Random
Only logged in members can reply and interact with the post.
Join SimilarWorlds for FREE »

Have You Been Asleep Under A Rock For The Past 45 Years?

That would certainly explain why you would ask yourself why, in 2016, the country had two choices only: Clinton or Trump, and in 2020, it only had two choices: Biden and Trump, and in 2024, it only had two choices: Harris and Trump.

And then you proclaim with confidence that the majority strongly agrees that none of these candidates should be presidents, then you must have manure for brains.

The FACTS are simple: the majority strongly agrees that one of these candidates should be president, otherwise that person would not have won. You don't think so? Check the results.

Your insight did not result in splitting the atom. You simply reported on the state of affairs, and did not offer a solution. Making you about as insightful as Peter Griffin.

Proselytize when have an actual solution, not condescending BS.

[media=https://youtu.be/e_-w_T-t8aM]
Top | New | Old
In a winner take all system like ours, Duverger's Law states that it will end up with two major parties. This is because potential third parties are subsumed under the umbrella of one or the other major parties. Parliamentary systems avoid this by having the legislature reflect the election results proportionally. Imagine how Congress would look if it had a few Libertarians and Greens, corresponding to the results those parties had in the last election. In fact, third parties do well in parliamentary systems because rather than "throwing your vote away," you can vote for your preferred candidate with the expectation that they could actually be elected to office. With a parliamentary system, we might have Mike Johnson or Hakeem Jeffries as Prime Minister, but only if they were successful in crafting a coalition with one or more smaller parties.

I don't want to give the impression that I necessarily support parliamentary systems, as many of them are a mess. The Dutch government just fell because their fragile coalition fell apart, so they have a caretaker government until they can hold new elections. I lost count of how many elections Israel had until the current government was installed. Those also only give third parties a chance if they're elected at-large instead of by district, and the US is much too big and regionally diverse for that to work.

Ranked choice voting can help, but it can result in a candidate no one is enthusiastic about. My suggestion would be to enlarge Congress to the point where each district has an equal number of people. If that means we have 2000 House members, so be it. To make it even larger, instead of winner take all, each district could have three representatives. For example, if a district is 55% Republican and 45% Democratic, it could end up with two Republicans and one Democrat, unlike our current system where the Democrats from that district have no representation at all.

And yes, I agree with you. The two nominees in each election were there because their respective voters supported them over everyone else. That doesn't mean the party bigwigs have no say, but if they had complete control, Trump would never have been nominated in 2016.
Northwest · M
@LeopoldBloom The reason Mike Johnson and Hakeem Jeffries are low level functionaries today, is because we don't have a parliamentary system. I kind of support the latter, and it gives us a chance to interfere in a more timely fashion, every couple of years.

Clinton's first term happened because Ross Perot prevented Bush from becoming President.
Crazywaterspring · 61-69, M
@Northwest A parliamentary system? The Republicans would game it to stay in power forever.
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
@LeopoldBloom I consider rank choice to be nothing more than a ploy to make people think they are taking part in the democratic process , when it’s really a 1 party system of government .
Keep in mind that the majority of Americans don't vote. When people are asked why they don't vote, a major reason that keeps coming up is that they don't like either candidate. I think that's really stupid, we should always vote for the lesser evil, but it does mean that most Americans didn't want Trump, Biden, Harris, or Clinton to be president. And I'm including people who did vote, since so many people who voted Democrat in all three elections did so because Trump was worse, not because they liked the Democrats.
@Northwest Yeah, it seems it's been hovering around 60% for a while. I do think we also need to consider that ex-cons can't vote, which is why I see this as the majority of Americans not voting. Though yeah, if we're only talking eligible people, it's a slim majority.
Northwest · M
@BohemianBabe
ex-cons can't vote

But they can run for President.
@Northwest I do appreciate the irony there. 😆

I think ex-cons should be allowed to vote. You do your time, you should regain all of your rights. However, I do agree with the constitutional law that says someone who engages in insurrection can't hold office.
DeWayfarer · 61-69, M
While it's true..."The majority is never right", few wish to recognize that the minority is only out for themselves. With their excuse being that they are so much smarter.

Which is worse though?🤷🏻‍♂

At least the majority has a goal pointing to somewhere, other than themselves, right or wrong.
I too often confuse the Constitution with an episode of American Dad. Happens after two Lemsips. Hehehe!
For the last election, DJT received a plurality of the votes, not a majority (finishing under 50%).
Moneyonmymind · 31-35, M
So in other words we have been spoiled for choice for candidates the last few years
Moneyonmymind · 31-35, M
@Northwest you obviously can’t understand sarcasm bro. 🤦🏾‍♂ Jesus Christ 😂
Northwest · M
@Moneyonmymind
you obviously can’t understand sarcasm bro. 🤦🏾‍♂ Jesus Christ 😂

Yes, that must be it. Bro. 😭 You're so smart.
AthrillatheHunt · 51-55, M
@Moneyonmymind I find irony and sarcasm really hard to detect in texts .
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
This comment is hidden. Show Comment
Locke ·
@Northwest Of course not.

 
Post Comment