasons to hate her.

http://www.rawstory.com/2016/09/jill-stein-insists-trump-is-less-dangerous-than-clinton-and-attacks-bernie-sanders-as-a-dc-insider/