Pyrian on 25/5/2016 at 03:54
Quote Posted by heywood
Sorry, but I don't play the lesser of two evils game. That's a trap the two parties use to maintain their hegemony.
The voting system is built that way whether you play along or not. A third party vote is like half a vote for the greater evil (whichever one that is in your eyes).
That being said... GOOO Gary Johnson!!! XD Because Hillary Clinton is quite substantially less evil than Donald Trump. Yeah, I'm voting for Sanders in the primary.
faetal on 25/5/2016 at 09:23
I (figuratively) ran in here expecting to see an election for TTLG president, Henke badges at the ready.
It's just for the US presidency. I think realistically, Clinton might get it. If Trump gets it though, I'm petitioning Netflix to categorise Idiocracy as an educational film.
SubJeff on 25/5/2016 at 09:28
Trump will win because Americans are idiots. Not all, but most. I'm prepared to argue this fact. Bring it
demagogue on 25/5/2016 at 13:20
The numbers don't support Trump right now. Maybe they'll change (I doubt it.) But he's not winning now.
Also it may be true that Hillary is deeply unpopular in some quarters, but I think it just means the turnout will be super low as opposed to people actively coming out for Trump.
@heywood, re: the US 2 party system, look up Deverger's Law to explain it. It's not really a hegemony or conspiracy. It's just the math of a single member single district 'first past the post' system isn't going to allow majority votes to be consistently viable for more than 2 parties.
froghawk on 25/5/2016 at 13:48
Well the betting odds support what you're saying... (
https://electionbettingodds.com/)
But all the polls I've seen say Clinton doesn't have a great chance against trump. So who knows, it's all unreliable anyway.
And I would argue that the US doesnt have a true 2 party system when the ideological choices are center right and a little further right...
demagogue on 25/5/2016 at 14:04
Evidently, the lesson of this election is that ideology doesn't have much to do with party/candidate support to begin with anyway. (Most Trump & Sanders supporters are ideologically much closer to other candidates.) "Two Parties" just means something in terms of staking claims over some portion of the electorate. It's as much a statistical phenomenon as a political one.
Pyrian on 25/5/2016 at 15:19
Quote Posted by froghawk
But all the polls I've seen say Clinton doesn't have a great chance against trump.
What polls? Trump wasn't even remotely competitive in the polls until the post-nomination bump, which usually fades away.
heywood on 25/5/2016 at 16:19
According to political historians, the US has had six different party systems since independence. There is no reason why the sixth party system is the end state and there can't be a seventh.
Each system/era was dominated by two parties, but dominant parties have gone away before, or split, including the Federalists, Democrat-Republicans, and Whigs. The transitions have been marked by a realignment of the electorate. We've also had other short lived major parties which have strongly affected national politics or triggered a party realignment, such as the Progressive Party, People's Party, Constitutional Union, American Independent, and Reform Party.
The current Rep vs. Dem hegemony persists because voters let it. Duverger's law is a statistical observation, it's not an invisible hand preventing people from exercising their voting rights. Also, there is more to the current party polarization than Duverger's law suggests. For instance, here in NH we have a form of proportional representation in the state house (my district elects 10 members) and a lot of unaffiliated voters, yet 399 out of 400 members are Democrat or Republican.
My point is that if you're unhappy with the Rep and Dem candidates and the way these two parties are governing, but you vote for them anyway, then you are the root cause of the problem. You get the government you deserve.
I think we are due for a political realignment. There's lot of evidence for that. A growing percentage of unaffiliated/independent voters combined with a shrinking percentage of "moderates". Rising dissatisfaction and record low approval ratings. The rise of insurgents in the Republican party, e.g. Tea Party in the Congress and now Trump. Bernie Sanders. And the traditional ideologies, platforms, and power bases of the two major parties is less and less representative of what voters really care about.
The RNC and DNC fight hard to prevent it, using money, fear mongering, various forms of disenfranchisement, gerrymandering, etc. But they are weak this cycle, and therefore we have a good opportunity for a strong independent candidate to get enough votes to start a viable national party that would drive a realignment.
icemann on 25/5/2016 at 16:30
Quote Posted by SubJeff
Trump will win because Americans are idiots. Not all, but most. I'm prepared to argue this fact. Bring it
If Trump does win (which wouldn't surprise me honestly), it will be due to the fact that the public world over are sick of the traditional politician type. Which is exactly what Hilary is and Trump isn't AT ALL.
Over here in Australia we're currently in the middle of an election period and the public is split between 2 camps. Labor and Liberal. Both are lead by a-typical political types. Public's response? For the opinion polls to pit them both neck and neck with many people not liking either of them.
At least in the US you have someone who is completely different to that. Hence the appeal.
Sycamoyr on 25/5/2016 at 16:52
If that's what the ballot looks like come November, I'm writing in Bernie Sanders.
