Tonights Debate : Clinton v Trump

[deipnosophist]

You really believe that Mezzrow? With most of the swing states in Republican hands they are all going to conspire with Clnton to alter the vote totals?

Isn't it more likely the electorate just decide that Clinton has less flaws?

You are probably right here LL - and doesn't that speak volumes toward the dearth of quality in Republican candidatureship.
The US electoral system needs a massive overhaul...but, imo, one won't be forthcoming

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

Oh, have no doubt mate that I find Trump an equally contemptible individual.
As I have indicated previously, electorally speaking, America (and by proxy the rest of us) are very much caught between a rock and a very hard place.

This

 

[Pittsburgh Footy]

Why?!? Why?!? Why!?!??

Please someone find a gif of Nancy Kerrigan for me

We are all doomed

 

[ilikecheese]

You are probably right here LL - and doesn't that speak volumes toward the dearth of quality in Republican candidatureship.
The US electoral system needs a massive overhaul...but, imo, one won't be forthcoming

Could you elaborate on the overhaul? For me it's exactly what the Leave voters in Brexit would have wanted for a healthy EU.

States (Countries in the EU) have a weighted representation based on census data.

California absolutely should have the largest voice in who becomes President. Texas should have a huge voice too. Wyoming should be a minnow along with Rhode Island.

For me the Senate is our flaw. Each state gets equal voice.

 

[deipnosophist]

Could you elaborate on the overhaul? For me it's exactly what the Leave voters in Brexit would have wanted for a healthy EU.

States (Countries in the EU) have a weighted representation based on census data.

California absolutely should have the largest voice in who becomes President. Texas should have a huge voice too. Wyoming should be a minnow along with Rhode Island.

For me the Senate is our flaw. Each state gets equal voice.

I guess I would look for move away from a first past the post, either/or system between what is effectively a monolithic ruling political entity. Allow other parties and identities to be eligible for election by having a proportional representation system.
Give the electorate real and viable alternative choice because God knows, if Clinton and Trump are the only possible choices, something is terribly wrong...and I believe this stems from the monopolistic/monolithic 'big party' nature of the American electoral system.

 

[deipnosophist]

Elections are where the people find out what politicians stand for,
-and politicians find out what the people fall for

 

[ilikecheese]

I guess I would look for move away from a first past the post, either/or system between what is effectively a monolithic ruling political entity. Allow other parties and identities to be eligible for election by having a proportional representation system.
Give the electorate real and viable alternative choice because God knows, if Clinton and Trump are the only possible choices, something is terribly wrong...and I believe this stems from the monopolistic/monolithic 'big party' nature of the American electoral system.

That is fair enough.

I thought you were on about the actual electoral system where the voices are weighted towards population.

The Senate here for me is ridiculous. Two people represent 45 million while another pair represent 900k and have an equal voice.

I suppose though that is one of the checks and balances that is important for a very poor and needy part of a country to be lifted up by a wealthier and more prosperous part.

 

[mezzrow]

Could you elaborate on the overhaul? For me it's exactly what the Leave voters in Brexit would have wanted for a healthy EU.

States (Countries in the EU) have a weighted representation based on census data.

California absolutely should have the largest voice in who becomes President. Texas should have a huge voice too. Wyoming should be a minnow along with Rhode Island.

For me the Senate is our flaw. Each state gets equal voice.

You could try that, but you'll have to retake Wyoming by force, if you want it back at all. Some will say it isn't worth the trouble, but we went down that road 150 years or so ago. Some here will overdose on popcorn while it all goes down.

Be careful what you wish for.

 

[ilikecheese]

You could try that, but you'll have to retake Wyoming by force, if you want it back at all. Some will say it isn't worth the trouble, but we went down that road 150 years or so ago. Some here will overdose on popcorn while it all goes down.

Be careful what you wish for.

See my follow up post (it is half aimed at Brexit Leavers). Being a powerful state in a union has a lot of pluses and minuses.

 

[wm02]

That is fair enough.

I thought you were on about the actual electoral system where the voices are weighted towards population.

The Senate here for me is ridiculous. Two people represent 45 million while another pair represent 900k and have an equal voice.

I suppose though that is one of the checks and balances that is important for a very poor and needy part of a country to be lifted up by a wealthier and more prosperous part.

But then seats in the House are allotted based on population

 

[ilikecheese]

But then seats in the House are allotted based on population

Yes and no. They are also carved out geographically. Yes states with a larger population get more members in congress...but there are ways to carve it up to be weighted one way or the other.

 

[wm02]

Yes and no. They are also carved out geographically. Yes states with a larger population get more members in congress...but there are ways to carve it up to be weighted one way or the other.

Not sure I follow

 

[mezzrow]

You really believe that Mezzrow? With most of the swing states in Republican hands they are all going to conspire with Clnton to alter the vote totals?

Isn't it more likely the electorate just decide that Clinton has less flaws?

I find no candidate at present I can vote for on my ballot, so I'm not the person to ask about less or more flaws.

Am I secure that our elections are free of significant amounts of vote fraud? No, I'm not. The fraud is an added benefit of early/extended voting, the honor system, failure to purge voting lists, and same day registration, and it systematically benefits one party over another. I've seen it in action over a period of decades now. There are reasons that the subject is beyond the pale for discussion. It is a major reason I am no longer a member of the political party that benefits.

I'll just leave it there. I will be the most surprised person in these United States should Trump be elected, and will vault this and confess my error should it happen. As if anyone will care, at that point.

(ot - aww crap, I wanted it to be the Mets, I really did...)

 

[ilikecheese]

Not sure I follow

Meaning congressional districts can and are carved out to sway a states' leanings. North Carolina would be a good example @RAFUH

 

[wm02]

Meaning congressional districts can and are carved out to sway a states' leanings. North Carolina would be a good example @RAFUH

Gotcha. Gerrymandering