InverseTransformer
168584
3934
324
When you don't have real alternatives, you can't make real change.
I'm not saying one-party system would be any better.
Edit: I'd like to point out that I'm not a Republican supporter.
RootBeerGuy
This is False Equivalence
Bloodtearer
First past the post is what creates problems for you.
Haskuu
https://imgs.xkcd.com/comics/two_party_system.png always an XKCD...
sendnudesdudes
The previous administration supported net neutrality
Sandyundertones
Ya, it is Republicans that are the problem.
PeteTusk
And yet we still had to raise hell to defend it all the time.
zackofspades
@OP you’re just making it easier for the Republicans to stay in power...this attitude guarantees NN is dead forever.
warmNchewey
This response is generally republicans trying to pretend we are both equally evil in the face of their party being completely corrupt.
AxelBeingCivil
Nah, there's totally reasonable reasons for wanting to have electoral reform besides Republicans being evil.
TippiGordon
Lots and lots of problems are the result of the two-party system. This isn't one. This is caused by pure greed.
utgort
If you want change, reset congress. Do not vote for an incumbent if your guy was good we would not be here now.
sweepnurb
!! It's ONE party that's trying to take away NN! When you blame both, it lets the actual culprits (the republicans) off the hook.
Seanspeed
Seriously, this is like if gamers did not know to bash EA with the Battlefront 2 shenanigans as they are the real ones behind it.
RootBeerGuy
What?!?! Republicans are bought by the ISPs. Democrats want net neutrality.
GuruBagus
Which is a symptom of the "first past the post" voting system. CGP Grey explains: https://youtu.be/s7tWHJfhiyo
TheNax
Never understood the first past the post system. It seems so unfair towards the voters for the "losing" party.
Pazuzu4All
CPG Grey is amazing.
InverseTransformer
This. Exactly.
GaySocialistLiberalMuslimCommieAtheist
America is not a democracy *when convenient
DaedaIus
Wait until you see westminster parliaments.
coloradostoneman
For that be replaced we need tiered voting or some instant runoff system. Right now the risk of spoilers are too high
WontSomeonePleaseThinkOfTheChildren
Every Dem has voted against it, dummy.
Freckledtip
Start with repealing citizens united
fluffyismoney
that was a supreme court decision-- vote for people who will nominate and confirm justices who are (more) against corporate $ in politics
ThatSpaceChimp
Well that depends. Here in Brazil we have multiple parties and we are one of the most corrupt countries in the world, so there's that.
1x1y
ACTUALLY, the 2 party system is just a symptom of the "first past the pole" busshit system. Parties should get seets acording to % of votes.
newsguycraigevans
This is the stupid shit holding us back. Want net neutrality? Want legal weed? Want single payer? Stop voting republican.
Duffman678
Those two comments are exactly why republicans are unwilling to discuss any of those topics with you: your biased alienation and falsehoods
newsguycraigevans
Republicans are actively working to destroy America.
dposton70
Add human rights, woman's choice, clean air, clean water, renewable energy, scientific research, etc.
newsguycraigevans
Right on
TheYellowKnives
I think the problem is that american society breeds selfish greed and ignorant opinions. It's the voters who are dumb as shit. Obviously...
TheYellowKnives
some voters are MIT profs...But you guys voted in Donald Trump thinking he would take big money out of politics? how else is that explained?
dennydorko
This argument is a non sequitur.
possiblymanbearpig
And a nice false equivalency.
Catfactory
How is net neutrality a function of the two-party system when the Democrats support net neutrality and the GOP don't?
idownvoteyouruglycats
Lot of downvotes. I guess Republicans don't like being associated with ruining the internet.
Trollhydra
In 5 years time "It was those dastardly Clintons and Kenyan Muslim that did this!"
Dingus2
Both parties want to wreck the place in different ways, so you end up having to take on one form of abuse in order to dodge another.
Catfactory
Hardly. One party supports net neutrality and fighting climate change. The other supports banning Muslim immigration. No contest.
SwarthyBastard
Because people don't want to admit that they could have voted/supported Clinton instead of memeing about her being a witch.
Seanspeed
This shit is infuriating to read. And infuriating that the faux intellectuals on here upvote this by the thousands. Dumbass community.
[deleted]
[deleted]
1970sSalsa
It's market based regulation as opposed to run by bureaucrats and lawyers in Washington. Lots of misinformation out there
Catfactory
It's shit regulation that's anti-consumer or user-oriented regulation. I know which I prefer.
1970sSalsa
Isn't what they're proposing just to back to the way it was before what they did in 2015?? The way it's been for the last 20 yrs?
mardukkur
No, before 2014 NN was the rule under title 1. Verizon took FCC to court and won, so they reclassified under title 2 in 2015 to maintain it.
Trollhydra
Actually demcorats ran on Campaign refinance last election and overturning Citizens United...
DisgruntledFerret
Is "demcorats" one of those stupid slurs like "Killary" or "repukes", or just an innocent typo?
Trollhydra
no my keyboard is just dirty
DisgruntledFerret
Ah, phew. Carry on then, citizen. Maybe clean your keyboard!
HardcoreMango
Because NN is a single issue that needs to be weighed against any and all others that either side support. More choices = more granularity.
Catfactory
Every political system balances granularity with the interest in majority representation. The problem isn't that there's two parties. 1/2
Catfactory
2/2 The problem is that the current governing party is senseless and immoral.
DomeGuy
well, you see, nerds on the internet don't want to admit that there's an easy and possible fix to this crap. They'd rather wine than vote D
Beelsebooob
No - these are a symptom of the republican party. Stop equating the two. The Dems introduced net neutrality rules, the Rs removed them.
InverseTransformer
What I'm saying is that if there wasn't a two-party system in place, anything with popularity below 10% would not get passed.
Seanspeed
You know who wants election reform? Democrats. You know who doesn't? Republicans. Again, there is an obvious solution....
Beelsebooob
Wouldn't it, why not? The UK has more parties than just 2 that actually get seats, but it still has just as many problems with big 1/
Beelsebooob
majorities getting in, and being able to control everything. Instead of the 2 party system, I'd argue that First Past the Post 2/
Beelsebooob
voting is the issue. Countries in Europe that have STV or some other voting system that gets closer to proportional representation end 3/
Beelsebooob
up with much more sane parliamentary makeups, and more compromise. 4/4
junkrabbit
You haven't met him yet, you haven't had the chance. 'Cause he's been kicking ass as the ambassador to France!
AxelBeingCivil
But someone's gotta keep the American promise! You must simply meet Thomas! Thomas! (Thomas Jefferson's coming ho-o-ome~)
AxelBeingCivil
(Seriously, I'm glad I'm not the only one who thought of this)
CatlynnHighlights
Oh thank god. I was scrolling so far I worried I was going to have to comment myself.
Bobeez
But in this case, we don’t want change. The Democrats would have left NN alone.
PeteTusk
Yes, though remember all the times we had to resist nasty repetitive corporate Internet bills even when there were more Democrats in office?
natabus
And because money interests will do things to make money. The point is to have a Regulator in control who follows the public interest.
natabus
Obama's FCC regulator adhered to the public interest more than Trumps. Simple as that. The parties aren't the same.
PeteTusk
Of course the parties aren't the same. Yet having only 2 parties reduces politics to artificial drama that doesn't represent public opinion.
PeteTusk
Even here in this thread, we agree the parties are different but you are arguing with me because the system is about 2-party opposition.
natabus
Pretending they are cedes the field to the money interest, who will continue to look after their interest assiduously.
PeteTusk
I'm not pretending the parties are the same. But having only 2 has us with 1 alt-right and one mushy center alternative, both corp-funded.
asmallcat
Everyone says the two party system sucks, but fails to realize that our very voting system will always go to 2-party.
sgv1
We need ranked voting! That's the only way to fix the two party system!
12rt2345g342563
Ranked voting?
12rt2345g342563
(is that the system where second and third choices matter?)
sgv1
Yes!
SpreadyUnsettling
I'd say a lot of the people opposing the two party system are painfully aware of the mechanics holding it in place.
InverseTransformer
Which is why the system needs to change, but neither party will ever do that willingly.
mardukkur
It's not just the parties agreeing- many dems are for reform. It's that it would take a constitutional amendment and the barrier is too high
HRL1003
It’s actually a one party system made to look like a two party system. Behind the curtain, there is only one party. Neither of us are in it.
fluffyismoney
if you can't tell the difference btw one party fighting for affordable health care and the other voting to take it away, that's a shame
Sarcasticorjustanarse
Orwell is that you? where you been buddy?
LasciviousHedgehog
Congressional voting patterns disagree with you. The R's are so broken at this point even its own members are calling for it to die.
PeteTusk
Except that's largely drama distracting us from the fact there are no contests at all about many issues, because both D & R are corporate.
Perkunas687
You're so right. One party is trying to take everything from us, and one is fighting to protect us. Totes the same!
DVSBSTrD
@OP But a two party system does provide alternatives. Or do you really think Gay Marriage and Obamacare just sprang into existence?
PeteTusk
Not for many issues when both parties are highly corporate-funded.
InverseTransformer
"The smart way to keep people passive and obedient is to strictly limit the spectrum of acceptable opinion, but allow very lively...
InverseTransformer
... debate within that spectrum" -Noam Chomsky. Both parties are deeply corrupt and neither wants to change the system.
DrKriegersClone
ie promote the narcissism of small differences.
mardukkur
There is not a small difference between Dems and Rs. Not at all. By DW-Nominate the difference is the biggest its been since civil war.
DrKriegersClone
The Dems are well right of most other countries version of a social democrat option. Bernie was considered unelectably radical, but would 1/
mikech2000
The Dems set the FCC regulations in place that the GOP is trying to remove. So there is a significant difference between the two parties.
jukelikeyouknow
False equivalency is a huge problem in the political landscape right now. Democrats and Republicans are not "Just the same as each other".
fourkingbaker
but the (insert other party here) is evil
ButterfaceTaintClown
this is the new "but her emails".
cogitoro
Hillary Clinton wanted to add universal broadband to the net neutrality requirements but she wasn't liberal enough or something so oh well.
cogitoro
HEY DID Y'ALL SEE THEY'RE GONNA REMOVE THE INDIVIDUAL MANDATE FROM OBAMACARE? Sucks, but we had to send a message to the Democratic Party.
zackofspades
The Orange Fucko last Nov 100% guaranteed the end of NN, not because he’s a corrupt piece of shit but because GOP. It was obvious.
TheFlyingSheep
“Because Obama did it I must remove it” - Trump MO
zackofspades
Never mind that Obama got onboard with NN even though Bush Admin had started support for it...those days are over. Gone.
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
[deleted]
ButterfaceTaintClown
because they needed to make concessions to Obama.
Trollhydra
All sources I find on this bill say this would kill Net Neutrality. Did you even read this bill? Even the text in the bill says it.
Trollhydra
https://arstechnica.com/information-technology/2015/03/republicans-internet-freedom-act-would-wipe-out-net-neutrality/?comments=1
Trollhydra
https://projects.propublica.org/represent/bills/114/hr1212
TestAccount321
Well, if there's one thing America is good at is trading freedoms to the Republicans as long as they promise to punish minorities.
Trollhydra
Trollhydra
But... but...
ButterfaceTaintClown
Republicans were so worried about the gov taking their guns, they let them steal the Internet from right under them.
David2222121
Fun fact: the democrats are so bad at taking our guns away that the industry's revenue more than doubled during the Obama administration.
Trollhydra
The NRA should back more democrats they get a huge pay raise whenever one is in the white house.
ButterfaceTaintClown
It'd cost them less. Think of the savings!
Trollhydra
Remember the last time a democratic president actually took away your guns? Me neither because it never happened.
tommygunnn
Hmm, so I guess Bill Clinton and the Federal Assault Weapons Ban never happened?
Trollhydra
Yeah it did happen. How many weapons were taken away that people already owned again? Zero right? And if you want to play this game: Reagan.
MissJezebel
Why are people downvoting you? If Dems were in power, NN would not be in jeopardy. No matter what your views, that’s just a fact.
GenesisMachines
There was a fight a bit like like this under Clinton. About not allowing https:// traffic to cross the American boarder .
dowingba
Was there not a big net neutrality scare while Obama was in? I feel like there was...
Trollhydra
In 2014 Verizon successfully sued the FCC saying NN can't be enforced under Title 1, so there was a scramble make it title 2.
ArcaneConjecture
There was. The courts ruled against NN. Obama fixed it. Because Obama is a Liberal and Liberals protect NN. Any questions?
dowingba
The assertion was that nn is in no danger under dems. Any questions?
natabus
The current threat is from the Administration and the Regulators it appointed. Your purposeful missing of the point is disingenuous.
DaedaIus
I didn't realise Bush was a liberal.
PotassiumRegulatoryCommittee
We actually have a system of dozens of parties, but the two most generalized parties always dominate the elections because people think...
PeteTusk
The system of only allowing a vote for one candidate when there are more than two is the main thing creating a two-party system.
FlowVector
Isn't it also just the natural equilibrium of the system to end in 2 parties? CGPGrey has a video on it
littlemirrorsatourfeet
Thank you! Its only a 2 party system because people let it be. No one researches other canidates. Media is part of the problem
PeteTusk
The largest factor forcing 2-party domination is the primitive voting system where you only get to vote for 1 even w more than 2 candidates.
nppraxis
We have tons of sub-parties that take over the main parties if their candidate wins a primary. Tea Party, Third Way Dems, Berniecrats, etc
MioriYamaguchi
Yeah people always assume it's a two party system when the constitution doesn't even mention political parties at all.
PeteTusk
The single "first past the post" vote even with more than two candidates allows two parties to dominate elections.
SpreadyUnsettling
A two party system in all but name is a two party system all the same.
WalterSobchaksWorldOfPain
You are splitting hairs here. Sure, there are other parties but they mean nothing. It's either R or D in this country -> two-party system
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
You guys should go back to the Westminster system though. I get that back in the day, the Founding Fathers wanted to improve on that /1
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
system, but I don't see any advantages to your system as compared to Westminster. Only disadvantages. It's probably too late now, as it /2
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
would mean getting rid of the office of the President. Or actually it would probably mean that you'd have an appointed President, similar /3
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
to how most of the Commonwealth has appointed Governor Generals as their heads of state. The GGs represent the Queen, so you would leave /4
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
that bit out. But otherwise similar. /5
MightyMightyMoose
As long as you don't end up with what New Zealand has, our last election the party with the majority of votes didn't have enough to get(1/2)
MightyMightyMoose
in, instead we ended up with a coalition formed out of two parties that neither had a majority vote. Germany has it worse because they (2/3)
MightyMightyMoose
can't get any parties to agree on a coalition so no one has the minimum percentage to get in.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Don't they have to have a re-election then? That's what Canada's process is if that happens. I don't know if we've ever actually done it, /1
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
but there was talk of it a few years ago when Harper had trouble forming the govt. As for NZ, that's exactly how it should work, though. /2
David2222121
Maybe it's because I've never experienced that system, but it sounds better than the deadlock we had with Obama and the republican congress.
AlganisKiirsiun
The government actually has been set up by the dems and reps so that no other party can get a start. In order for a political party to (1/2)
ozymandais13127001
Ye ole durvegers principle eh ?
FirstEdition
They dominate the elections because they are actually coalitions of diverse interests aimed at winning, not ideological consistency
ActionAndy
Additionally, the commission that runs the presidential debates is run by the two major parties, which keeps 3rd party candidates out.
AlganisKiirsiun
Get any federal funding, they need to Get a certain portion of the electoral votes, and they can't compete against the big 2.
Santorrr
So technically there could be other parties but practically they just get fucked if they try anything. God I love the US.
PotassiumRegulatoryCommittee
That in this day and age it's either vote red or vote blue
LizardEnterprises
Because it is. In two of the states Clinton lost last election, her margin of defeat was less than Jill Stein's total vote.
LizardEnterprises
In a first-past-the-post system, voting for a third party actively hurts your cause.
mardukkur
This. This is why Duverger's law exists. If you are to the left of the Rs you must vote Dems, and vice versa. Otherwise you fuck yourself.
InverseTransformer
A winner-takes-all electoral system results in a two-party system by making most of the parties marginal.
AxelYamanaka
Less Winner takes all and more first-past-the-post that's the problem.
InverseTransformer
These are pretty much the same thing.
InverseTransformer
If 5% vote for party X, then party X should get 5% of the representatives.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
Can an independent win a seat in the House? Do the reps in the House represent whole states, or smaller districts? I'm not American. :)
Counterfit
The House is apportioned by population per state. The Senate is 2 per state
gwydd
Yes! Your puffin is wrong. The two party system is also a symptom. The problem is FPTP.
InkyBlinkyPinkyAndClyde
There are multi-party countries with FPTP. that's not the core issue. Campaign finance probably is.
PeteTusk
They're both vitally important, in different ways.
InverseTransformer
FPTP is what I mean by two-party system.
gwydd
Oh. Please excuse me for being a butt, then. Most people I talk to don't know what FPTP is, let alone that it leads to two-party.
goandneverdarkenmytowelsagain
So you're advocating a some-party system right?
PirateRubberDuck
I'm for at least 100 parties in government.
MightyMightyMoose
So a party every 3-4 days, will there be snacks?
HaitianSensation
pizza party!
smaug777000
I say we move to a one party system
smaug777000
...it's odd that people don't realize this is a joke
FarkasMacTavish
Yeah, just look at how it's worked for Britai--oh, right, Labour Party...
AquaCrusher
Everybody gets a vote on every issue if they want.
nihilistdad
That'll put professional politicians out of a sweet job. How do you get them to pass it into law?
AquaCrusher
Fire
narniasreal
I advocate a pizza party system
EVERYTHINGFUCKINGZEUS
Some party once told me the world was gonna roll me...
PotatoPequeno
I came looking for this +1
eggmuffin
Any number above two and below, say, fifty, would be an improvement.
onweekendsiputcondomsonraccoons
In the UK there is a multiple part system sort of, its what has lead to a minority group like the far right DUB to have so much power.
onweekendsiputcondomsonraccoons
DUP*, from what I understand despite being an extreme minority they were able to make pretty serious demands over brexit negations because-
onweekendsiputcondomsonraccoons
May needed their votes. I could be wrong, i'm doing study abroad in Belfast right now and that is what I have understand is happening.
TheDivineUsersub
I just wish individuals would run on their policies and not team affiliates, but I understand the parties fund the campaigns too...
DesertLeporid
I advocate awesome party system.
MetaSomma
OverMyDadBody
poisonfire
I advocate for a System of a Down party, party system.
nihilistdad
Political parties are the cancer of society.
SkeletonsNeedLoveToo
Do you have a better idea?
nihilistdad
Several. Direct democracy. Sortition.
SkeletonsNeedLoveToo
So you think that picking leaders at absolute random is better than a party system?
nihilistdad
I didn't say that. Selecting representatives is. Individuals don't need parties to run.
popejubal
*A* cancer of society. We have many others as well.
nihilistdad
Agreed.
PoppaBigBear
I advocate for a no party system, no parties, no teams, just people.
Khaotix11
That's wishful thinking.
Italipino
popejubal
That would be nice, but without parties, people will still get together to form power blocs to increase their respective influences.
Mackeroy
this is true, as much as i want there to be no parties, humans are social creatures and work well when working together
Mackeroy
its a shame they mostly work they're best when being total thunder cunts
PoppaBigBear
Maybe make it illegal to create political parties? Like an amendment?
popejubal
Okay. We won't make parties. We'll just do all the other things and call it something else.
PoppaBigBear
That's like saying you're gonna make murder illegal but to get around it, you'll call it something else. I just shfeighted that person.
popejubal
Vote now in your favorite candidate in the Shmemocratic Shrimary!
InverseTransformer
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Multi-party_system
FirstEdition
Our two party system works pretty similar. The parties are coalitions of different interests that would be separate parties otherwise
FirstEdition
Theres no reason religious and economic republicans should be in the same party, they just ally to beat dems. Same on the other side
mebe21
That will always happen. Any multi-party system will eventually devolve into two parties because of alliances to win.
AshlaBoga
I'd prefer no parties
LurkerOfDarkness
Party-pooper.
Imsickofdisshit
On of the problems with a multiparty system is that it allows more extreme parties and sometimes those parties will have the final vote. 1/2
Imsickofdisshit
Source: my Political Science professor with like 3 degrees and a PHD from Harvard.
Gawky
so these european contries with multi party system are all gonne be taken over by extremists? in my tiny contry we have 8 seated parties
goandneverdarkenmytowelsagain
You're not big on joking, are you?
InverseTransformer
I'm fun at parties.
goandneverdarkenmytowelsagain
But not at two-parties.
dalaiyoda
So glad I followed this down.
LetsTrythisImgurThingout
you ever think of a joke, then see someone else say, then get angry and jealous and happy?
aesthesia1
Eh. As long as people vote party loyalty over what is right, any party system will be garbage.
SpreadyUnsettling
Party loyalty isn't a big problem in multi-party systems. You can find proper representation within your bloc.
LadiesInboxMeYourInsecurities
So basically the real problem is human nature.
Derragur
In lebanon we have 18 parties bruh nothing gets done except a lot of arguing no resolutions no decisions just theft and arguing
AvatarTommyBee
Don't you have a minimum % requirement to get seats? In Germany we have 5%, keeps the parliament neat and .. rather clean.
Derragur
No actually we have a minimum seat for each religion which is split to parties its fucked up we have system called the taef to make sure
maniacalmacaroni
Three words: campaign finance reform. If corporations can't give money to candidates, the candidates are not beholden to them. Also because
SomeDetroitGuy
Corporations can't give money to candidates. They can spend their own money independently.
Butane9000
As long as unions address included in that list of corporations. As well as media companies etc.
Butane9000
Are not address
malikcarr
Bipartisan Campaign Finance Reform Act of 2002, aka McCain-Feingold. Was supposed to fix all of this. MADE EVERYTHING WORSE.
dnd3edm1
https://www.quora.com/How-are-political-campaigns-in-Europe-different-from-those-in-America
thisisnotprote
there was a big scandal in finland when a politician was donated some planks for his house. the contrasts between the countries is amazing
nerdthoughts
Secret ballots could work too. Sunshine laws held lawmakers accountable to the corporates they promised.
NortherWinslow5
I thought you were going for "want sum fuk" at first.
ShadyBuddha
South Dakota voters passed campaign finance reform. Republicans used a state of emergency clause to nullify it. What do you do?
rickityric
Nearly impossible at this point... After Citizens United v. FEC, which repealed the decisions made in McConnell v. FEC, and a few other...
rickityric
... cases, it'd be a bad look for the SC to run around themselves in circles (this is a simplified explanaition).
raider111111
They have that to an extent. Hillary got around that by buying the DNC where she funneled donations for the party straight to herself.
rockchalker73
I have four words. What are you talking about shit that’s five
skylark28
Yeah, but it is their "constitutional right" to "free speech"
Rexli78
Yeah but what’s to stop the absurdly wealthy CEO’s from donating to the politicians? If we’re going to fix the problem leave no loopholes
Zziltoid
Wolf dash Pac dot com
StopLookingAtMyName
I'm just saying, this is something Justice Democrats are all about.
OhSpartacus
theFIRSTroman
Greed is greed, someone "offers" money then people will take it, a two party system is dumb, two extremes when most people aren't
khtad
Campaign finance reform is important. Believe it or not, elimination of pork actually increased governmental dysfunction.
DarkUranium
Not our fault your mum bedded everyone in the congress.
Raggon
When were pork barrel laws eliminated?
rando84
One of the two parties supports campaign finance reform.
malikcarr
...there *was* bipartisan campaign finance reform in 2002. Remember McCain-Feingold? IT MADE EVERYTHING WORSE.
rando84
It didn't have much time to accomplish anything with Davis, Citizens United, etc. invalidating it so quickly.
malikcarr
The practical effect of McCain-Feingold was it made "soft money" 527 and 501 groups far more powerful since those can raise unlimited money>
malikcarr
and have no disclosure requirements where it came from. If you threw the entire bill in the trash, even with the Citizens United decision->
SpreadyUnsettling
Two words: Electoral College. Get rid of EC, and you're basically on the highway to democracy.
Jusmar
How does the EC get rid of bribes going to legislative people?
SpreadyUnsettling
Sorry?
TiGRIOSindustriesRnD
Because those legislative people can't proceed to buy the borders of their districts via gerrymandering, which skews the EC votes.
Jusmar
Except that regardless of who is elected companies will pay representatives to push legislation through for them.
TiGRIOSindustriesRnD
We're talking about the Electoral College, not lobbyists.
BigSnicker
And voting reform. Ranked ballots would have eliminated Trump during the primaries.
BigSnicker
http://www.fairvote.org/rcv_in_us_elections
BigSnicker
Oh, and ranked ballots is how France was able to have a brand new party form and take over the Presidency within a year. Not poss in the US.
Dokramuh
the whole electoral college idea is totally fucked up.
archaist
Not really. The ec gives small states a chance to have some voice - rather then candidates only campaigning in big states like cal/ny
Dokramuh
The fact that it doesn't give proportional representation by state STILL makes it fucked up, even if you don't account for 1 person = 1 vote
Rexli78
That’s the big problem with Democracy, how do you balance it out so that it’s neither minority rule nor mob rule.
Voggix
That’s what makes it fucked up. How is it even remotely fair that a vote in Montana carries more weight than a vote in California?
BrightSideOLife
Even if that is desireable it still doesn't make any sense not to award electoral votes proportional to the actual result in a given state.
Zyrixion
Frankly, the president honestly should be of the prevailing platform/ideology across the populace. Congress will still give them voices.
SadCannibalNoises
Repeal Citizens United. Corporations are not people. Money is not speech. Money buys things, in this case, money buys access and votes.
Rexli78
A) You can’t repeal a SC decision. B) That decision allows people to sue Corporations like they would people.
GiantRobotsRule
You can't repeal a Supreme Court decision. There'd have to be enough Dem justices on the Court to overturn it. That means always vote Dem.
archaist
There could also be a constitutional amendment
SadCannibalNoises
Revisit. And it's difficult to find a Republican now to vote for given they primary out the marginally sane.
AncalagontheBlack
So, in order to counter the two party system we should... vote exclusively along partisan lines?
fluffyismoney
gotta work within the system to change it bro! or lobby repubs to care about this issue-- there are many GOP-ers who'd agree I'm sure!
GiantRobotsRule
The choices are not binary or equivalent. Vote for the best candidate in the primary, then the least bad candidate in the general.
maniacalmacaroni
They have nothing to lose. They can piss off 100M people to please 10 ISP execs and Republicans will re-elect them next year just the same.
skylark28
I have family in Texas that are going to vote against their reps now. They've never voted non-repub before, but I doubt it will matter.
beardedheathen
Yeah and democrats will force another hated Corporate monkey as the candidate instead of the most popular politician in the nation
GaySocialistLiberalMuslimCommieAtheist
I like Bernie but ignoring the fact he pushes socialist ideas in America would give republicans massive amounts of ammo against him.
David2222121
I wonder what sort of crazy stuff they would've spun about him, a 'la the Clinton murders, and pizzagate.
javer80
It's true. They never really leveled the big guns at Bernie. Who knows what they would have said.
draknirv
Oooh, spooky socialism, so scary. Everything that Americans were afraid of with Communism has already happened under Capitalism.
GaySocialistLiberalMuslimCommieAtheist
But it's companies doing it so it's all good - republicans
FirstEdition
They can piss off 100M people because those people are left-leaning and wouldn't vote for them anyways
Imightbetrolling
Fuck you and your us VS them bs uncle David! I'm sick of your shit!
PaintedSlate
What, do we have to be left-leaning to care about anything beyond the Party? Even Republicans don't like this.
DrKriegersClone
Individual examples exist, but an overwhelming preponderance of NN supporters are left wing.
PaintedSlate
How overwhelming? It's really sad how conservatives have been replaced with extreme regressives.
ArdentSlacker
Compared to current republicans? Yes, you're left-leaning. You don't want us to turn into Nazi Germany. That's a bit left of the party.
maniacalmacaroni
Alabama is about to elect an alleged pedophile rather than a Democrat. Why in hell would we expect them to find their moral compass over NN?
FirstEdition
The GOP promised to expel him, which would let the governor appoint someone new. Voting for him is voting for GOP, not the person
DrKriegersClone
And if the members just reaffirm their support for him in the next primary, what then?
TheFlyingSheep
The GOP won’t do shit. They’ll wait for him to vote yes on the important legislative pieces then maybe consider voting him out
FirstEdition
If they expel he is replaced by another repub who will also vote the way they like, and they get a PR boost for kicking out a sex offender
JJI7
Um, how is that legal exactly? Vote for person A, then we will kick him and replace him with who we want. Don't you need another election?
FirstEdition
Depends on the state, but it happens a lot. Obama won senate seat in 2008 as well as pres, resigned senate and they appointed another dem
FirstEdition
The guy who Roy Moore beat in the primaries was appointed, and never elected
tinyhighlife
They can’t expel him. He doesn’t meet the criteria.
FirstEdition
They'll launch an ethics investigation, get people to testify, and then expel. They need 2/3 vote, which they would have w/ dem support
FirstEdition
The ethics investigation doesn't even need to recommend expulsion AFAIK, it just needs to make a report and the senate can vote as it wants
PaintedSlate
Wow...this is just corruption at the highest level. How can self-described conservatives tolerate this?
SadCannibalNoises
Populist "conservatives" now back ballooning the deficit and corporate welfare so long as the politician is being mean to "libtards"&"Rats."
ChiLLeCheeze
Party loyalty over everything else. These types of people shouldn't be voting.
Comet260
Brainwashed by Faux News and RW talk radio.
SadCannibalNoises
The corruption of conservatism & constant hammering the idea that Democrats = evil/traitors/radicals instead of people with different ideas.