Has U.S. Democracy Been Trumped?

[gwnn]

Gary Johnson (former govnr of New Mexico, Libertarian candidate) was on Joe Rogan's podcast a few weeks ago. Could be an interesting listen (although it is long).

 

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

 

Third party candidates could be very interesting if the system allowed voting for more than one candidate (approval or preferential voting). I think a lot of Bernie people could vote for Jill Stein and Hillary or Johnson and Hillary. It would be very interesting to see what % the Greens or the Libertarians got under such a system. I understand that winner takes all is the simplest but it doesn't seem like everything in politics should be or is simple (how would you explain the separation of powers to a five year old?).

[Winstonm]

I'm a registered Republican, although I'm thinking of switching to Libertarian, or just de-registering altogether (if the State will allow me to do that). I know that Obama is black. I don't care. I know that he was born in the US. I think that "controversy" is a crock of *****. I frankly don't know, nor do I care, what religion he follows. My problem with him is that he's a political campaigner, not a leader. And from what I've seen of him, I wouldn't trust him as far as I could throw the White House.

 

I had the same problem with Bill Clinton - never thought he really stood for anything other than getting elected. I have changed my mind about Obama - in his last two years he is showing he has strongly held views and has the courage to follow those convictions.

 

To not go to war, IMO, requires as much if not more courage than just "putting boots on the ground". And from what I have read recently, ISIS is losing ground and is in a state of mini-chaos.

[kenberg]

how would you explain the separation of powers to a five year old?.

Mother plans your dinner, father sees to it that you get to be on time.

 

But now on to various voting schemes. I think that I prefer that we just vote for one person. Every scheme has its flaws, both in theory and in practice.

 

Parties can re-align. It has happened during my lifetime and it may be about to happen again. This is at least a somewhat democratic process in that attention is paid to what people want, or think that they want.

[gwnn]

Mother plans your dinner, father sees to it that you get to be on time.

 

OK maybe I'm not 5 so that's why I don't get it but I have no idea how that is going to explain separation of powers. I do know that I set the bar high but I think most 5-year olds can understand "whoever gets the most votes gets the nomination" (if you just look at it per state that is).

But now on to various voting schemes. I think that I prefer that we just vote for one person. Every scheme has its flaws, both in theory and in practice.

 

Parties can re-align. It has happened during my lifetime and it may be about to happen again. This is at least a somewhat democratic process in that attention is paid to what people want, or think that they want.

What do you think of a runoff at least? If there is a runoff (you can have a runoff per state) I can usually happily choose the candidate I believe in the most in the first round. Then at least someone like Gary Johnson could get in runoffs in some heavily red/blue states or get some substantial numbers in all states if people know that they are not usually going to put their "lesser of two evils" in danger.

 

"Every scheme has its flaws" is just a truism. Yes, every car has its flaws so let's just buy the brand that is easiest to pronounce or from the dealer closest to my house... It is a simple fact that a vote for a third party candidate is a wasted vote if you know that you are in a "swing state." This is an awful state of affairs. Approval voting can help us find out a bit more about the electorate. Right now we just don't know how many people like the libertarians/greens because they are put in an impossible situation. Not just "who do you like most" but also "who do you like most out of the people who you think have reasonable chances; or if you hate all people with reasonable chances then which person constitutes the best protest vote; or maybe you just don't understand anything and who do you like most at the risk of electing a monster due to your wasted vote?" Yes I know that approval voting is also asking kind of a weird question from people: "who are you OK with?" where the cutoff between OK and not OK is in a way arbitrary.

[kenberg]

A run-off instead of it going to the House? So if nobody gets 270 electoral votes then the two leaders run against each other in December? I am not sure how practical it is, but it might be ok

 

Not for this year though. Rules don't get changed in the middle of the contest. Anyway it would require an Amendment and that takes time. And would probably fail.

[gwnn]

Of course not this year :) when did I ever suggest that? I'm not an idiot.

 

A national runoff could be one thing. A state-by-state runoff could be another solution. Not sure. I'm not saying I know the right answer. I am saying that the first past the post system is unfair because when people say to Jill Stein, say, "you only got 1% of the popular vote" they are actually saying "only 1% were brave enough to wager that they are not in a swing state and/or had sufficient disdain for the two main candidates so as to vote for you." In all other than first-past-the post systems people like Jill Stein could build a base by steadily increasing their votes every four years. In 2016 maybe 10% would vote for her (if people knew that there is no major danger of the spoiler effect). In 2020 maybe 20%. etc. She would have a say in the national polling.

 

Just using her name as an example. I actually have no idea what she stands for and will not read up on her because nobody will vote for her, which is part of the problem.

 

edit: At the risk of doing an "ad absurdum", even Romania has a presidential runoff. So if it's practical in Romania, I think it's practical in the US, which is supposed to be the number one democracy etc etc.

 

(actually I like the Romanian election system, although not any of the candidates. a threadjack if there ever was one. sorry.)

Edited June 6, 2016 by gwnn

[kenberg]

I did not mean to imply any idiocy. With either of us!

 

I am having trouble seeing just how the state by state run-off would go. Election night in November: State X goes red. State Y goes blue. But state Z has no one getting a majority. So state Z says "We will get back to you in a month or so". No. I can't see this as being broadly acceptable. If some states get to re-run the election in December I expect all states would want to do so. It would be a warm-up in November, then the real election, with two candidates, one D, one R, would be in December.

 

I don't think that the current problem is primarily a matter of system. We have a large number of people greatly unhappy with both parties. That is certainly a problem. It is also an opportunity for political re-alignment if the parties and their candidates can understand and speak to voter's needs. Of course it is also an opportunity for demagogues. That is an unsolvable problem of democracy. People must judge whom they can trust and whom they cannot. If they judge well, we will be fine. If not, it won't go so well.

[gwnn]

Well, of course if one candidate did win 270 electors (quite possible), there wouldn't be a runoff in any states. But the idea would still be that Gary Johnson could say in 4 years "I got 10% in state X, 20% in state Y, 30% in state Z" so that either:

 

a) next time, more people would see him as a real candidate and vote, or:

b) next time, the two main parties would see that his message resonates and would try to cater to those voters

 

But really this is not particular to the runoff system (which is not my favourite), just to no significant measure of the spoiler effect. "First past the post" is really the worst of everything, other than taking the least amount of words to explain.

[Al_U_Card]

Not to forget voter turn-out. Even if almost half of the populace don't (or won't, or can't) vote, they still (hopefully) pay taxes and are likely eligible for government largesse. Thus, the concept of a "simple" majority is really cause for buying votes, in the various forms available. Was not the electoral college instituted to ensure that the CIC was selected by a more august group of voters? (Letting the rabble elect their candidate leads to all kinds of rabble-induced changes that could affect the rich-man's status.)

 

Trump is the people's candidate while Hil is the establishment's choice. An interesting change from the usual 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other "choices" previously available.

[Zelandakh]

Trump is the people's candidate

:o :unsure: :lol:

[kenberg]

Not to forget voter turn-out. Even if almost half of the populace don't (or won't, or can't) vote, they still (hopefully) pay taxes and are likely eligible for government largesse. Thus, the concept of a "simple" majority is really cause for buying votes, in the various forms available. Was not the electoral college instituted to ensure that the CIC was selected by a more august group of voters? (Letting the rabble elect their candidate leads to all kinds of rabble-induced changes that could affect the rich-man's status.)

 

Trump is the people's candidate while Hil is the establishment's choice. An interesting change from the usual 6 of one 1/2 dozen of the other "choices" previously available.

 

McCain versus Obama was six of one, half a dozen of the other?

But it is true that Trump is not really six of anything. I'm not sure of Hillary qualifies as half a dozen.

[Winstonm]

This is one of the better comments I've seen about Trump (meaning, I agree with the comment :P ), and I think it summarizes why Trump really has little chance in the general election:

 

His campaign is one of personal insult, ethnic divisiveness and blatant disregard for the norms of political discourse. On the one hand, this is what got him the nomination. On the other hand it cannot possibly broaden his appeal to undecided voters. Those who already support him find it comforting. Those who need persuasion to vote for him will be repelled. It will destroy him.

 

Preaching to the choir does little to produce new choir members, and that is all Trump does and it is his appeal. I see little chance that Trump can attract any further votes than the ones he has already garnered from the primaries. As long as there is a reasonable turnout, he should get crushed in the general election by whomever the opposition chooses to run.

 

I really like the analogy of choir-preaching in the GOP as, to me, it explains the fall of the GOP from a political organization that evolved into a de facto faith-based closed community that spends its time reinforcing its own beliefs to each other, from trickle down economics to Benghazi to the liberal media bias to the thieving Welfare Queens and Social Security as the causes of national debt.

The GOP seems intent on keeping alive illusions rather than taking on reality.

 

Perhaps the GOP ballot should replace the check here box with an Amen box?

[onoway]

I wonder if there is any chance of people who really don't want to see Hillary become President voting for Trump thinking he has no chance, a protest vote as it were. That might make for some very scary consequences although from here not sure that either one isn't going to lead to scary ( but different) consequences.

[mike777]

I wonder if there is any chance of people who really don't want to see Hillary become President voting for Trump thinking he has no chance, a protest vote as it were. That might make for some very scary consequences although from here not sure that either one isn't going to lead to scary ( but different) consequences.

 

 

thank god for messy, limited, divided government in conflict with each other.

 

thank god we at least make an effort to divide economic power from political power in some imperfect way.

 

Combining the two will lead to fascism in all the worst meanings of the word.

[shyams]

thank god for messy, limited, divided government in conflict with each other.

 

thank god we at least make an effort to divide economic power from political power in some imperfect way.

 

Combining the two will lead to fascism in all the worst meanings of the word.

IMO, the US of A has seen economic power and political power aligned significantly to one another over the past few decades.

There was a study done (probably by Princeton University) that said new laws passed by Congress (and State legislatures) are designed to favour the rich & the super-rich.

[PassedOut]

IMO, the US of A has seen economic power and political power aligned significantly to one another over the past few decades.

There was a study done (probably by Princeton University) that said new laws passed by Congress (and State legislatures) are designed to favour the rich & the super-rich.

Quite so. The American Legislative Exchange Council (ALEC), financed by the Koch brothers, oil companies, and pharmaceutical companies, writes "model" legislation to advance their interests and to suppress voter turnout, then bribes legislators to pass the legislation. They've been very successful with this approach.

[kenberg]

I wonder if there is any chance of people who really don't want to see Hillary become President voting for Trump thinking he has no chance, a protest vote as it were. That might make for some very scary consequences although from here not sure that either one isn't going to lead to scary ( but different) consequences.

 

Of course anything is possible and, in a nation of 300+ million, I suppose most anything happens somewhere. But "I don't like Hillary so I will vote for Donald just as a protest, knowing he won't win" does not seem likely to me. More troubling is the vote based on "What we are doing doesn't seem to be working, so let's give this guy a chance. At least it will be different" approach. I think quite a few votes will come from that.

 

 

I see that DT now claims that his remarks about the "Mexican" judge were misconstrued. It is a hopeful sign. Apparently there were quite a few Republicans who regularly turn themselves inside out to support Trump but who really couldn't stomach this one. Once people start to really think about it, I can at least hope that there will some kind of collective vomiting up and flushing of support. Carping abut "the establishment" is not always off-base, but Trump? There are limits, and Trump is way out beyond them. So I hope, anyway.

[Al_U_Card]

I wonder if DT will do a "The Apprentice: vice president" series shortly?

Circus maximus maximus ;)

[onoway]

Of course anything is possible and, in a nation of 300+ million, I suppose most anything happens somewhere. But "I don't like Hillary so I will vote for Donald just as a protest, knowing he won't win" does not seem likely to me. More troubling is the vote based on "What we are doing doesn't seem to be working, so let's give this guy a chance. At least it will be different" approach. I think quite a few votes will come from that.

 

Perhaps also the idea that so many politicians are desperate to distance themselves from Trump that it would be easier to keep some sort of control over him, make him a sort of lame duck president, than it will be if Hillary gets a huge mandate. She most certainly has big business interests at heart and that seems to be one of the major things that people that people most resent and (accurately or otherwise) don't see Trump as having.

[kenberg]

Perhaps also the idea that so many politicians are desperate to distance themselves from Trump that it would be easier to keep some sort of control over him, make him a sort of lame duck president, than it will be if Hillary gets a huge mandate. She most certainly has big business interests at heart and that seems to be one of the major things that people that people most resent and (accurately or otherwise) don't see Trump as having.

 

Most of us are not deep thinkers, we vote for the person that we think will do the best. At least I always have. Now those who politic for a living may be trying to play a deeper game although I think it is more, for the R pros, a matter of total panic. Since we are all told to avoid political correctness, I will say that they are sounding stupid.

 

They need someone to tell them how foolish it sounds to talk about a new and improved Trump. It comes across as saying that if only Trump can learn to say Hispanic heritage instead of Mexican rapist then it will all be ok. Paul Ryan isn't stupid, really he isn't, but he and others sound somewhere between creepy and nuts. "Look at my African-American over there". Oh goodie, he remembered to say African-American. See, he can be presidential. And maybe with effort he can be convinced that "Pocahontas" is not a great approach. But he will still be Trump. Terrific Trump. I guarantee you.

 

We need to not only reject Trump, we need to let the ones who think cosmetic changes will make him a different person know that they are spouting nonsense.

[barmar]

I see that DT now claims that his remarks about the "Mexican" judge were misconstrued.

The media seems to "misconstrue" lots of things he says. I wonder whose fault that is.

[kenberg]

I was musing about the following:

 

I occasionally find myself having to apologize because i inadvertently say "he" when of course, when the person is unknown, I know I should have said "she or he". Some people accept it as me being careless, sort of a what else is new, but others don't. Perhaps there are a fair number of people out there who distinguish between my verbal carelessness, however regrettable, and an 11 minute rant about Mexican judges,be they born in Indiana or in Mexico. Some will think that Donald and I are equally bigoted, but others may see a distinction. I hope so. I try not to take offense when none was intended. In the case of the DT rant, it seems clear offense was intended.

 

No doubt this will die down, nothing seems to stick to the Donald, but if people start to think cumulatively this may have an effect. I think it should.

 

Added this morning: No doubt many think the above remarks to be silly, but given Trump's success It is worth thinking about. I will try to illustrate. Much has been made in print of Trump mocking a disabled reporter. Not so long ago, it was a social error to say 'disabled". We were told the proper phrase is "otherwise-abled". Apparently "disabled" has been restored to acceptability because it appears in say, the Washington Post. Here is my point. Trump keeps jabbering about the awfulness of "socially correct", a phrase I would like to see take early retirement from our language. But paeople do tire of being criticized for not being up to date on whether someone is disabled or otherwise-abled. We try, but we forget. There is a difference between being careless about speech, or just not knowing, and, on the other side, mocking people with physical problems. I think people intuitively understand this difference, and if we can gt to see that some criticism of careless speech can be over the top but there should be respect for others, we might get somewhere.

[PassedOut]

The NY Times has a detailed piece about Trump's business dealings in Atlantic City: How Donald Trump Bankrupted His Atlantic City Casinos, but Still Earned Millions

 

In his speeches, Trump has emphasized his view that only fools have "skin in the game," contrary to the belief of Mike777. By his own standards, Trump was no fool:

 

But even as his companies did poorly, Mr. Trump did well. He put up little of his own money, shifted personal debts to the casinos and collected millions of dollars in salary, bonuses and other payments. The burden of his failures fell on investors and others who had bet on his business acumen.

 

In three interviews with The Times since late April, Mr. Trump acknowledged in general terms that high debt and lagging revenues had plagued his casinos. He did not recall details about some issues, but did not question The Times’s findings. He repeatedly emphasized that what really mattered about his time in Atlantic City was that he had made a lot of money there.

Trump's manner of dealing with people who wouldn't kiss his rear was the same then as it is now.

 

Less than two weeks before the casino opened, Marvin B. Roffman, a casino analyst at Janney Montgomery Scott, an investment firm based in Philadelphia, told The Wall Street Journal that the Taj would need to reap $1.3 million a day just to make its interest payments, a sum no casino had ever achieved.

 

“The market just isn’t there,” Mr. Roffman told The Journal.

 

Mr. Trump retaliated, demanding that Janney Montgomery Scott fire Mr. Roffman. It did.

 

“It was doomed way before the start,” said W. Bucky Howard, who was promoted by Mr. Trump to president of the Taj five days after it opened, in a recent interview. “I told him it was going to fail. The Taj was underfunded.”

Romney and the Bushes won't kiss Trump's rear, but they don't hold office now. Ryan and most of the republicans in congress have already done so--something never to be forgotten.

[Winstonm]

I believe a lot of us (Barrack Obama, included, during his first term) have made the mistake of trying to understand this group of people by normal historical standards when the problem is one of psychology. It is not that Donald Trump is a liar and con man that makes him too dangerous to elect; it is that he appears to be, IMO, a classic expression of narcissistic personality disorder.

[kenberg]

I believe a lot of us (Barrack Obama, included, during his first term) have made the mistake of trying to understand this group of people by normal historical standards when the problem is one of psychology. It is not that Donald Trump is a liar and con man that makes him too dangerous to elect; it is that he is a classic expression of narcissistic personality disorder.

 

I believe that this approach is fundamentally flawed. It invites diversion. I am not a psychologist and as far as I know you aren't either. The diversion becomes whether or not we are qualified to diagnose psychological disorders, and whether, even if we are, anyone else would accept our diagnosis. Quite possibly the diagnosis is correct, that's not what i am taking issue with. Rather I hope the campaign does not boil down to having psychology experts on panel shows debating who has what personality disorder.

 

I started, early on, with the view that if DT were to agree with my political views on every issue I could think of, I still would not vote for him. I cannot stand listening to the guy. Every instinct I have tells me he cannot be trusted. I don't need to present my earned qualifications to say whether I can or cannot stand the guy, or whether I trust him. I can't and I don't. Now no one is going to vote on my gut feelings, so looking back at what he has done is essential.

 

As I understand it, there are Trump supporters, and not just those like Ryan who are going with misguided party loyalty or misguided personal interest or misguided something, but rather are real supporters and who have some financial means. I want to ask them if they would go into a business partnership with Trump. No!. Not just No! Not on your life! I may be dumb but I am not stupid, as the old saying goes.

 

We need to keep it simple. And I think we need to make some distinctions about motivations. "Trump supporters are racists". Some are. But we need to make distinctions. There is a difference between thinking that people who come to this country should accept the obligation to learn English, that's one view, and being fine with a rant about Mexican judges, that's another view. Not everyone who supports the first is ok with the second. Take me: I think that our elected representatives are supposed to watch out for US interests. That doesn't mean that I think we should close the borders and start a trade war with China. Globalization is an issue, and an issue that leads to severe economic dis-locations, so this must be dealt with. But the oceans are not as wide as they used to be, so withdrawal from the world is not a viable option.

 

Most people can understand such thoughts and discuss them rationally. Few of us are prepared to offer, defend or accept a psychological diagnosis. The guy is a ****head. That's a diagnosis people can understand. And I expect many would be very comfortable agreeing with it.