Evidence for God from Science

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

puddleglum wrote:

Jac3510 wrote:But it doesn't matter, because this election isn't, never was, and never will be about her.

As far as I am concerned this election is about her. I think electing her would be disastrous for the country and I will do everything I can to prevent this, even if it means voting for Trump. I am afraid Trump will make a bad president, but not as bad as Clinton.

Why do people in your country see it as an either or, what about a third party?

I rarely vote for the two main parties in my country and we have a decent third party which is gaining ground and gaining seats. In fact there are probably a few parties that are doing this, a two party preferred system is crap.

Dan,

It's an either/or, because either Clinton will win, or Trump. Nobody else has a chance to win.

Some people(DBowling this means you ), throw their vote away on a 3rd or 4th party candidate.

Is it not this sort of mentality that traps you into a two party preferred system?

You should never cast your vote trying to stop someone being president, you should cast your vote for who you want president.

Did you not see the Republican party divide? Democrats even rejoiced at the Republican party being broken, until they had their own divide over Sanders. Trump is like a third party who hijacked the Republican banner although he might affiliate with that side more.

Kurieuo wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

RickD wrote:

Danieltwotwenty wrote:

puddleglum wrote: As far as I am concerned this election is about her. I think electing her would be disastrous for the country and I will do everything I can to prevent this, even if it means voting for Trump. I am afraid Trump will make a bad president, but not as bad as Clinton.

Why do people in your country see it as an either or, what about a third party?

I rarely vote for the two main parties in my country and we have a decent third party which is gaining ground and gaining seats. In fact there are probably a few parties that are doing this, a two party preferred system is crap.

Dan,

It's an either/or, because either Clinton will win, or Trump. Nobody else has a chance to win.

Some people(DBowling this means you ), throw their vote away on a 3rd or 4th party candidate.

Is it not this sort of mentality that traps you into a two party preferred system?

You should never cast your vote trying to stop someone being president, you should cast your vote for who you want president.

Did you not see the Republican party divide? Democrats even rejoiced at the Republican party being broken, until they had their own divide over Sanders. Trump is like a third party who hijacked the Republican banner although he might affiliate with that side more.

No matter the division they still have to bow to party pressure, just like our Australian pollies have to bow to the caucus.

So really you are still voting for a two party proffered system with the illusion of choice.

Often, independents are worse than the main candidates who are really just the front to the party.

Kurieuo wrote:Often, independents are worse than the main candidates who are really just the front to the party.

That is true in most cases and that is why I lean towards minor parties.

After reflecting on the debate. I at first thought it was a weak performance by Trump,but after further review I think he knew the trap they had set for him.It was both Hillary and the moderator against Trump and he only asked Trump set-up questions so that Hillary could attack him. Trump came in looking classy being nice to Hillary but then he realized he was set-up by them,so he played the victim but still hit back enough to help himself and it exposed the way the media operates.People can see the unfair bias in these debates and it is going to backfire on them and do the opposite that they are trying to do. I acknowledge Trump was a little unprepared and had chances to bring up the Hillary scandals and he didn't but there are two more debates and it is better to kinda spread it out over the debates rather than doing it all at first.Also Trump is not a polished politician like she is and it is actually his strength and her weakness. If Trump didn't hit back like normal Republicans he would be losing but he hits back,he just needs to hit back the right way in these next debates. He won this debate too,even without bringing up Hillary scandals like he could have and probably will.He comes across as something new and fresh and she comes across as just another typical lying politician.

In an ideal world there would be a law in place for elections that if a person/party doesn't get enough votes ( not just more than the other candidate) that they would NOT be able to govern and another election would have to happen.
In short, if the population decided that NO ONE deserves to govern then political parties would have to find someone that the PEOPLE and NOT the party or special interest groups want to govern.

All campaign funding would also be pool and divided equally amongst ALL candidates also.

Of course political reforms like this would never happen since politician and political parties are NOT interested in what is best for the people or the country but themselves and their contributors.

PaulSacramento wrote:In an ideal world there would be a law in place for elections that if a person/party doesn't get enough votes ( not just more than the other candidate) that they would NOT be able to govern and another election would have to happen.
In short, if the population decided that NO ONE deserves to govern then political parties would have to find someone that the PEOPLE and NOT the party or special interest groups want to govern.

All campaign funding would also be pool and divided equally amongst ALL candidates also.

Of course political reforms like this would never happen since politician and political parties are NOT interested in what is best for the people or the country but themselves and their contributors.

I agree with all of that, except maybe the campaign funding part. I'm torn between that and leaving our current system in place but requiring complete transparency. I have a bigger problem with dark money than with money in general.

I'd also like to see a proportional voting system set up for the House of Representatives. If there are 10 seats open and the popular vote is 40% for Party A and 60% for Party B then the A gets 4 seats and B gets 6. That's how it should be. The current system of undemocratic gerrymandering makes it possible for one party to get 60% of the votes and 90% of the seats. That's not representative democracy.

And as long as I'm dreaming, I want to see term limits for senators and congresspeople.

Also, Maine has an interesting voting reform referendum coming up.

edwardmurphy wrote:I'd also like to see a proportional voting system set up for the House of Representatives. If there are 10 seats open and the popular vote is 40% for Party A and 60% for Party B then the A gets 4 seats and B gets 6. That's how it should be. The current system of undemocratic gerrymandering makes it possible for one party to get 60% of the votes and 90% of the seats. That's not representative democracy.

Yeah, but then you effectively had one type of population (large cities) controlling the vast majority of the House. That doesn't strike me as a good thing at all (but then again, I don't think popular vote is a good way to decide pretty much anything--people who like direct democracy wouldn't agree, and that's fine). In my view, better to modify the current system to get rid of gerrymandering, which I am deeply opposed to (even when it gives the party I prefer more power). Districts ought to be assigned by some universally applied objective criteria, perhaps something as simple as county boundaries. Then you could have multiple representatives from each district, with different districts having more or less representatives depending on population. That would give a better actual representation without ignoring the problems inherent in direct democracy--basically an electoral college for the House.

But beyond all that, the best voting reform would be a preference system, where instead of voting for Candidate A or B or C or whatever, you rate them by order of preference. Then you aggregate the totals and the individual with the highest overall score is elected (so long as the meet a certain minimum; if they don't reach that, then you have a run-off with the top however many candidates). That way, what you end up with is a consensus election that would avoid extremes. ACB might put Trump first and Clinton last, with perhaps Johnson second and Stein third. You might exactly reverse the order. If enough people put the "extreme" candidates last (Trump and Clinton, in this case), but put Johnson (say) second, then a third party candidate really could say what Romney tried to: the road to the White House is paved with silver. And, I suspect, that would probably play out more often than not, as "extreme" candidates who would be the first choice for marginal parts of the population would be rejected as very low on the preference scale for the rest of the nation, but more acceptable alternatives to everyone would end up second or third, sufficient that, in the end, they could earn enough support to overcome the louder, more extreme voices. Then you could plausibly have third party candidates, because I could vote for them as a first choice and still vote for Trump (for example) as my second or third choice.

Jac3510 wrote:Yeah, but then you effectively had one type of population (large cities) controlling the vast majority of the House. That doesn't strike me as a good thing at all

That's a good point.

Jac3510 wrote:In my view, better to modify the current system to get rid of gerrymandering, which I am deeply opposed to (even when it gives the party I prefer more power). Districts ought to be assigned by some universally applied objective criteria, perhaps something as simple as county boundaries. Then you could have multiple representatives from each district, with different districts having more or less representatives depending on population. That would give a better actual representation without ignoring the problems inherent in direct democracy--basically an electoral college for the House.

That would work just fine for me.

Jac3510 wrote:But beyond all that, the best voting reform would be a preference system, where instead of voting for Candidate A or B or C or whatever, you rate them by order of preference.

That's pretty much the Maine Ranked Choice Voting Initiative. Hopefully it will pass and we'll be able to see how it works.