Do we really have to go with the DNC & RNC picks?

[trunks2k]

Want to have a viable third part candidate? Allow some sore of alternate vote scheme (i.e. instant runoff). Until that happens, the system will naturally form into two dominating parties. First past the post voting requires strategic voting; you HAVE to look at how other people are going to vote and decide if your vote is going to make it more likely that your least wanted candidate will win and if you are willing to deal with that.

Given three parties "Drown all the puppies party", "Scold all the puppies party", and "Hug all the puppies party" you may really want the Hug The Puppies Party to win. But when looking at how everyone is going to vote, it's a tight race between the Drown the puppies, and Scold the Puppies. Are you willing to vote for hugging the puppies if it makes it more likely you'll just end up with a pile of dead puppies?

We need a system that allows you to say "I want X, but if I can't have X, I'll take Y over Z"

 

[durangodawood]

...Given three parties "Drown all the puppies party", "Scold all the puppies party", and "Hug all the puppies party" you may really want the Hug The Puppies Party to win. But when looking at how everyone is going to vote, it's a tight race between the Drown the puppies, and Scold the Puppies. Are you willing to vote for hugging the puppies if it makes it more likely you'll just end up with a pile of dead puppies?...

Dont forget that in this scenario America generally is not ready to hug puppies... ("puppies need to pull themselves up by their own leash straps!")..... So at best your vote does nothing but make you feel good about expressing how much you love puppies. Thats your reward for helping the puppy drowner to power.

 

[trunks2k]

Dont forget that in this scenario America generally is not ready to hug puppies... ("puppies need to pull themselves up by their own leash straps!")..... So at best your vote does nothing but make you feel good about expressing how much you love puppies. Thats your reward for helping the puppy drowner to power.

Yep. Some people like to say "the lesser evil is still evil" without seeing that there are real tangible differences between the evils and voting for the "good" can be working against the "good" because it just gives more power to the evil that is further from the good.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Join the party of your choice and make it better. No more dead puppies.

 

[timothyu]

Regarding who's in charge, we have such freedoms here that it isn't even a topic for debate.

Yes like the one's given away after 9/11 and not regained, plus the recent loss of freedom of speech where one side gets to claim the other is false and unworthy of publication because they said so.

 

[JSRG]

Want to have a viable third part candidate? Allow some sore of alternate vote scheme (i.e. instant runoff). Until that happens, the system will naturally form into two dominating parties. First past the post voting requires strategic voting; you HAVE to look at how other people are going to vote and decide if your vote is going to make it more likely that your least wanted candidate will win and if you are willing to deal with that.

Given three parties "Drown all the puppies party", "Scold all the puppies party", and "Hug all the puppies party" you may really want the Hug The Puppies Party to win. But when looking at how everyone is going to vote, it's a tight race between the Drown the puppies, and Scold the Puppies. Are you willing to vote for hugging the puppies if it makes it more likely you'll just end up with a pile of dead puppies?

We need a system that allows you to say "I want X, but if I can't have X, I'll take Y over Z"

I do not agree that first past the post naturally forms into two dominating parties. It is more accurate to say that it heavily, heavily favors such an outcome, but there are countries that use first past the post that do not have two heavily dominating parties... or, even if there are two dominating parties, they do not dominate as much as the Democrats and Republicans do in the US.

That said, something like instant runoff (a.k.a. ranked choice voting) would do a whole lot to help fix problems; if absolutely nothing else it would at least all but end complaints about the "spoiler effect." In fact, it's probably the most promising, because it's the one that's gaining the most popularity, whereas other options like proportional representation seem to not be gaining much strength. There are going to be referendums on that in Alaska and Massachusetts this year--though the Alaska one also has some other changes to the electoral system I'm not so sure I'm in support of, but on the whole is still probably an improvement.

 

[Always in His Presence]

We all have to agree on someone in the middle who is more able to do the right thing than the candidates the parties have thrown at us

To me the choice is simple because I only know of one who even knows which decade we are in.

If there is another I would like to know, but the important thing is a whole lot of us have to reach and agreement soon on which one or we won't get anyone any good.

who would you suggest? Who is the one?

 

[MorkandMindy]

The basic problem is the rich own both parties. Their top priority is to make the two parties appear different enough so people will play the game, and the number of supporters of each party has to be balanced so people don't lose interest in the game.

A candidate for President has to do a bit, 5% perhaps, for the public to get people on his side. The other 95% is of course for the rich, the big corporations and associations, the lobbyists, the people who matter.

In 2016 Hillary issued a calculator so student debt relief could be evaluated, that was her token for the common person. Of course she had far bigger things for the weapons makers, the banks and the people with the money.

In 2016 Donald offered incentives to ordinary folk whose jobs had been moved out of the country. A wall to stop cheap labor coming in and a promise to bring back jobs. But when tax cuts came they went to the upper end of the income range and stimulus money mostly went the same way.

I'm not sure the crumbs the main party candidates are promising us this time are enough to be worth voting for. Two years ago I did the arithmetic and found the profit the employees were making the company was 7 times the amount they were spending on us.

 

[returntosender]

I just can't deal with "There is a conspiracy theory in everything." Covid has a 100 of them.
No offense.

 

[timothyu]

I just can't deal with "There is a conspiracy theory in everything." Covid has a 100 of them.

That is the plan. So many theories no one will soon care what is truth. As a result those in the shadows will not need to hide their intentions any longer. We've seen that in recent months.

 

[returntosender]

I also believe that God is in control and it will all be his will in the end.

 

[MorkandMindy]

'I am the way and the truth and the light'.

All we really have to do is to stop lying.

Citizens United should be called 'Citizens castrated' because that's what it is.

The 'Cares Act' should be called the 'Cares for the Rich Act'

When we let those in charge lie and then we use the same dishonest terms then nobody makes any sense anymore.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

But when tax cuts came they went to the upper end of the income range and stimulus money mostly went the same way.

The tax cuts went to those who pay taxes.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Yes like the one's given away after 9/11 and not regained, plus the recent loss of freedom of speech where one side gets to claim the other is false and unworthy of publication because they said so.

The Constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from the consequences of what a person says.

 

[timothyu]

The Constitution doesn't guarantee freedom from the consequences of what a person says.

Does it promote political censorship?

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Does it promote political censorship?

I think deep in the bowels of the Constitution are the means to silence one's political opponents, yes.

 

[timothyu]

I think deep in the bowels of the Constitution are the means to silence one's political opponents, yes.

Is there not also a thingy that does not allow a singular power to rule over government, such as the Technocratic power that is being investigated now which is indeed promoting biased censorship of material contrary to it's agenda??

 

[only a sojourner]

Probably the most democratic systems of government are those with a proportional system of representation. Proportional systems lead to a diversity of parties alowing the voter to choose the party which best fits there views. (You don't have to vote for the lesser of 2 evils.) An absolute majority win by a single party is not necessary as governments often involve a coalition of parties. In the US we are stuck with the 2 party system that we have as the framework of our government arises out of the Constitution. You can only effect change by changing the policies of the party you are affiliated with from within. The policies of political parties do change over time and sometimes quite dramatically as with the Democratic Party during the Great Depression.

 

[OldWiseGuy]

Is there not also a thingy that does not allow a singular power to rule over government, such as the Technocratic power that is being investigated now which is indeed promoting biased censorship of material contrary to it's agenda??

One can only hope there is.

 

[FireDragon76]

Noam Chomsky has come out with a good critique of those who make a moral equivalence between the two choices this election. And he's been criticizing American culture and foreign policy. for decades.