USA Politics

bearfan said:
I think Bloomberg strongly considered a run this time, but realized he had zero chance to win.
Click to expand...
Bloomberg's people said that he had a chance to win, but that he would be more likely to ensure a Trump victory. If it was Cruz vs Hillary, he'd have been in with a hop, skip and a jump.

The reason third parties don't prosper in the USA is manyfold, but I think the electoral college system is the primary reason. You can get a lot of votes in the US election and not get a single electoral vote. Like, 30%.
 
LooseCannon said:
Bloomberg's people said that he had a chance to win, but that he would be more likely to ensure a Trump victory. If it was Cruz vs Hillary, he'd have been in with a hop, skip and a jump.

The reason third parties don't prosper in the USA is manyfold, but I think the electoral college system is the primary reason. You can get a lot of votes in the US election and not get a single electoral vote. Like, 30%.
Click to expand...

I agree with that, I like the electoral college as a whole, but would like to see more states do what Nebraska and Maine do and divide their votes based on district. That would force true nationwide campaigns
 
bearfan said:
That would force true nationwide campaigns
Click to expand...
It would make people campaign more in representative-heavy districts, like Chicago and New York and Dallas and LA, that don't see many candidates now. I don't know if it would force a true nationwide campaign - but I can't think of an electoral system that would force people to campaign in, say, Idaho and also be fair.
 
LooseCannon said:
It would make people campaign more in representative-heavy districts, like Chicago and New York and Dallas and LA, that don't see many candidates now. I don't know if it would force a true nationwide campaign - but I can't think of an electoral system that would force people to campaign in, say, Idaho and also be fair.
Click to expand...


It might .. Boise is a bit different from the rest of the state .. the college and a pretty massive influx of tech workers. You might be less likely to see candidates in Chicago proper, but you would in the suburbs/surrounding counties. In any case, now it pretty much comes down to 10 states, something like this would expand it to most states. Republicans would win some districts in California, Democrats would win some in Texas.

The way Nebraska and Maine do it is one electoral vote for each district, overall state winner gets 2.

Something like that could be enacted state by state ((pretty tough to do), eliminating the electoral college is pretty unlikely/impossible
 
940985_1036316446441321_3574645185424311345_n.jpg
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
SNP is surely the better example?
Click to expand...

No, I wouldn't say so, seeing as SNP voting is restricted to 5.2 million people. UKIP had twice the votes of them the last general election, and 56 less times the seats, which proves that FPTP is a terrible system, even if I do hate UKIP.
 
RTC said:
No, I wouldn't say so, seeing as SNP voting is restricted to 5.2 million people.
Click to expand...
The Tories have a working majority of 17 or something; the SNP have 56 or so seats. They can influence decisions that parliament makes in a way that UKIP never can. Where their votes came from is irrelevant in this respect. The example is a good one.
 
CriedWhenBrucieLeft said:
The Tories have a working majority of 17 or something; the SNP have 56 or so seats. They can influence decisions that parliament makes in a way that UKIP never can. Where their votes came from is irrelevant in this respect. The example is a good one.
Click to expand...

But I'm not talking from a seat perspective, I'm talking from a demand from the public. The SNP doesn't really have a specific motive, its motive is generalized through the improvement of Scotland. You could argue that the independence referendum was their objective, but that failed to pass, and is on the backburner for the time being.

UKIP tells you what you need to know in their name: United Kingdom Independence Party. They want to be free of the EU; all else is secondary to this purpose, and it's a specific goal. Same with the Greens and their prioritizing of environmentalism.

I'm not saying the SNP is a bad example, I just think the UKIP one is a better one due to their application across the UK and one specific goal above all else.
 
bearfan said:
It might .. Boise is a bit different from the rest of the state .. the college and a pretty massive influx of tech workers. You might be less likely to see candidates in Chicago proper, but you would in the suburbs/surrounding counties. In any case, now it pretty much comes down to 10 states, something like this would expand it to most states. Republicans would win some districts in California, Democrats would win some in Texas.

The way Nebraska and Maine do it is one electoral vote for each district, overall state winner gets 2.

Something like that could be enacted state by state ((pretty tough to do), eliminating the electoral college is pretty unlikely/impossible
Click to expand...

The more I think about this plan, the more I dislike it with the way districts are currently made. The map is too gerrymandered. Generally it favors the GOP but in some states it favors the Democrats.
 
LooseCannon said:
The more I think about this plan, the more I dislike it with the way districts are currently made. The map is too gerrymandered. Generally it favors the GOP but in some states it favors the Democrats.
Click to expand...

I am not a fan of redistricting myself ... both parties certainly do it to their advantage and if you want to see why the House (under either parties control) tends to be more extreme left or right .. that is the reason.

Personally, I would like them to just pick a corner of a state and radiate outwards until they have enough people for the district .. allowing small variations (like under 5%) to keep city/county boundaries in tact where possible.
 
Hillary Clinton Email Archive: https://wikileaks.org/clinton-emails/

On March 16, 2016 WikiLeaks launched a searchable archive for 30,322 emails & email attachments sent to and from Hillary Clinton's private email server while she was Secretary of State. The 50,547 pages of documents span from 30 June 2010 to 12 August 2014. 7,570 of the documents were sent by Hillary Clinton. The emails were made available in the form of thousands of PDFs by the US State Department as a result of a Freedom of Information Act request. The final PDFs were made available on February 29, 2016.
 
I believe that, what, 5 emails were redacted in the end?

to be fair that isn't that bad when you consider the body of emails sent/received.

Now, it was just stupid to run her own server. Stupid, foolish, is it criminal? I dunno.
 
So I finally did the ISideWith quiz... and it seems I'm gonna have to re-take it

:facepalm:

I side with John McAfee on most 2016 Presidential Election issues

Candidates you side with...


78%

John McAfee Libertarian

on economic, domestic policy, environmental, and education issues.
Compare answers

75%

Ted Cruz Republican

on economic, domestic policy, social, education, science, criminal, and electoral issues.
Compare answers

72%

John Kasich Republican

on economic, immigration, science, and electoral issues.
Compare answers

70%

Austin Petersen Libertarian

on education and electoral issues.
Compare answers

70%

Donald Trump Republican

on foreign policy, social, immigration, education, electoral, and criminal issues.
Compare answers

70%

Gary Johnson Libertarian

on domestic policy, economic, education, science, and criminal issues.
Compare answers

69%

Bernie Sanders Democratic

on domestic policy, foreign policy, environmental, healthcare, and science issues.
Compare answers

63%

Hillary Clinton Democratic

on healthcare and science issues.
Compare answers



:facepalm:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top