Karma is a bitch sometimes

[nolhtairt 0]

Donna Brazile just threw Wasserman-Schultz and Hillary Clinton under the bus. The DNC conspired to give control of the DNC to Hillary and her team months before she secured the nomination, effectively creating a disadvantage for Bernie Sanders, shutting him out.

All that shit and Hillary still couldn't win. Like the subject title says...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

[DanG 1]

Um, she did win the nomination.

- Dan G

[gowlerk 1,929]

Funny. The D establishment got the candidate they wanted. The R establishment got the one they did not want. The nation got the president it deserves? Karma!

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[AlanS 1]

gowlerk

Funny. The D establishment got the candidate they wanted. The R establishment got the one they did not want. The nation got the president it deserves? Karma!

Our presidential primary system sucks, and so does the two party system. I think people should be forced to run as individuals, and then they can explain the logic behind their positions.

The two party system just generated polarization, as can very much be seen here. More than half of all voters are independents and they don't get any say in the system, so many elections are determined in the primary (which only party members can vote in) thanks to gerrymandering etc.

http://www.independentvoterproject.org/

This is a project to decrease the influence of the two party system. Watch the video in the Reform Efforts section.

[gowlerk 1,929]

Your system favours those who care enough to get off their asses and vote. You don't have to actually join a party, as in buy a membership, to vote in a primary. In some states you don't even have to declare a party affiliation. Mostly you just have to care enough to bother. Trump's supporters did.

I recently paid and joined the Conservative Party of Canada in order to have a vote for leader. Because I wanted to do what I could to avoid one of our major parties being taken over by extremist forces. Lucky for me it worked out. The new leader is definitely conservative, but in the good way. And he has a shot at winning in the next general election.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[AlanS 1]

gowlerk

Your system favours those who care enough to get off their asses and vote. ...

Vote for what? If you run at a national level in either party you are expected to confirm or else you are kicked out. This article shows clearly how things are skewed.

Even in the few states that don't require membership to vote you can only pick one. This is fundamentally flawed. IMHO.

I'd like to see a presidential primary system where you can have ranked voting, so you can pick multiple people from either party, and then entire nation votes on the same day. If you like 2 from the democrats and 3 from the republicans that is who you vote for.

You vote nationally in three rounds.

In round 1 you eliminate the bottom half.
Round 2 maybe leave just the top 3.
Round 3 just top two.

In that system, neither Trump nor Clinton survive.

[gowlerk 1,929]

You can and others can wish for the system to change. But the only way that can have a hope of happening is by electing people who agree. To do that you will all need to participate in the system as much as you can.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[yoink 321]

gowlerk

Your system favours those who care enough to get off their asses and vote.

Nonsense.


The system favor those who get off their asses and vote who usually wouldn't in the three or four contested states.

In the other 46 individual additional votes really don't matter that much. Whether you win by 1 vote or 5 million, you still get the same number of electoral college votes.

[yoink 321]

gowlerk

You can and others can wish for the system to change. But the only way that can have a hope of happening is by electing people who agree. To do that you will all need to participate in the system as much as you can.

I've said for years that I would vote for anyone who runs on abolishing the electoral college, pretty much regardless of their other policies.

But their is no incentive for those in power to change the rules, because those rules are what keeps them in power. A third party candidate who ran on changing those rules would never get backing from the established parties, and would never get the funds to compete. (Look at the current DNC scandal for example)

Your idea of 'everyone voting as much as possible' making much of a difference is ludicrously over simplified and idealistic.

[rushmc 18]

nolhtairt

Donna Brazile just threw Wasserman-Schultz and Hillary Clinton under the bus. The DNC conspired to give control of the DNC to Hillary and her team months before she secured the nomination, effectively creating a disadvantage for Bernie Sanders, shutting him out.

All that shit and Hillary still couldn't win. Like the subject title says...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

They will rationalize the cheating bitch because it's not about her, it's about the party. Eventually they will throw her under the bus because she is irrelevant to there in goals

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[rushmc 18]

gowlerk

Funny. The D establishment got the candidate they wanted. The R establishment got the one they did not want. The nation got the president it deserves? Karma!

No, the nation got the party picked. And I could not be more proud.

Way be better than a cheating manipulating ......

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[yoink 321]

nolhtairt

Donna Brazile just threw Wasserman-Schultz and Hillary Clinton under the bus. The DNC conspired to give control of the DNC to Hillary and her team months before she secured the nomination, effectively creating a disadvantage for Bernie Sanders, shutting him out.

All that shit and Hillary still couldn't win. Like the subject title says...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

First thought is that that excerpt from her own book shows Brazile in the best possible light, so I'm disinclined to trust it word for word.

That said, I've been certain since before the primary that Hillary had been promised the nomination via back room deals. I'd love to see the DNC either clean house, or splinter into a real third party, but as long as the parties are private establishments there aren't really any rules...

In my ideal world, each party would raise money for their candidates that would go into a shared pot. Candidates from each party would have an upper limit on how much they are allowed to spend during their campaign (call it a million just for an easy example).

If each party has 3 candidates and raises $3m, then everyone can run at the maximum budget for a fair contest. If one party only raises $1.5m then they need to have an internal (but transparent) discussion on how to split that between their candidates, but you couldn't just assign all of it to a single candidate.

[yoink 321]

rushmc

***Donna Brazile just threw Wasserman-Schultz and Hillary Clinton under the bus. The DNC conspired to give control of the DNC to Hillary and her team months before she secured the nomination, effectively creating a disadvantage for Bernie Sanders, shutting him out.

All that shit and Hillary still couldn't win. Like the subject title says...

https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/11/02/clinton-brazile-hacks-2016-215774

They will rationalize the cheating bitch because it's not about her, it's about the party. Eventually they will throw her under the bus because she is irrelevant to there in goals

Throw her under the bus for what, exactly?

I agree, what she and the DNC did is completely unethical, but at the moment it doesn't look like they broke any rules, unfortunately.
She didn't cheat because she didn't break the rules. That's not the same as playing fair though.

And to be honest, who cares about throwing her under the bus at this point in time apart from you extreme right wing folks? Like you said - she's completely irrelevant now. I'd much rather effort was put into current issues.

The fact that you use the term 'bitch' to describe her shows how emotional you are about it (and hence how you are probably unable to make a rational argument). Maybe you should do what I've done - move on from Hillary. Just take a breath and let it go. She didn't win, she'll never hold another position of power. There are more important things to get angry over.

Edit: If it turns out that she did break some rules, then I'm all for throwing the book at her without mercy. An example should be set IF she broke the rules.

[gowlerk 1,929]

Quote

Your idea of 'everyone voting as much as possible' making much of a difference is ludicrously over simplified and idealistic.

Only because people don't. If that is your attitude you pretty much deserve what you have. Seriously, democracy only works when people participate. Idealistic? Democracy itself is idealistic.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[AlanS 1]

gowlerk

Quote

Your idea of 'everyone voting as much as possible' making much of a difference is ludicrously over simplified and idealistic.

Only because people don't. If that is your attitude you pretty much deserve what you have. Seriously, democracy only works when people participate. Idealistic? Democracy itself is idealistic.

You are missing the point. How elections are done matters. The current primary system with a two party system creates polarization, instead of consensus.

What I would like to see is a reform of how the primaries are done with an eye of finding more middle of the road candidates. The two parties filled with ideologues, create election rules that the benefit the unrealistic extremes on left and right to the detriment of the pragmatic middle. This the one thing the extremist on both the left and right agree on.

We need primary election reforms.

This is a video about the ranked preference voting system. I'd like to see a variation of this a national presidential primary.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HoAnYQZrNrQ

[yoink 321]

gowlerk

Quote

Your idea of 'everyone voting as much as possible' making much of a difference is ludicrously over simplified and idealistic.

Only because people don't.

In this case you're wrong.

The system itself is broken - more people voting in a broken system doesn't magically fix it. Nor does it necessarily even highlight the problems.

I also think that simply saying ''more people should vote' isn't necessarily a good thing. If you said 'more people should educate themselves about the issues then vote' then I'd agree with you, but simply more votes would probably lead to more uneducated* votes -votes that simple go the way the TV or their mate down the pub tell them without real thought given to the issues. Personally I don't think that's a good thing for democracy.

*uneducated meaning lack of specific understanding of the complex issues to hand, not votes by unschooled people.

[gowlerk 1,929]

Quote

You are missing the point. How elections are done matters. The current primary system with a two party system creates polarization, instead of consensus.

I see it as you are missing my point. No system is perfect. There is no constitutional requirement that there only be two parties. The primary system only creates more extreme candidates because only a small number of people are motivated to vote in them.

The biggest and simplest reform you could have is mandatory voting. But instead you have politicians doing as much as they can to discourage voters. Every system has flaws. It is unwise and extremely unlikely to wish for wholesale changes in the basic functioning of the electoral system. It would have unintended consequences that may make it worse anyway. All you really need is participation. I repeat, your society has the government it deserves.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[yoink 321]

Mandatory voting is an AWFUL idea.

Voting should be something done with consideration because it has real consequences, not just a chore to tick off.

The mathematics of the winner-take-all system ensures that only a 2-party system can ever be a stable one. Increasing the number of voters does noting to change the system in place.

You seem so keen on gloating about making the 'you've got the government you deserves' point, that you're ignoring the facts of the situation.

We get it. You think it's funny / karma that we've got an incompetent asshole for a president and government. But increasing the number of voters does nothing to change that from happening again.

[wmw999 2,150]

The one thing additional voters can do is legitimize alternate parties.

Wendy P.

There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown)

[gowlerk 1,929]

I feel for you. I really do. But what I'm trying to say is that the root of your Trump problem is the lack of participation in the R primary by moderates. This is also the root of the success of "tea party " candidates. Until moderate voters make a greater effort, the extremes will dominate. And the same goes double for left leaning people.

And I can not overstate how strongly I disagree with you about mandatory voting. Just as there should be no qualfing test for the right to vote there is no reason to think everyone should not do there duty and vote with whatever knowledge they have.

It is the worst kind of elitism to assume that anyone is not informed enough to vote.

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[yoink 321]

gowlerk

Just as there should be no qualfying test for the right to vote

I do, and I know not many people agree with me on that.

I think everyone has the right (and responsibility!) to educate themselves about the issues at hand, but you should only be allowed to vote on a particular subject if you've passed some basic knowledge requirement.
I don't particularly want someone with absolutely no knowledge of economics of capitalism (or completely wrong knowledge) having input into the way the free market should work, for example.

I don't think the tests should be built to exclude people with basic knowledge, just those with either non or factually wrong knowledge.

[JerryBaumchen 1,068]

Hi yoink,

Quote

to exclude . . . just those with . . . factually wrong knowledge.

Given that, Trump would not have gotten any votes.



Jerry Baumchen

[yoink 321]

JerryBaumchen

Hi yoink,

Quote

to exclude . . . just those with . . . factually wrong knowledge.

Given that, Trump would not have gotten any votes.



Jerry Baumchen

See? My proposition is genius. GENIUS I tell you!

[gowlerk 1,929]

yoink

***Hi yoink,

Quote

to exclude . . . just those with . . . factually wrong knowledge.

Given that, Trump would not have gotten any votes.



Jerry Baumchen

See? My proposition is genius. GENIUS I tell you!


Except for the fairly obvious potential for abuse of a system incorporating such tests. It has been tried before. It was part of Jim Crow.....

Always remember the brave children who died defending your right to bear arms. Freedom is not free.

[AlanS 1]

gowlerk

I feel for you. I really do. But what I'm trying to say is that the root of your Trump problem is the lack of participation in the R primary by moderates. This is also the root of the success of "tea party " candidates. Until moderate voters make a greater effort, the extremes will dominate. And the same goes double for left leaning people.

The problem in this primary was there were too many mentally sane choices that cancelled each other out, leaving only one possibly mentally insane pick standing at the end.

In the Iowa poll there were 12 candidates. Rubio for example was at 23.1% and Trump was at 24.3%.

In New Hampshire Kasich, Bush and Rubio all cancelled each other out with 16, 11 and 10% of the vote while Trump was in lower 30s%. (I contend those three would attract the same type of voter, and exclude Trump in a ranked vote.)

In South Carolina Trump got 32% of the votes but 100% of the delegates.

By the time the primary got to California, it was all over with Trump getting a consistent 30% of primary voters. It was done. So nobody in California has any influence in either parties primary.

This all has a corrupting and polarizing influence on the presidential primary. I don't think the final choice represents a consensus of what the entire nation wants.

If you do a national "ranked voting" presidential primary, where people can rank many candidates I think you get to a more sane result.


We now live in a world of internet and social media, not of horse and bug with only the local newspaper for your news. It is time to move on and upgrade our election processes.