Live data from Hacker News

Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

nytimes.com

51–60 of 267 posts

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#51

I don't see a problem. They are the Republican and Democratic party candidates. The members of those parties can nominate whomever they want. There's nothing in the constitution that says anything about how political parties chose their candidates. Primaries didn't always exist https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_States_presidential_pri...

>I don't see a problem. They are the Republican and Democratic party candidates. The members of those parties can nominate whomever they want. If there's no legal constraint on how the parties select candidates for office, why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence?

> why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence

I didn't think they did. Do they? Can't anyone apply to be on the ballot as long as they demonstrate a reasonable level of support?

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#53
post #16

I didn't know that felons weren't allowed to vote in the US - this was news to me. Looks like it varies by state: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...

This really shocked me when I found out about it a few years ago.

According to this statistic [1], 2.5 % of the electorate is disenfranchised.

2.5% is a HUGE amount for a 2 party system with elections often being very tight.

This is somewhat less severe due to fellons probably belonging to demographics less inclined to vote, but it's still a large number.

[1] http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#54

I don't understand the problem. This is exactly what statistics addresses. Is that 9% a good enough random sample of the entire population, or not? If not, then what is the error 5%, 10%? Actually 9% is a really good sample.

It's 9% of the most politically active and engaged section of the population. It's not a random cross section of the entirety of the US population.

It's 9% consisting of the members of two private clubs who have thrown up massive barriers to the participation of people who don't agree with either of their programs and who don't have to be active or engaged to be counted, just to vote correctly. Ideally, I'd think that the parties would want to an even smaller percentage to make the choice for the rest of us. 9% of the population have proved very difficult to wrangle this time around, with a near total failure on one of the sides.

Either that, or the best candidate for president out of 300 million is the wife of the president three terms ago. Bush, Clinton, Bush, Obama, Clinton? This has nothing to with issues.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#55
post #16

I didn't know that felons weren't allowed to vote in the US - this was news to me. Looks like it varies by state: http://felonvoting.procon.org/view.resource.php?resourceID=0...

There's a fascinating story in which Terry McAuliffe of Virginia tried to use an executive order to allow the 200,000 felons in Virginia to vote this fall (seen by some as a partisan move for the Democrats, others as restoring voter rights). The courts blocked him, so he instead is granting up to 200,000 individual clemency grants to allow each voter an individual exception.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#56
post #45

On a side note: I think this page is really well done. It's rare that that much (programming) effort is put into a simple newspaper article. Anyone agree?

Definitely, although the New York Times develops a lot more than other newspapers do: http://open.blogs.nytimes.com/category/interactive/

They are one of the few newspapers that can possibly afford it, I guess.

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I don't see a problem. They are the Republican and Democratic party candidates. The members of those parties can nominate whomever they want. If there's no legal constraint on how the parties select candidates for office, why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence?

> why should the parties have a legal monopoly on ballot-line presence I didn't think they did. Do they? Can't anyone apply to be on the ballot as long as they demonstrate a reasonable level of support?

Yes, but the parties allegedly have used the legal system to harm other candidates' efforts at ballot access:

> In 2004, Democratic operatives were especially zealous in their efforts against my campaign. They hired private investigators to harass my campaign’s petition circulators in their homes in Ohio and Oregon and falsely threatened them with criminal prosecution for fake names that saboteurs had signed on their petitions, according to sworn affidavits from the workers and letters containing threats that were presented in court. Our petitions were also disqualified on arbitrary grounds: In Ohio, complaints submitted in court and to the office of the Secretary of State by groups of Democratic voters led officials there to invalidate our petitions. They disqualified hundreds of signatures on one list, for instance, because of a discrepancy involving the petition circulator’s signature. In Oregon, Democratic Secretary of State Bill Bradbury retroactively applied certain rules in a way that suddenly rendered our previously compliant petitions invalid.

> Democrats and their allies (some later reimbursed by the DNC, according to both campaign finance reports and a party official in Maine who testified under oath) enlisted more than 90 lawyers from more than 50 law firms to file 29 complaints against my campaign in 18 states and with the Federal Election Commission for the express purpose of using the cost and delay of litigation to drain our resources. “We wanted to neutralize his campaign by forcing him to spend money and resources defending these things,” operative Toby Moffett told The Washington Post in 2004.

> Democrats falsely accused my campaign of fraud in state after state. In Pennsylvania, they forced us off the ballot after challenging more than 30,000 signatures on spurious technical grounds. My running mate, Peter Camejo, and I were ordered to pay more than $81,000 in litigation costs the plaintiffs, a group of Democratic voters, said they incurred. In an effort to collect, their law firm, Reed Smith ,which the DNC also hired in that cycle, froze my personal accounts at several banks for eight years. A criminal prosecution by the state attorney general later revealed that Pennsylvania House Democrats had, illegally at taxpayer expense, prepared the complaints against our campaign, and several people were convicted of related felonies. A federal court in Pennsylvania ultimately struck down the state law used against me that had led to the order that I pay the litigation costs. But Reed Smith was still allowed to keep $34,000 it withdrew from my accounts, because state courts wouldn’t let me present evidence that could have permitted me to recover the money.

By Ralph Nader https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2016/03/25/...

Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees

#60
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How many people in the UK chose Theresa May as Prime Minister?

How many people have chosen any Prime Minister of the UK? Its just their constituents that vote for them, so ~50000 people at most.

You don't need to be a member of the commons to be prime minister though, you could be a peer instead, so you don't need to have constituents.
Post reply on HN