There should be a way in the general elections to reject both candidates.
Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
101–110 of 267 posts
Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
#102Earlier quoted context omitted.
That may be clear to you, but to others the fact that the legal system was utilized to leverage the existing parties' power over smaller parties' ability to reach voters is what indicates a legal monopoly. Besides all that, I don't understand how you say there wasn't a legal ruling which enforced the monopoly, when I just presented several examples in which there were.
You and I must simply have different understanding of the word monopoly and what it means to legally enforce one, so I guess we're not going to convince each other. Gary Johnson is standing in fifty states isn't he? He's not doing that illegally is he? So there is no monopoly. If there is then it's not being enforced, legally or illegally.
I didn't claim there was a monopoly this year, though, did I. In fact the GOP establishment would want Johnson to stand in 50 states as many of them oppose Trump and resent that he has taken over their party.
Some would call that a straw man argument: establishing a fact I never disputed.
On the other hand, there is evidence presented above that that occurred in previous elections (2004, 2000).
Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
#103Don't see why folk don't vote for Gary Johnson. He appeals to both Bernie Sanders voters and disenfranchised Republicans.
If people are like me they will probably not be voting for someone but against someone. I really don't want candidate Y to win so I'm going to vote for candidate X because that candidate has a better chance of winning than Johnson (or my pick Stein).
Although my state usually goes pretty solidly for one political party so I might vote for Stein anyway because my anti-vote won't be enough.
Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
#104Earlier 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.
There's another option (though scantily mentioned and likely unpopular): not voting at all. At least then you won't bare any responsible for putting a Trump or Clinton in the White House.
Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
#105Our voting system really needs to change, it's completely absurd that it hasn't just moved to a weekend or received special treatment as holidays.
It depends on the state. Some allow early voting and some encourage voting by mail which is pretty convenient. It will have to be up to the states because the federal government is pretty strictly disallowed from interfering with how the elections are run.
Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
#106I 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 is especially cruel because it doesn't take much to be labeled a felon in the US.
That plus unlike in other countries convictions don't "expire." Take the UK for example, many convictions fall away after sentence duration + 2-4 years (obviously depends how serious it is, see "Rehabilitation periods for specific sentences" table in the link)[0].
The UK doesn't disenfranchise anyway (only if you're incarcerated can you not vote). But even in a world where the UK did disenfranchise, it would still be a fairer system as we don't hold people's convictions over their head forever.
The US is designed to keep people re-offending. Once you're convicted of a single crime you're effectively damaged goods forever, and have to report it (unless you get it expunged which is far harder if it occurred over 18).
[0] http://hub.unlock.org.uk/knowledgebase/detailedguideroa/
Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
#107Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Only in theory. No recent PM hasn't also been an MP (last one was 1830–1903, Robert Gascoyne-Cecil). I cannot imagine in this day and age that someone would be selected as PM without also being an MP. Now, I can imagine them losing their MP seat during their term as PM and staying on. The Tories and Labour know that the way the PM is selected isn't exactly Democratic, and they know that if they were to select someone…
Unless this is an argument for literally direct democracy why do we need to vote separately for the prime minister? Do you want to vote for every minister individually? There are more than a hundred so it may take a while. Instead, we elect a representative, who groups together with like-minded representatives to form a government and run the country. Keep it simple.
I think in UK politics talking about apathy and ignorance is often a nice way to talk about other people's ignorance of your better opinions, and their apathy for your better ideas.
Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
#108Earlier 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.
> Talk about a role reversal with the party of the people and the party of the establishment
I follow you up to here. The Democratic party has always been for centralized control of policy decisions.
> My conservative friends are irked because the RNC did not do more to stop Trump.
Mine don't really care about the party leadership. They are irked at the other primary voters more than the party leaders. Rubio, Paul, and Cruz were Tea Party candidates, so considering them establishment and voting for Trump screams ignorance more than anything.
Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
#109Can we just find someone reaaally moderate or even someone who contractually obligates themselves to doing literally nothing in office and then vote for them? Literally any 3rd party candidate we can all agree on to vote for instead of these two.
Re: Only 9% of America Chose Trump and Clinton as the Nominees
#110I found funny that there are more non-citizens than Hillary or Trump voters