I need one more choice on the voting ballot

[dc.]

Quinnipiac is not high on my list of trusted polls. I saw another poll today that showed Trump with literally 0% support among blacks in PA at the same time the Quinnipiac poll came out. I'm doing more digging on both now. To 538 I go!

 

Meanwhile - two statements of disagreement: 1. I just don't think in the current system that any third party candidate could really win a state - or major state - without some real sea change. It can't just be a few people like Jill Stein. It would have to be "people starting joining the Green Party"

 

2. I don't see the feasibility or efficacy of saying a candidate can't be in a political party. I see the idea, but the reality is we'd be blocking parties from funding campaigns. But if Clinton has been a democrat for 30 years and then decides to run for office... what does forcing her to drop her party name actually do? I guess more generally it could just limit the influence by how we talk about candidates... but I think you'd just see a whole lot of articles that read, "Clinton, a favorite of the Ds" instead of "Clinton (D)" ...

[dc.]

Lastly 100% in favor of multi-party system. But think it's less than doable unless / until we are truly parliamentary, not presidential. I read an interesting commentary saying that the founders kind of wanted the entire thing to be more parliamentary - that's what the electoral college and House vote are for - but that we moved away from that slowly.

 

But so long as it's a system with a separately elected president... it's a system with dominant party factions and not multi party consensus building.

[papasmurfbell]

If the candidates are not hooked up with a party then the parties can't control the ballots ina state by state basis. Also when you get in the voting booth you can't just select every D or R person on the ballot.

 

Normally I would agree on a third party. But with ppl hating trump and clinton so much they may finally decided screw these parties who else is out there. If CNN keeps giving Johnson a platform to talk it only lets more ppl see him and decide he is better than those two. He gets to 15% and he can humiliate them in a debate and then all bets are off.

[dc.]

If the candidates are not hooked up with a party then the parties can't control the ballots ina state by state basis. Also when you get in the voting booth you can't just select every D or R person on the ballot.

 

Normally I would agree on a third party. But with ppl hating trump and clinton so much they may finally decided screw these parties who else is out there. If CNN keeps giving Johnson a platform to talk it only lets more ppl see him and decide he is better than those two. He gets to 15% and he can humiliate them in a debate and then all bets are off.

 

While I almost agree about "controlling ballots," I disagree about just selecting your Rs and Ds. Sure, maybe not having those letters next to their names changes how some people act... but it's not like you wouldn't know who is affiliated with each group.

 

As far as "controlling the ballots" goes, though... there's still a hitch. These parties don't really control the ballots. They get to control their primaries, which they well should, really. Now, that doesn't have to be state-sanctioned as it presently is - but one way or another, they are simply choosing the candidate to represent them. They have no control over the rest of the ballot except saying, "This person is running for us." And maybe you could even get rid of that, but all it would do is force the party to submit signatures rather than use the party system... so I just don't see exactly what it accomplishes.

[papasmurfbell]

They control who can vote in a primary. I don't like that. I like the Cali model of the top 2 r 3 fro the primary move onto the GE regardless of party.

[thundercleetz]

What I think the Green and Libertarian parties need to be doing is focusing their efforts on local elections: city/county councils and state-level delegates/representatives. They shouldn't waste their time on national and state-wide elections. Organizing efforts need to be focused at the college level, smaller unions, and small businesses. Get these types of younger voters registered and help new public servants get elected into local offices with the hope they will stay with the party as they move up. Achieving a track record will go a long way in convincing voters they are not wasting their vote.

[dc.]

First, as an unaffiliated voter I don't like that in MD I can't vote in primaries.

 

But the obvious counter argument to that is why should I be allowed to vote in a private club's election? The fact that it is happening in a state-sanctioned manner semi changes things... but that's really just convenience.

 

If there are 3 million dems in MD and they want to decide by themselves who to nominate for the election - fine. As I said, if it wasn't through the primary system, they would just do it privately and then collect signatures to put people on the ballot in November anyway.

 

Anyway... this all goes back to why we use our entire system anyway. We need more candidates on ballots, more mandatory run-offs. You shouldn't get to hold major office without 50% of the vote. You shouldn't get to claim an entire state's electoral votes (ever), especially without a clear 50%+.

 

 

Cleetz - I agree.

[papasmurfbell]

Then the dems need to pay for the voting machines and the staff at he polls. Since you also pay for these things you should be able to vote in the primary.

[cravnravn]

DC, does every state have different rules when it comes to the GE? I know down here if you didn't vote in the GE, you can't vote the primary.

 

And the other thing that pisses me off with the GE is i had to vote my registered party, no way I was casting my vote for that hag, so I did the logical thing and voted for Owemalley.

[papasmurfbell]

You should have chosen Sanders.

 

But yes every state sets their own polling rules.

[dc.]

DC, does every state have different rules when it comes to the GE? I know down here if you didn't vote in the GE, you can't vote the primary.

 

And the other thing that pisses me off with the GE is i had to vote my registered party, no way I was casting my vote for that hag, so I did the logical thing and voted for Owemalley.

I think you've got the two terms backwards. Primary vs general. Primary picks for each party, general picks the final winner.

 

Yes, every state has different rules for primaries as decide by both the state and the party rules.

 

I have never heard any limitation of voting in one election being the key to voting in another - seems blatantly unconstitutional. But it is very common to have a closed primary in which you can only vote if you are registered for a party.

[dc.]

Papa,

 

Don't disagree that parties should pay more for share of primary elections. Just read some interesting history on why they don't. But again, in theory i don't care much about closed primaries - aside from cost- because they really should get to choose their candidates however they want.

 

That's not the same as saying it's a good move, because getting independent views in earlier could be a boon in the general election... But smart and fair aren't always the same

[papasmurfbell]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUv43rUuDjI

This is devastating.

[vmax]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gUv43rUuDjI

This is devastating.

 

Very interesting.

It's also devastating for that reporters career to be doing this naked in a robe, sitting by a bed in a cheap hotel room. What kind of mother raises a son like that?

[dc.]

Sorry - I just went and (tried to) read the report that is being used as the basis of this interview and it is far from convincing or even especially compelling. The conclusions jumped to at various points also defy basic logic.

 

As a starting point, they continually use names like "large precincts and small precincts" but never get into numbers. So, I went to the link they provide to look up the Louisiana primary results for Clinton and Sanders. I didn't look at every precinct, but I looked at many. East Baton Rouge and Orleans as parishes both have more than 45,000 democrats that voted in March. Most parishes had between 1,000 and 2,000 voters. I found several below 1,000 voters.

 

So when the report says this "violates the law of large numbers" because "each district would have to be so big as to outweigh all of the others" ... well, that actually is the case. Baton Rouge and Orelans combined might just outweigh the rest of the damn state. Cameron Parish had under 400 democrats vote and split almost evenly between Clinton and Sanders - nine votes separated them, yes, 9 - but that on the graph in this report shows up as 3% towards Sanders. In East Baton Rouge, Clinton won by 25,000 votes and that translated to a 78-17% win.

 

But whatever.

[vmax]

The verdict is in: as a Nation we voted for hate.

 

 

 

Prominent historian Simon Schama described a Trump victory and Republican control of both the Senate and U.S. House of Representatives as a "genuinely frightening prospect".

"NATO will be under pressure to disintegrate, the Russians will make trouble, 20 million people will lose their health insurance, climate change (policies) will be reversed, bank regulation will be liquidated. Do you want me to go on?," Schama told the BBC.

"Of course it's not Hitler. There are many varieties of fascism. I didn't say he was a Nazi although neo-Nazis are celebrating."...http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/world/world-in-shock-as-trump-surges-to-victory-in-us/ar-AAk53r2?li=BBnbkly

 

And David Dukes is on the front page celebrating.

 

What these results say to me is that "We the People" are totally, spiritually unconscious.

I fear for our children and theirs.

[GrubberRaven]

Completely numb...people are angry.

[Robjr83]

I'm angry....my families business is closing. I'm 33 and have worked there since highschool. For the first time in my life I'll be unemployed. We couldn't compete with cheap overseas material, and fly by night contractors who dont pay workers comp/ss. The economy is garbage, they say we're in a recovery but who sees it. I heard the average family income is at a rate of the late 1990s. The cost of everything goes up because the dollar is losing value. I voted simply on the economy all other social issues are in the background.

[52isUnstoppable]

I voted simply on the economy all other social issues are in the background.

 

This. We are 20 trillion in debt, healthcare for my young perfectly healthy family is $600 per month with a $10,000 deductible, I paid $15,000 to put two kids in daycare this year. We've lost millions of jobs to over-regulations and bad trade deals. We were facing an influx of a million + refugees from areas that are known to host islamic terrorist who believe Christians should be slaughtered. We were facing WW3 with Russia over Syrian pipelines and Saudi influence. Our social security fund is vanishing, we have millions of illegals using our public services and not contributing tax dollars. I don't give a crap about being PC or catering to anyone's safe space. The social issues of the liberals mean nothing to me right now. I am trying to keep food on my table and clothes on our backs. Tax cuts and the spectacular childcare policy laid out by Trump were the primary factors in him receiving my vote (not that is mattered in Maryland anyway)

[papasmurfbell]

Hubris on the left put a fascist in office.

[GrubberRaven]

I heard Trump won with less votes than McCain and Romney. That tells me Dems were tired of Hillary and didn't vote or felt they had it in the bag.

[52isUnstoppable]

I heard Trump won with less votes than McCain and Romney. That tells me Dems were tired of Hillary and didn't vote or felt they had it in the bag.

Probably a combo of both. She was so drenched in corruption and scandal that many Dem's simply couldn't bring themselves to voting for her. In regards to the overwhelming confidence, every poll had her dominating. His path to the whitehouse was very narrow. Winning Florida basically was the first chink in the armor last night. From there he took a few clutch swing states and it was all she wrote.

[papasmurfbell]

I heard Trump won with less votes than McCain and Romney. That tells me Dems were tired of Hillary and didn't vote or felt they had it in the bag.

Sanders supporters didn't bow down and vote for her. The DNC and HRC assumed they would vote against their moral compass and just vote for Hillary.

[52isUnstoppable]

I'm not convinced Bernie would have beaten Trump either. And I definitely put zero stock into any polling data. He beat a politician who had 30 more years of experience and entrenchment. She had the entire Main Stream Media supporting her every move, suppressing every negative wikileaks and Project Veritas revelation, and bashing Trump and his supporters daily. She had the entire corporate landscape backing her. She had Hollywood behind her. She had the President spending every day of his life campaigning for her. She had the DNC running interference at trump rallies and inciting violence, she had CNN giving her debate questions. She had the DNC delivering debate questions for Trump to CNN on her behalf. I'm pretty sure beating a 100 year old socialist would have been very possible.

[papasmurfbell]

And those things you said are benefits are why she lost. The people of the country hate the establishment and faulted HRC for being part of it.