Nov 2023 Mod notice:
There may be other, more specific, threads about some aspects of US politics, but this one tends to act as a hub for all sorts of related news and information, so it's usually one of the busiest OTC threads.
If you're new to OTC, it's worth reading the Introduction to On-Topic Conversations
and the On-Topic Conversations debate guidelines
before posting here.
Rumor-based, fear-mongering and/or inflammatory statements that damage the quality of the thread will be thumped. Off-topic posts will also be thumped. Repeat offenders may be suspended.
If time spent moderating this thread remains a distraction from moderation of the wiki itself, the thread will need to be locked. We want to avoid that, so please follow the forum rules
when posting here.
In line with the general forum rules, 'gravedancing' is prohibited here. If you're celebrating someone's death or hoping that they die, your post will get thumped. This rule applies regardless of what the person you're discussing has said or done.
Edited by Mrph1 on Nov 30th 2023 at 11:03:59 AM
No, what prevents third parties from gaining any traction in the US is the first-past-the-post voting system. Since we divide everything up into districts and then vote for one candidate to fill one office, and third party simply acts as a spoiler and splits the vote with the party they agree with more, thus handing the election to the party they agree with less. This makes third parties self-defeating.
What we would need in order to allow for third (and fourth, and fifth...) parties is a different voting system. There are a lot, but anything that's proportional would do. A proportional voting system doesn't use districts; instead everyone votes in one giant election, and the seats are apportioned out based on the total results.
Ending first past the post and preferably putting in preferential voting are bigger issues than the Electoral College, but the Electoral College plays its role too. If you have to win more than half of the Electoral Votes (270 out of 538) how the hell are you going to have 4, or 6, or more political parties at the national level and have the Electoral College able to function that way. Either you would need to adjust the number of votes required to win, or you need to do away with it. Honestly, a big part of what is keeping the parties together in artificial big tents, in my view, is because they don't dare put themselves at a disadvantage in presidential elections.
The EC doesn't do shit to protect small states. It doesn't make presidential candidates campaign more in small states, it doesn't make them listen more to their issues, all it does it disenfranchise more populated states, (which are also the states that do the most, far and away, for the country's economy) until you wind up with situations where you need something like the votes of 5 Californians to equal the vote of 1 person from Wyoming. And then the person from Wyoming cries about how California is oppressing and disenfranchising them!
I know we all absorb BS history lessons about how the Founders were all-wise gods amongst men who could do no wrong, but they weren't. They screwed up on plenty of things, and the Electoral College is a big one. With this election, 9% of the time the Electoral College goes against the vote. And how big a scandal would it be if faithless Electors threw the election? And if that would be a scandal, despite being the purpose of the EC, what is the point of keeping it?!!
Trash the electoral college.
It doesn't do that! Presidential candidates don't visit or listen to small states because of the Electoral College! They only listen to or visit states that could go either way. Most small states aren't like that. The Electoral College does nothing for them. In 2012, 39 states got 0 visits from the candidates, their Vice President nominees, etc.
Here's the full list of states that got a visit during the 2012 presidential campaign: Colorado, (23 visits, 9 EC votes) Florida, (40 visits, 29 EV) Iowa, (27, 6) Michigan, (1, 16) Minnesota, (1, 10) Nevada, (13, 6) New Hampshire, (13, 4) North Carolina, (3, 15) Ohio, (73, 18) Pennsylvania, (5, 20) Virginia, (36, 13) Wisconsin. (18, 10)
The other 39, combined? 0.
But maybe spending changes... oh, nope, Obama spent 99.6% of his campaign cash in 10 states, and Romney spent 99.9% of his campaign cash... in the same 10 states.
(Source
, which itself is citing 2012 Washington Post articles)
If Alaska and Maine want representation, they elect people to Congress who in turn find like minded folks to form an alliance and stand up for their interests. They have as many Senators as any other state, and they can sure find allies from every other coastal state that also is big in fishing. If they can't do that, then the 39 million people living in California shouldn't have their interests suppressed for the sake of whatever percentage of Alaska's 737,000 people who work in fishing in your scenario.
edited 11th Nov '16 7:46:01 AM by TheWanderer
| Wandering, but not lost. | If people bring so much courage to this world...◊ |The notion that in a fully national vote large states like California and New York will squash everyone else is ludicrous. First, even together they don't have enough share of the population. Second, they are not monolithic blocs of voters with the same interests. Third, larger states need more effort to campaign in, so there is a cost/benefit ratio thing of campaigning exclusively there. Fourth, the issue of operating a nationwide election in a federal country is not some novel problem - Switzerland has it too with our referendums, and the solution we found is to require a double majority of cantons ("estates") and people.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanNew England does not vote like a bloc by default, as we see from New Hampshire and Maine. Also, national vote means that the exact numbers of votes matter, not merely who receives a majority in which state.
"For a successful technology, reality must take precedence over public relations, for Nature cannot be fooled." - Richard FeynmanThen again, overrepresenting the small states is literally the entire point of the Senate. The problem is that they triple dip by also being overrepresented in the House due to the floor of one Representative per state and the cap of 435 total Representatives meaning that Representatives do not represent a roughly equal number of people and overrepresented in the Electoral College due to said House issues.
A solution might be devolution of legislative power, like an extra layer in between state and federal.
I mean, I have nothing in common with someone from West Virginia — perhaps we should be further isolated, politically, from one another.
edited 11th Nov '16 7:44:23 AM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."@Cap, Economically at least...Trump doing well would be a good thing for everyone. But there is about a 0% chance of Trump doing well on social issues, climate change and foreign policy. And the better he does on the economy (or is perceived to be doing), the longer the GOP gets to drag the US into the dark ages.
Case in fucking point. Won't seniors be livid at that though?
edited 11th Nov '16 7:47:31 AM by Rationalinsanity
Politics is the skilled use of blunt objects.Sometimes I wonder about what Trump's motivation is moving forward. He's not beholden to any political group. He doesn't have any political agenda he's worked his whole life to enact. Politically, there is nowhere to go after being president. To him, he's won. He's got that presidential feather in his cap even if he ends up being a one term president. This is a man who has no problem stiffing his contractors and burning bridges after they worked for him. How much does he actually care about his "promises" to his supporters?
He might just decide to get immensely rich using his presidential influences, and that could just be the best thing for the country in the next 4 years.
edited 11th Nov '16 8:06:16 AM by nightwyrm_zero
![]()
That's the silver lining, isn't? He's probably not going to go through with most of his bat-shit insane policies, only telling the people what they wanted to hear before showering them with false hopes and empty promises. So not only may his Presidency not be as bad some people have feared, but his voterbase might get so ticked off that he'll get booted out of office in 2020 too.
edited 11th Nov '16 8:06:58 AM by kkhohoho

Colin Powell's remarks about Trump and HRC's failings were spot-on. Trump is a national disgrace, and HRC's efforts were marred by hubris.
Disgusted, but not surprised