Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Who'll be the next president – Google Search

google.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 152 posts

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#141

Post by dragonwriter »

rayiner wrote: post #56
MrDosu wrote: post #21

"Because the other side doesn't have a viable candidate" Glorious two party system, how is that even remotely called democracy by anyone?

What about the results of the two party system make you think it hinders democracy? Bearing in mind that the average voter is basically my mom? We have pretty much exactly the government my mom wants. Harsh drug laws, extreme jail sentences, generous social security, lots of regulatory protections, etc. Probably the only light between her and Obama is she dislikes his foreign policy (she's from a Muslim country, whic…

What makes me think it hinders democracy are the studies (as highlighted in, for instance, Lijphart's Patterns of Democracy) showing that democratic sustained with fewer viable parties and less proportional representation in the national legislature, which the US system is a notable example of in both cases, produce governments with which citizens are less satisfied than other democratic systems.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#142

Post by mcv »

paulhauggis wrote: post #132
mcv wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A multi-party system does not guarantee that there will be no political problems (particularly not if it polarizes into what's effectively a two-party system), but a two-party system is practically guaranteed to not represent minority opinions, and very likely to degenerate into a "vote for the lesser evil".

"but a two-party system is practically guaranteed to not represent minority opinions," It's designed this way. Many minority opinions are minority because they are bad and should never be implemented.

So you think the US political system is doing fine?

Disenfranchising minorities is a bad way to run a democracy.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#143

Post by joelrunyon »

repsilat wrote: post #84
fixxer wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As opposed to Obama, who had absolutely zero track record?

Joelrunyon's top comment was a straw-man -- nobody said "paying your dues" was a sufficient condition -- so it seems fitting that the next snarky post down the thread would sarcastically attack the idea that it's a necessary condition. When gjm11 said "justifying" they obviously meant "supporting". And yeah, after Obama's train-wreck foreign policy and complete disconnect with legislators on both sides of the aisle,…

It wasn't a straw man. I have no public opinion on Hillary as a candidate. I have a problem with arguments being made about candidates in the manner that the article made them.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#144

Post by rsynnott »

clarky07 wrote: post #100
rsynnott wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "paid their dues" thing is meant to be necessary but not sufficient. That is, a lot of people would be cautious of voting for someone who had no significant political experience.

Except for our current president, when he ran in 2008?

He was a state senator for 7 years, and a US senator for 4.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#145

Post by dragonwriter »

knodi123 wrote: post #139
dragonwriter wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hyperbole much? Out of fifty-something Presidential elections under the Constitution, there have been two close family members of a past President elected, the families involved winning a total of five elections. That's not the same couple of families winning every time.

no, but let's say that either Jeb or Hillary wins a couple of terms. If that occurs, then at the end of their term, we'll be able to say there have been THREE different last names in the white house in the last 35 years. Political dynasties are real.

If you have to assume the results of two future elections to make your argument, its not really grounded in fact so much as speculation.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#146

Post by arca_vorago »

kokey wrote: post #76
rayiner wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What about the results of the two party system make you think it hinders democracy? Bearing in mind that the average voter is basically my mom? We have pretty much exactly the government my mom wants. Harsh drug laws, extreme jail sentences, generous social security, lots of regulatory protections, etc. Probably the only light between her and Obama is she dislikes his foreign policy (she's from a Muslim country, whic…

Duverger's law describes how the plurality rule (there can be only one winner) in elections usually results in a two party system, and the Hotelling-Downs model explains the Median voter theorem which shows that these two parties will generally settle on the (centrist) outcome preferred by the median voter. Neither are obvious and intuitive so without this understanding it can look like democracy is broken. Surround…

"Surround yourself with people who are both uninformed and hold opinions far from the median voter and you'll be convinced it's not just broken, but manipulated."

Are you saying it's not broken and manipulated?

I have an epic speech ready to prove you wrong if so.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#147

Post by areyousure »

joelrunyon wrote: post #40
retroam wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We are all terrible at decision making especially on complex issues. I would guess that people doing deep 'research' are still making shortcuts as well (they just don't realize it). The key here is that the aggregate of terrible individual decisions should point to a better overall decision. Which is why increasing turnout is really important

Obligatory plug for "isidewith." It's the one thing I've seen make people actually vote for the candidate that represents their views: http://www.isidewith.com/political-quiz

I agree. I believe this site is excellent.

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#149

Post by laumars »

laumars wrote: post #113
laumars wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd rather see the media banned from telling people who to vote for than see a ban on all polling. But something like that would be impossible to enforce given all publications / news networks have a political bias.

Why was this downvoted? A counter argument would be appreciated please.

Thanks for downvoting that comment too.

This site is getting worse and worse for people abusing the negative karma feature

Re: Who'll be the next president – Google Search

#150

Post by clarky07 »

clarky07 wrote: post #100
rsynnott wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think the "paid their dues" thing is meant to be necessary but not sufficient. That is, a lot of people would be cautious of voting for someone who had no significant political experience.

Except for our current president, when he ran in 2008?

why the downvotes? Most people wouldn't consider half a term in congress significant experience. I can't think of many presidents with less. That doesn't mean he did a terrible job or was completely unqualified or anything of the sort. It's just a statement of fact that he didn't have very much experience at the time. Frankly, even though I disagree with his views on most things, I don't think he's actually done that badly. He hasn't done great IMO mind you, but I'm mostly content with how things have gone the last 6 years.
Post reply on HN