I'd take Biden over Kim and Mother Theresa if that helps.

I think what the US needs is a different voting system. I don't get why it's not one man, one vote, to start with. Second, if you're going to go with a winner takes all system, ranked choice voting makes a lot more sense.

Limitations on campaign funding (eg. bribes) and lobbyist activity (eg. bribes) would be a good next step. Currently, the US system has fuck all to do with democracy, where policies that 100% of people want have only 35% of being enacted, or conversely where near 99% of people don't want something, there's a 35% chance of it happening anyway. Whereas if something is wanted by 100% of the 1%, there's about 70% of it happening, where is 100% of the 1% don't want something there's a 100% of it not happening.

Edit: and no, I did not make those figures up.

I think what the US needs is a different voting system. — Benkei

We had earlier a similar system as in the US. Boy, did it suck.

Then they changed it to a system that if on the first vote nobody gets a majority of the votes, the candidate wins. If not, then there is a second round (and voting) with the two candidates that got the most votes. I think it works well in a multi-party system.

Then one improvement is could be that the early votes would be already counted. Here it goes that once the voting stations close, then at eight o'clock PM they declare the results of the pre-election votes and then start dropping the votes from the election day results.

Now it seems that it's quite a mess in the US.

Are you able to vote for your leader? Here in Canada the party leader is nominated by the party and thus Canadians are unable to vote for the prime minister. The American system is to me far superior on those grounds.

The President still has power, he or she isn't a decorative official. The President is elected every six years and can be re-elected once. (We learned that after President Kekkonen, president from 1956 to 1982, when he was forced out because of ailing health. But hey, he was the favorite of the Soviets!)

(Notice how drunk they all look.)


Usually the Prime Minister is the leader party that wins the elections and is able to form a coalition of political parties to the administrations. It's very rare that the prime minister would be from a party that isn't the largest one.

But you were American? Or are you dual citizen?

Oh you have a president and prime minister. Thanks for the explainer.

Yes, I am a dual citizen, thanks to official multiculturalism.

I no longer vote in Canadian elections because I do not like proportional representation—coalition and minority governments and all that. I find my vote means very little in the grand scheme of things,

It does, although it still evades my question - and it's not the first time I've asked. It's well and good to note the flaws and failures of people, as appropriate. If nothing else it establishes bounds on who they seem to be, at least on the record. But at some point it passes the limit of usefulness, like thinking of a chair in quantum terms. And as against flamethrower criticism, it is a fair question to ask for alternatives. And none given, one wonders at the credibility of the critic.

And I am zen-like in my peace and calm. I'm placid as the ocean. The American people made a serious mistake. To mitigate and remedy error and mistake the founders established a three-part government, regular elections, and impeachment, augmented recently with our 25th amendment. They understood mistakes happen. What they assumed was that enough principled people would be in office at any given time for government to be self-curing - and our Republican party has shown the error of that thinking. And this is a huge problem that won't be easy to solve, but that requires a reworking of laws.

But if Trump be re-elected, which I assign a zero-probability, then America will have the government it wants. But in that case I am pretty sure that soon enough the people who wanted it - most of them - will be finally persuaded the hard way of their mistake. In other words, whatever the outcome of this election, it won't be a mere mistake.

:clap:

:up:

I despise this but I think it's exactly right.

I think what the US needs is a different voting system. I don't get why it's not one man, one vote, to start with. Second, if you're going to go with a winner takes all system, ranked choice voting makes a lot more sense.

Limitations on campaign funding (eg. bribes) and lobbyist activity (eg. bribes) would be a good next step. — Benkei

There were campaign funding limitations. The republicans got rid of them.

The American Electoral College system for electing the president was intended in part to protect the government from populist movements; that is, it was expressly anti-democratic. The idea was that if the electorate made a stupid choice, or the election were affected by foreign influence, the Electoral College would vote right. I see on Wiki that there have been about 165 instances of faithless electors, but no election results were ever changed. In my opinion, the Electoral College failed in 2016 to do the job it was created to do. So much for one man one vote.

As to voting systems, imo ranked system voting is among the worst of possible choices. Per Kenneth Arrow,
https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arrows-theorem/
whom I imagine you've heard of, such voting is problematic. There is also the issue of how exactly to do the ranking. But even beyond problems and choices, it makes the process opaque and impenetrable.

People don't like the electoral college system because they do not understand it, and some states have passed laws to defeat its purpose, obliging electors from the state to conform their votes to the state's popular vote. I believe, though, that the electoral college's being a creature of federal law, the states' laws would have to yield if challenged in court. I would like to think that notwithstanding what I think was their failure in 2016, that if Trump had worn his swastikas on his sleeve during the 2016 campaign, the Electoral College would have the done its job and no matter how many popular votes he got, they would not have elected him president.

Arrow's theorem is a problem for every voting system so it can't be an argument for one system over the other. Some of the issues he raises are purely theoretical as well. The likelihood of a perfect distribution drops rapidly with more voters and multiple candidates with ranked choice voting.

What ranked choice voting ensures is that candidates, that a large portion of voters consider total shit bags, won't stand a chance thereby significantly raising the legitimacy of whoever gets elected.

Yes, there's a chance someone with a plurality of primary votes doesn't win the election but that's neither here nor there, because the converse in the current system is that a person with a plurality of votes wins whereas we know that more than 50% of voters doesn't want that candidate. (Even worse, we've seen Trump and Bush win without even reaching a plurality of votes). Without additional information, the cautionary principle means we should assume more than 50% of voters voted against the candidate with the plurality of votes. By distributing the secondary votes, we obtain information that is otherwise unavailable making the end result more informed as well. This illustrates as well that with ranked choice voting a vote retains value, even if your primary choice loses.

For politicians to win secondary or even tertiary votes, they will have to consider to a larger extent what the greatest number of people want instead of what enough people want. That effect is assumed to lower the level of polarisation.

The American Electoral College system for electing the president was intended in part to protect the government from populist movements; that is, it was expressly anti-democratic. The idea was that if the electorate made a stupid choice, or the election were affected by foreign influence, the Electoral College would vote right. I see on Wiki that there have been about 165 instances of faithless electors, but no election results were ever changed. In my opinion, the Electoral College failed in 2016 to do the job it was created to do. So much for one man one vote. — tim wood

That only makes sense if you don't have ranked choice voting. And even so, if a populist movement would win a majority of the votes it's fucking elitist to then say "but it's wrong". That's rather the point of democracy that at some point if enough people want something it should happen. It's up to policy makers and judges to keep whatever populist idea has gripped the country within the boundaries of the constitution and international treaties.

I would like to think that notwithstanding what I think was their failure in 2016, that if Trump had worn his swastikas on his sleeve during the 2016 campaign, the Electoral College would have the done its job and no matter how many popular votes he got, they would not have elected him president. — tim wood

I have no clue on what you base this optimism on. You've already seen it fail in 2016 and yet you still think it works? Party politics prevents electors to make ethical choices.

https://theintercept.com/2020/12/11/democrat-tom-vilsack-usda-secretary-farms/

Oh would you look at that Biden re-hired the same shitty agri fuckstick that helped disillusion the farmers to begin with to vote for Trump.

Guess he's banking on a Trump reelection on 2024.

Which to be fair is a great election strategy. Keep the opposition as wannabe fascists, and hold the electorate hostage so that the choice is between batshit crazies or corporatist scum like Biden. Honestly hope this man drops dead during his term.

Yep, back to business as usual.

Voter: Hi there, I'd like some representative democracy please.
System: So sorry, we don't have that this century. We do have plenty of other choices though. For example, you can have a corporate plutocracy or how about a nice cryptofascist oligarchy?
Voter:... Or?
System: Or you can fuck off and die. Have a nice day!

Honestly hope this man drops dead during his term. — StreetlightX

What are we to make of this - what is it worth? What does it even mean, given that you think they all should be guillotined?

I'd guillotine them all. — StreetlightX

All we can gather from this is your inability to distinguish - and you trade on your ability to make it sound special when you drop names. Makes you useless, accept as an entertainment for the fond. Remedy: try a little nuance.

Remedy: try a little nuance. — tim wood

I'd like him to drop dead painfully. More adjectives?

You're just tiresome. Sometime ago you thought I was calling you a racist. I wasn't then and I am not now. Your criticism of Obama, then, just seemed like it. But the truth of the matter is that you are not a racist for at least the simple reason that being a racist implies that one thinks that some people are better than others, and that is not you at all. You simply think everyone sucks - an equal opportunity misanthrope. You just keep your light shuttered that it appears targeted, and this fools people until they figure it out. But in this you're little better than a junkyard dog. Sure, you can bite, but you bite everyone, and what good is that?

You simply think everyone sucks - an equal opportunity misanthrope — tim wood

Some more than others certainly - especially those in power responsible for making the world a worse place, like Obama. And you did call me a racist and you're still a ****** for it.

especially those in power responsible for making the world a worse place, like Obama. — StreetlightX

Flattery - you shameless flirt! Btw, I didn't. I have troubled to go back and read. You should too, if you're interested in accuracy over invective. Hmm. Let's see. People who have made the world a worse place (provide your own list, plenty of candidates). And Obama one of them? You really have no sense of proportion, in consequence of which you're merely silly, and unredeemed by any humor.

I confess I'm slower than even an old sleepy dog, but I get it eventually. I get you, and having got you, am no longer interested. You have eviscerated yourself falling on your own sword of empty invective. Makes of you a variety of roadkill, and not any good kind.

Joe BiXen’s son is under investigation by the DOJ. And this after the propaganda-wing of the uniparty, the US media and their lackeys in Big Tech, suppressed Hunter BiXen’s laptop story in favor of an uninformed and ignorant electorate.

Biden himself will be picking his AG soon, so I suspect this investigation will vanish.

My bet is, no crime is there to be discovered, but the investigation must proceed and if there is, then it should culminate in prosecution. I think if there were any hint of presidential inteference, there ought to be uproar.

Well gee Biden being a cynical shit of a politician with zero principles wow what a surprise. Butt's reward for dropping out early I guess. Also an early grooming maneuver - teach the inexperienced little suckup the ways of neoliberal capitalist dominance then play him for pres again a few years down the line, future-proof corporate dominance of the democratic party for decades to come. For all those political incompetants who fantasized about 'pulling Biden to the left': this is it, this is the 'left' you get, some pliable whitebread shit ready to be molded in their image.

Well gee Biden being a cynical shit of a politician with zero principles wow what a surprise. Butt's reward for dropping out early I guess. Also an early grooming maneuver - teach the inexperienced little suckup the ways of neoliberal capitalist dominance then play him for pres again a few years down the line, future-proof corporate dominance for decades to come. — StreetlightX

There is a strange dialectic there for sure. Not unlike his choice of VP who previously called him out as a segregationist sympathizer. Or when he himself was chosen as a running mate after describing Obama as "the first mainstream African-American [candidate] who is articulate and bright and clean and a nice-looking guy". Maybe they choose people who they think will make up for something they themselves are lacking.

They choose people for the reproduction of their power, and (the same thing) the satisfaction of their donor base. Nothing strange about it.

Capitalists lining up to get rich off Biden corruption.

I expect disappointment.

I hope to be pleasantly surprised, but I'm not holding my breath.

House Dems move to amend the constitution and abolish the electoral college. Goodbye America

https://www.congress.gov/bill/117th-congress/house-joint-resolution/14/text?q=%7B%22search%22%3A%5B%22hj+res+14%22%5D%7D&r=1&s=1

Not hanging around are they?

Back into outer space where they came from..

There Is a Light That Never Goes Out