I need one more choice on the voting ballot

[vmax]

or I can't vote.

 

Trump

Clinton

Neither

 

I can't handle this. I keep trying to deny that this is really happening.

This is just a bad dream that we're going to wake up from...right?

 

The times that we live in and the issues that America faces are just as serious as 1776, 1860, 1929, 1939.

And out of a population of 324,167,922 as of Saturday, July 9, 2016, this is the cream of the crop!?!??

They are best that we can find to lead our country?

 

Why isn't there a massive protest?

We should be marching on Washington, demanding a postponement to this election, demand an end to the 2 party system because it is a complete and total failure and totally corrupt, and begin an extensive search for a group of qualified patriots who can all present themselves on equal ground with no affiliations or attachments.

 

Either Clinton or Trump will be the face of the greatest nation on earth.

These are 2 very, very flawed and weak individuals.

 

 

[thundercleetz]

If you had a legitimate third candidate it is likely neither of the three would get 270 electoral votes, which means Congress would vote for president. I guess that would be better than what we have now, but that means you'd get an establishment candidate. However, such a situation would make the Congressional elections much more important and really give Americans a reason to vote.

[dc.]

If Congress voted, you'd get Trump. States get one vote each, R's control more than 30 state delegations - thanks to lots of one and two rep states in the Midwest.

[thundercleetz]

If Congress voted, you'd get Trump. States get one vote each, R's control more than 30 state delegations - thanks to lots of one and two rep states in the Midwest.

Yes you are right - my misunderstanding of the twelfth amendment. Pretty much any legitimate third party candidate equals Trump. Which is why Bloomberg didn't run. Democrats have a small chance to take the House, but very small. Hillary could win the national election with more electoral votes, but if she doesn't get 270 electoral votes, Trump would win via the House.

 

Goes back to gerrymandering, Republicans shouldn't have such an enormous majority that they have now (the largest since 1928 I've read). PR and DC should be states IMO (or some sort of compromise should be made with DC - one senator and congressman for example). This is coming from a Repuican btw. I believe if you get rid of gerrymandering you get many more moderate Democrats and Republicans, which makes control of the house a lot less of a deal than it is today.

[vmax]

This is a friggn'n nightmare.

A really bad joke, but a sign of how far our nation has fallen.

 

We'll have to make do like the Chinese. They have no say in government but the people keep trying to evolve into a better nation and work on the issues their government ignores.

[papasmurfbell]

Look at Johnson or Stein.

[dc.]

I actually think any third party leads to Clinton, as no third party would actually win a state - or rather take a state from Hillary. But yes, any push to the house equals Trump... unless by that point the GOP leadership can convince their caucus to pick an alternative (Ryan or Romney?)

[papasmurfbell]

I don't see why not since the majority of the country hate both major candidates. That leaves lots of room for other candidates. Also no time in history has the green or libertarian party candidates polled as high as they are now.

[thundercleetz]

I don't see why not since the majority of the country hate both major candidates. That leaves lots of room for other candidates. Also no time in history has the green or libertarian party candidates polled as high as they are now.

I see what you are saying: in theory half of all voters are frustrated with the current candidates, so vote for the third guy. There's a prisoner's dilemma beyond that which keeps people voting R or D despite poor selections. Republican's may not want Trump, but they think a vote for Gary Johnson equals Hillary. Democrats may not like Hillary, but feel a vote for Jill Stein equals Trump. Until voters are completely confident a third party could win, they will not vote third party in large enough numbers to win.

 

Fun fact: Libertarian Robert Sarvis, who captured 6.52% of the vote in the 2013 VA governors race, actually polled higher in Demoratic areas of the state than Republican. Republicans complained he lost Ken Cuccinelli the race, but the net effect is believed to have hurt the winner Terry McAuiffe.

 

There are also problems with the way the two parties hold their primaries which stack the cards against non-establishment candidates. Why not hold a national primary on one day? Independents choose one party to vote for, then vote for the candidate within that party. I feel Clinton's early success in the south hurt Bernie in the later primaries, and by the time he built momentum it was too late. Primary voter turnout is way too low and people in states that vote later get discouraged that their vote doesn't count!

 

Additionally, the electoral college is set up for two candidates. Which is ironic because a two party system is exactly what the Founding Fathers tried to prevent. Getting 270 votes with three legitimate candidates is unlikely, with four legitimate candidates near impossible.

 

The best way to fix the problems we have now is by focusing on fair and transparent representation. Get rid of gerrymandering and have independent commissions redraw districts to lessen the amount of politically polarizing representatives. Institute term limits to prevent conflicts of interest (incumbent representatives running for reelection to get a senior role on a congressional committee greatly hurts primary competitiveness!) Campaign finances should be transparent: the First Amendment needs to be respected, but everyone should know exactly who has donated how much to each candidate. Finally, the Commission on Presidential Debates needs to be revamped to allow greater ease of access so the public can became aware of all legitimate candidates.

 

Institute these changes (plus other common sense changes I've left out) and I think a lot of the problems we have today will lessen.

[dc.]

Great post, cleetz. A tangent of sorts from the general topic, but related to your post above:

 

The crusade AGAINST independent districting commissions has been astounding. Conservatives in several states have taken cases all the way to Supreme Court arguing this goes against the Constitution (which says the "legislature" of the states must district - but why a commission cannot be assigned by a legislature?). Even the SC was super divided and I think it was a 5-4 or 6-3 split allowing these commissions.

 

Then in Texas they wanted to NOT COUNT kids and non-voters in their election districting (only for state and local districts, not national). That too was struck down - though not on the sweeping grounds it should have been. For fuck's sake, the entire 3/5ths compromise was about counting people who couldn't vote. And as the US census bureau noted, the stats they produce (the only official stats to be used for this process) do not divide in anyway based on who can vote and who can't. In their brief to the court they said, "it would be odd to have to apportion based on something we don't even count."

 

 

I also really agree on the financing, but I think the better option is simply a totally public financing system. If you run and can get X signatures to support your campaign existing, you are entitled to Y funds in that campaign. Any other system allows for too much possibility of corruption - in my mind at least. And yet in Citizens United, Anthony Kennedy wrote the words I think he now regrets that people won't just think of corruption because of money and law going together. It's all people see and think. Trump is running his campaign into the ground on it.

 

Lastly 100% on to term limits - and reducing pensions. These are not lifetime positions of wealth, they are temporary positions of service.

[vmax]

Thanks guys. All this information helps me.

The only hope of electing a total incompetent is that a major movement for election reforms takes root and new changes are adopted.

[papasmurfbell]

Actually now I am thinking Trump wants out but he wants to be paid do he is purposely running the campaign into the ground. There have been ppl who said he would leave for 150 or 250 mil. It might be more now.

 

I also am for public financing. It makes the politician responsive to the voters and not the donors.

 

Never have the parties done something as stupid as choosing these dolts. Over half the country want Hillary to be indicted. 30% of dems think she should have been. There is always a first time with getting a 3rd party in. There could not be a better situation to see it happen.

 

One thing I think should happen is felons should be able to get their voting rights back eventually. If a state chooses to not give them that right after some time post conviction then the state should lose the that number from representation totals.

[thundercleetz]

I do not know all the details on the campaign finance debate but I can see both sides of the argument. My problem with the Super PAC is the anonymity. However, if someone wants to spend their own money on political ads, should we be able to limit their free speech? Or do we all agree that campaign advertising is off limits? Then where do we draw a line? Can I advertise for my TV show/radio show/podcast, which in turn can be a giant political advertisement/attack against other candidates?

 

For example, say DC is running for president. If I am very rich, and I think he's a decent guy, what if I want to spend my money on running political ads telling everyone else he's a decent guy?

 

I think Super PACs to a degree are misunderstood. The candidate is not allowed to have any affiliation with the PAC. But it is the formation and anonymity of the PACs which is where I have the problem. We should know exactly who is financing what. Btw, anyone know how strict PAC and candidate contact is regulated, if at all? Seems to be too much of a coincidence how some of the money is raised and used.

 

The other questions I have about public financing: how do we handle major political parties with deep pockets that finance campaigns? Is a rich person running for office allowed to use their own money? A public finance system that requires signatures, isn't that a big disadvantage to candidates with poor name recognition?

 

From what I've read from studies on states that have publicly financed campaigns, the data doesn't suggest much difference in results. Maybe I'm looking at the wrong sources? Regardless, it seems like some of the initiatives in states that have enacted these reforms are a step in the right direction and could reap long-term benefits.

 

I'm new to this topic, so feel free to pick apart/answer my arguments/skepticisms

[papasmurfbell]

But the pacs do work with the candidates. Kassick screwed up at said he didn't like something they did and told them. The next day he "corrected" himself. I don't think the rich should be able to spend what they want. As an example at a Clinton fundraiser she will do her whole dog and pony show and shake hands. She will get her $2700 checks. Then she leaves. That is when the Super-pac ppl walk up and start asking for $500,000 checks.

We are where we are now because special interests have to much access and get their way. That whole system needs to end on a dime.

[thundercleetz]

Right, that's why I asked the question how strict is the candidate/PAC contact/relationship regulated. Even though it's illegal it appears to happen.

 

I understand the argument the rich shouldn't be able to spend what they want, but where do you draw the line? What about free speech?

[papasmurfbell]

Money is not speech. If it is then bribery should be legal. Prostitution should be legal. Drugs should be legal.

[thundercleetz]

Money is not speech. If it is then bribery should be legal. Prostitution should be legal. Drugs should be legal.

Not disagreeing with you on the later things that should be legal. I am in complete agreement there. Yes, there are problems with glorified bribery. But is censorship of media the answer? Not taking a side, trying to better understand your reasoning/argument as I am undecided.

[papasmurfbell]

All of those things I agree should be legal. But in the concept that money is speech all of those things now should be legal. I am giving him money bc I want him to know I think his coke is the best I have tried. I paid her that money bc I want to tell her she is really attractive and I want to have sex with her. I paid that regulator that money because I want him to know I don't like this particular regulation. It is a ridiculous flaw in the logic of SCOTUS that money is speech but then other places where you want to use money are illegal.

[dc.]

I don't have an answer on the PAC issue. I am not looking to tell anyone what they can or cannot say. But really, most ads and real info comes from the candidates campaigns right now... if those campaigns cannot take in any funds or spend any funds except via the channels provided through the election itself, that is a big difference.I think it would not only get more people into the races (funding a campaign as a reason to stay out... that's gone). But it would also eliminate a lot of the direct "who gave me money" corruption ideas today.

 

For the record, I think parties should not be allowed to fund either.

 

As for studies - do any states have mandatory public financing?

[Spen]

My mindset is that Hillary is just a normal not good / bad candidate. Similar to a lot of other recent candidates from both parties - some who won others who didn't.

 

I feel Trump is one of the worst nominees ever, and one of the worst humans ever to make it so far.

[papasmurfbell]

I don't have an answer on the PAC issue. I am not looking to tell anyone what they can or cannot say. But really, most ads and real info comes from the candidates campaigns right now... if those campaigns cannot take in any funds or spend any funds except via the channels provided through the election itself, that is a big difference.I think it would not only get more people into the races (funding a campaign as a reason to stay out... that's gone). But it would also eliminate a lot of the direct "who gave me money" corruption ideas today.

 

For the record, I think parties should not be allowed to fund either.

 

As for studies - do any states have mandatory public financing?

I am for the Ventura idea. You can have parties but candidates can't be part of them.

 

 

My mindset is that Hillary is just a normal not good / bad candidate. Similar to a lot of other recent candidates from both parties - some who won others who didn't.

 

I feel Trump is one of the worst nominees ever, and one of the worst humans ever to make it so far.

True she is. That has been my argument to her supporters the whole time. The one thing is I think her judgemetn sucks. That is supposed to be a plus for her and you look at her decisions and they have been disasters. Also I think she will push the TPP through and I think that is end game for the US economy.

[vmax]

 

 

Related: Jill Stein Says Bernie Sanders Can Have the Green Party Presidential Nomination

...people just beginning to focus on the presidential race might wonder: Is it possible that nobody could win enough electoral votes to become president? And if so, what would happen? How probable is that outcome.

First, is it possible? Yes. Not likely, perhaps, but certainly possible.

A successful candidate must earn more than 50 percent of the electoral votes awarded by individual states on election night -- that means 270 votes in total. With four candidates splitting the vote, and what is becoming a growing list of possible “write in” candidates, it is theoretically possible for the electoral votes to be so diluted that nobody manages 50 percent.

Imagine a race in which both Democrat Hillary Clinton and Republican Donald Trump split the vast majority of electoral votes between them -- say 46 percent to Clinton and 44 percent to Trump -- but the Greens and Libertarians snatch 10 percent of the electoral vote between them.

The National Archives explains the system concisely:

Related: Stop Trump at the Convention? GOP Delegate Has a New Plan

“If no candidate receives a majority of Electoral votes, the House of Representatives elects the President from the 3 Presidential candidates who received the most Electoral votes. Each state delegation has one vote. The Senate would elect the Vice President from the 2 Vice Presidential candidates with the most Electoral votes. Each Senator would cast one vote for Vice President. If the House of Representatives fails to elect a President by Inauguration Day, the Vice-President Elect serves as acting President until the deadlock is resolved in the House.”http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/what-happens-if-neither-clinton-nor-trump-get-enough-electoral-votes/ar-BBuguvO?li=BBnb7Kz

 

very slim chance....and who are these other candidates?

[papasmurfbell]

With their negatives I thinnk the 3rd party will do better than them. If it goes 4 way then it will be chaos but if the never hillary ot trump jump behind Stein or Johnson they can get the 270.

[thundercleetz]

With their negatives I thinnk the 3rd party will do better than them. If it goes 4 way then it will be chaos but if the never hillary ot trump jump behind Stein or Johnson they can get the 270.

Good commentary from Jesse Ventura on third parties, Iceland, and a multiple party system.

 

http://www.cnbc.com/2016/07/13/jesse-ventura-why-im-voting-for-libertarian-candidate-gary-johnson-for-president-commentary.html

[papasmurfbell]

Quinipiac has a devastating look at Hillary polling right now.