61–70 of 267 posts
This isn't hacker news
That's only going to happen through strong, reliable, accurate, and verifiable technology.
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, they can, no that won't change anyone's mind.
This election year is showing that internet-borne conspiracy theories are just as powerful than facts, if not more powerful.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering both nominees have the highest disapproval rates I would say your statement is almost certainly incorrect. If anything, these 9% are representing a fundamental flaw in our first past the post system.
Why is it incorrect? According to the statistic, 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year and about 88 million eligible adults do not vote at all. Add to that 103 million that are not eligible for voting. So if I'm not mistaken, only 18.5% voted in the primaries. You mention they have the highest disapproval rates, but how is disapproval expressed if not by voting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Considering both nominees have the highest disapproval rates I would say your statement is almost certainly incorrect. If anything, these 9% are representing a fundamental flaw in our first past the post system.
Why is it incorrect? According to the statistic, 73 million did not vote in the primaries this year and about 88 million eligible adults do not vote at all. Add to that 103 million that are not eligible for voting. So if I'm not mistaken, only 18.5% voted in the primaries. You mention they have the highest disapproval rates, but how is disapproval expressed if not by voting?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I definitely agree. The article appears to be painting a very dark picture that 91% don't want the candidates. Where as this is just stating the obvious of what happens in every country that first puts forward a leader of a party that is contending to win the overall election.
It is quite an interesting time. My liberal friends are all irked because Bernie got hosed by the DNC. My conservative friends are irked because the RNC did not do more to stop Trump. Talk about a role reversal with the party of the people and the party of the establishment. Personally, I see so many problems with both candidates that it makes me sick that I have to vote for the least worst one.
IRV and proportional systems produce 'external' coalitions at the government level. FPTP produces 'internal' coalitions, which is why the Republican party looks so strange from the outside.
What astounds me the most is that party membership in the United States is actually very high compared to most other countries (except for India). Fewer than 200,000 Australians would currently be members of any political party - representing less than 1.5% of the total voters (around 14 million) - and that's being very generous with estimates of party membership figures. Most AFL football clubs would have more membe…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Right well that does sound like unfair behaviour, but it's not a legally enforced monopoly is it? Which is what was claimed.