Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes early

[alfablue]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

What if Sanders ran independent? I'm finding a lot more people are becoming disenfranchised with the two parties, even if they don't "feel the Johnson".

Since he's not running, it's rather irrelevant at this point. But probably not- as I prefer Hillary's positions to his.

The third party needs to be in MUCH less a fringe position than the offerings today- if some realistic middle ground person was available, I'd give them a solid shot. Then again, Hillary moved more left thanks to Bernie.

Hillary's issue is that nobody like her- not that her policies are horribly bad. Many of Trump's stated policies are un-Constitutional- which is a very bad thing.

 

[aparch]

Why waste money on a campaign stop in Chicago when all of IL is voting D regardless? Then you consider that there are Mexican citizens' votes to be won and how could he pass up the opportunity?

All of Illinois isn't voting D. Outside of the seven counties of Chicagoland, the state is pretty well red (and even some of the seven counties are red), with the blue areas *barely* turning blue.

 

[unofan]

A lot of people envision the 3rd party to be the moderates. I think a 3rd and 4th party would be the fringes. Israel's a good example of a system where you have center left, center right, and then lunatics. Problem is to form a coalition government you need to make deals with the nutjobs because rarely does one party win an outright majority.

We do have a coalition government, the coalitions are just formed pre-election instead of post. The two major parties are the coalitions. We then choose which we prefer.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

2 EV for winning the state
1 EV for winning each Cong. District.

The EC would then resemble more of a parlimentary system, but it would force the candidates to contest a lot more areas.

That is a terrible idea: it tracks all the state leg gerrymandering mud into the White House.

Just kill the EC and make it a straight popular vote. Equalize every citizen's vote.

We could end gerrymandering by eliminating House districts and electing a slate of reps. If voting for 50 reps is too much for Californians, they can split the state (like they should anyway).

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Post-Mex comments were interesting. Neither man was thrilled by the other's statement.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

2 EV for winning the state
1 EV for winning each Cong. District.

The EC would then resemble more of a parlimentary system, but it would force the candidates to contest a lot more areas.

Might not be too bad of an idea, although brings a bit less of a chance of gridlock in, which is a bad thing because you can then shove through terrible legislation, such as the PATRIOT Act, the UIGEA, the PPACA, The Banker Bailouts...

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

That is a terrible idea: it tracks all the state leg gerrymandering mud into the White House.

Just kill the EC and make it a straight popular vote. Equalize every citizen's vote.

We could end gerrymandering by eliminating House districts and electing a slate of reps. If voting for 50 reps is too much for Californians, they can split the state (like they should anyway).

Congratulations on suggesting the complete and utter destruction of the Republic. Evidently you learned nothing from Ancient Rome.

 

[The Sicatoka]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Just kill the EC and make it a straight popular vote. Equalize every citizen's vote.

There's a reason for the Electoral College just as there's a reason for the US Senate.

That reason goes like this: Two wolves and a sheep are voting on what's for dinner ...

Under your plan (straight popular vote) a candidate only needs to win 146 of 3000 US counties to win the election.
http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9

 

[bronconick]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Gabe Ortíz @TUSK81

Wait, if all 300 million or so of us get together we can build that wall in like two hours while Trump is in Mexico.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

There's a reason for the Electoral College just as there's a reason for the US Senate.

That reason goes like this: Two wolves and a sheep are voting on what's for dinner ...

Under your plan (straight popuar vote) a candidate only needs to win 146 of 3000 US counties to win the election.
http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9

So what, if that's where the people live?

Dirt and shrubs aren't entitled to equal representation.

 

[trixR4kids]

So what, if that's where the people live?

Dirt and shrubs aren't entitled to equal representation.

Isn't he from North Dakota?

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Isn't he from North Dakota?

In that case, I meant no offense.

 

[burd]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

So what, if that's where the people live?

Dirt and shrubs aren't entitled to equal representation.

Isn't he from North Dakota?

In that case, I meant no offense.

Milk and honey. Sicatoka is from the land of milk and honey.

And NC banners.

 

[5mn_Major]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

There's a reason for the Electoral College just as there's a reason for the US Senate.

That reason goes like this: Two wolves and a sheep are voting on what's for dinner ...

Under your plan (straight popular vote) a candidate only needs to win 146 of 3000 US counties to win the election.
http://www.businessinsider.com/half-of-the-united-states-lives-in-these-counties-2013-9

The primary reason for the electoral college is outdated. States were pretty much independent countries right after the rev war. It was only under Lincoln that the US literally turned from the united states (plural) to the united states (singular). In fact the default decision had been to just have a straight one person one vote approach...and in all likelihood if the CC was making that decision with today's US, it would in all likelihood have one person one vote to offer a more definitive version of democracy.

There is no reason to give someone living in rural Wyoming more votes than one living in rural Texas...and even if there was some sort of big state benefits the president could give big states, a tiny bit of an increase in voter value would not stop them from doing so. In other words, if the wolves wanted to eat the sheep...they would do so anyways. The senate at least amplifies this power and actually offers something for its distortion of democracy.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Mika Brzezinski was pretty funny on Morning Joe. The piece was about Trump's impression of Sideshow Bob on Mexico and in Phoenix, and she basically checked out halfway through the segment, saying "there's no way to have a discussion about nothing." We also learned a new Spanish word: "payaso." It's a perfect summation of Trump.

 

[Rover]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Well, that Trump "pivot" didn't last too long, did it? Read a headline that said Trump deported his softening stance on immigration. Now, how long will it take until the national media breathlessly reports on Trump's next pivot into being a more Presidential candidate? Since its Labor Day weekend coming up, I give it until Tuesday!

Regarding the electoral college, leave it alone. The beauty of the current system is that if your state isn't fiercely partisan you'll get attention from the candidates as you're part of the math to get to 270. Strict popular vote means maxing out CA, TX, NY, and FL and not giving a rat's arse about IA, NH, NV, etc. Nobody actually runs a 50 state campaign since there's not enough time or money to do so. It isn't a perfect system but its better than all the others.

 

[Handyman]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

So Drumpf still thinks Mexico will pay for the wall huh...man that meeting must have been a disaster

edit: Then There is This

If Drumpf thinks he can redraw the maps that is a bold statement, but ignoring the swing states will make that effort worthless anyways.

 

[St. Clown]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

So Drumpf still thinks Mexico will pay for the wall huh...man that meeting must have been a disaster

No, he knows Mexico won't pay for the wall. Saying otherwise keeps the hillbilly crowd happy.

 

[Kepler]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Strict popular vote means maxing out CA, TX, NY, and FL and not giving a rat's arse about IA, NH, NV, etc. Nobody actually runs a 50 state campaign since there's not enough time or money to do so.

Remember, if we nuke the EC states won't matter at all. One might think the largest cities would be blanketed with ads and appearances, but not necessarily -- those cities tend to be highly partisan and so neither party will really be looking at much expected value there.

Suburban sprawl and smaller (whiter) cities is where most of the uptick will be, and that's not a bad thing -- it is after all where people live. And there are plenty of middle pop density places which get no attention now but which would if we went to straight vote: Cheyenne, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, Anchorage, Boise are all ignored now because their states are locks. All of a sudden they'd become very interesting targets with lots of people up for grabs for both parties.

 

[FlagDUDE08]

Re: Campaign 2016 Part XVII: If debates are great theater, I think this one closes e

Remember, if we nuke the EC states won't matter at all. One might think the largest cities would be blanketed with ads and appearances, but not necessarily -- those cities tend to be highly partisan and so neither party will really be looking at much expected value there.

Suburban sprawl and smaller (whiter) cities is where most of the uptick will be, and that's not a bad thing -- it is after all where people live. And there are plenty of middle pop density places which get no attention now but which would if we went to straight vote: Cheyenne, Oklahoma City, Fort Worth, Anchorage, Boise are all ignored now because their states are locks. All of a sudden they'd become very interesting targets with lots of people up for grabs for both parties.

And how did that sort of scope work out for the Roman Empire? Learn from history.