It will go on the same way it has for centuries. A major party might occasionally collapse, but it's replaced by another party within a few election cycles. If you want more than 2 major parties, you need to at the very least change the electoral system for the House (changing the rest would require constitutional amendments).
Hope is the denial of reality
Clinton has a lock on this election so it's moot. With polls giving a very healthy PA lead to Clinton and a quite healthy FL lead to her too I fail to see a viable route to the Oval Office without those states.Originally Posted by Loki
She was up by 1% a week ago. Seems rather short-sighted to assume the current swing is the last one.
Hope is the denial of reality
How do we change the electoral system when it's controlled by two dominant political parties?
She's won every single Pennsylvania poll since early July.
By voting third party like Canada and the UK which both have the same electoral system have done.
And polls, especially state-level ones, are always accurate.She's also within the margin of error on all but the two most recent polls.
Presumably, if there was an easy solution, someone would have implemented it by now. The best chance would be to have changes at the state level. Have states create multi-member districts for the House and allow ranked voting for those seats. In any state with more than 2 House seats, this should lead to third parties entering Congress. Once they establish themselves there, they'd have an easier time getting elected to other positions. Nothing requires states to have the present single member district first past the post for those seats (and in fact, states have chosen them differently in the past).
As to how you'd persuade the Democrats and Republicans to do this: perhaps wait until a typical minority power takes power in a state. They might be persuaded to use their brief time in power to create a system that improves their representation down the line.
Last edited by Loki; 10-05-2016 at 04:31 AM.
Hope is the denial of reality
The New Democrats made a major impact in one federal election. The Lib Dems are an exception, but it's not like they've ever even many seats, even when they had substantial popular support. And the logic of Duverger's Law doesn't really apply to regional parties, like BQ or SNP.
Hope is the denial of reality
What's a typical minority, and how would they take power?
Wave elections. Sometimes one party is so popular or unpopular nationally that it temporarily changes the parties in power at the state level. Something like Democrats coming to power (state-wide) in North Carolina or Republicans taking power in New York.
Hope is the denial of reality
Do you think this is a temporary wave election?
In the last few decades in Canada we have seen the collapse and phoenix like resurrection of the Conservatives, the Liberals going from third to overall majority last year, the NDP and other assorted parties like Reform.
Far more churn and diversity than South of their border.
Speaking of poll reliability: http://www.nytimes.com/2016/10/06/up...7-instead.html
Hope is the denial of reality
In other words polls are a bit s##t. Not sure that's news.
It means being less confident in the winner in even remotely competitive elections.
Hope is the denial of reality
https://twitter.com/RWTQuotes/status/784098759433216000
How can any self-respecting human being back this man?
Hope is the denial of reality
Ask Lewkowski, he's the person on this forum now supporting him, albeit as a "lesser evil" than Clinton.
2015 and it wasn't Trump but a surrogate and it was in the middle of a back and forth exchange with interruptions making it even less clear. All that being said a ban of muslims is stupid. How do you determine if someone is a Muslim? You accept them at that word? Yeah cus terrorists aren't going to lie...
Instead vetting (Trump's extreme vetting if you want to call it that) should occur for people immigrating to America from terrorist hot spots. And frankly I'm OK with letting zero people from Syria (for example) come in until we can put effective controls in place. I'd rather err on the side of security of American citizens. We know ISIS would love to come over and blow shit up, and it is easy for them to mix with the refugee groups.
As far how you can back someone - RB said it best. Lesser of two evils. I'm not voting for the guy because he personally offends me but I would prefer him over Hillary. We know what Hillary will do in the office. More big government, more socialism and more government dependence. We're nearing (or perhaps already gone over) the tipping point where people think government should be the be all end all provider for work, healthcare, basic goods and services. Young people dream of secure government jobs and massive social safety nets. They clamor for free education and handouts - it is getting very close to the point where people will just continue voting in whoever promises the most goodies in terms of government spending.
Trump, though I'm not convinced he will, MIGHT start to change that. He's less likely to appoint a liberal onto the Supreme Court and he may actually get serious about immigration. I'm not AT ALL confident he will be effective or will do these things but there is potential he's actually somewhat telling the truth in his intentions. With Hillary we know we will get a liberal justice who doesn't give a shit about the constitution or framer's intent. We know that will get more government spending and more regulation.
The lesser evil here is clearly Clinton though.
December 2015, and Trump didn't fire her as a result.
Party ID is a powerful drug. We have here the least qualified and most immoral presidential candidate in modern memory, someone who's in bed with the worst racists in society, someone who is terrible in hiring competent advisors (and even worse in listening to them), someone who has given absolutely no indication of his interest let alone ability to rule a country like the US, but you're willing to support him because he has an R next to his name. We have plenty of indications that he'd rule like an incompetent, egotistical, conman, and no indication that he'd rule like a conservative. And yet you're ok with that. Neither do you care about Trump's utter disregard for either the Constitution or the Bible, documents you claimed to have supported in the past. By supporting him, you lose all right to talk about morality or conservatism.
Hope is the denial of reality
Supreme Court Justices. Bigger Government. Not dealing with Immigration. Those are all big issues.
Trump *may* get some bad trade decisions made. (Even that isn't a guarantee considering how Democrats will love to vote against whatever he wants and there are a number of free trade Republicans). He may piss off world leaders. Whatever - we're America.
The downside of Clinton is worse and that's why she's the lesser of two evils.
All reasons why I didn't like him in the primary. All reasons I still don't like him. Still doesn't compare to Clinton who's party actively runs on racism.December 2015, and Trump didn't fire her as a result.
Party ID is a powerful drug. We have here the least qualified and most immoral presidential candidate in modern memory, someone who's in bed with the worst racists in society, someone who is terrible in hiring competent advisors (and even worse in listening to them), someone who has given absolutely no indication of his interest let alone ability to rule a country like the US, but you're willing to support him because he has an R next to his name. We have plenty of indications that he'd rule like an incompetent, egotistical, conman, and no indication that he'd rule like a conservative. And yet you're ok with that. Neither do you care about Trump's utter disregard for either the Constitution or the Bible, documents you claimed to have supported in the past. By supporting him, you lose all right to talk about morality or conservatism.
Aw, did some black people hurt your feelings by saying people who look like you do bad things? Better teach them lesson by electing someone who wants to strip them of their rights, right?
Hope is the denial of reality
Except he hasn't proposed that... and if he did it wouldn't pass congress... and if it did pass it would be struck down by courts. Meanwhile legalized racial discrimination currently occurs and is fully supported by the Democratic Party.
Oh and I forgot another reason to root for Trump, SJWs and folks like you will absolutely lose their shit. Will be hilarious to watch.
This man really is a vile, repugnant character.
The GOP now distancing themselves further and further from him.
"Grab them by the pussy," Mr Trump says. "You can do anything."
Is doing anything you like to women and grabbing them by the pussy another reason to root for Trump, Lewk?
If it makes """SJWs""" lose their shit, apparently yes.
When the sky above us fell
We descended into hell
Into kingdom come
Yeah, electing a fraudster and sexual predator is a great way to get your jollies. Good call, well done.
There's a man goin' 'round, takin' names
And he decides who to free and who to blame
Given your misgivings about Trump during the primaries I think you are very well aware that a politician of his kind is part of a frontal attack on the very system itself. The safeguards you think will keep him in check may actually not work any longer if populism becomes too strong. If you don't like the way your constitution set up the way your country is ruled, then you have a valid reason to use Trump as a tool to break it. But if you go that way don't cry over the results which you may not like so much.
Congratulations America
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote