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

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

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 267 posts

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

#251

Post by xlxlxlx »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #247
astazangasta wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is exactly the same thing we hear every election. You can't climb a hill if you don't ever try to go up. Of course I don't believe in elections so this whole debate is academic to me. In a world with ALEC and WPP, elections have nothing to do with governance.

Presumably you're not Hispanic or Arab, so you don't have much to be afraid of personally? It's easy to tell other people to sacrifice for your goals.

You could say the same of Syrians and Libyans, who would have undoubtedly enjoyed a better fate under a 2012 Jill Stein presidency.

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

#252

Post by xlxlxlx »

mikeash wrote: post #222
kingnothing wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Federal funding would help those candidates get national TV ads and in front of more people in general. Then, with the added legitimacy of a 3rd party with that kind of money to splash around, they would likely be included in more prime time debates and other forms of media coverage. The two incumbent parties would also start to pay attention to the newcomer. It isn't a 4 or 8 year fix, but I believe it would be a ma…

So they get some attention, and then they either fade out or take over. Either way, we're back where we started. The problem isn't that third parties don't get enough attention, the problem is that the way the electoral system is designed, there can only be two significant parties. You might change the names of those two parties, but that won't really do much.

In the case of the green party, it's part of their platform to do away with FPTP voting, so potentially no, we wouldn't be back where we started.

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

#253

Post by krapp »

scotty79 wrote: post #250
krapp wrote: post #249

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>In case 3rd option gets most votes parties have to re-pick candidates in a week. How about not having the parties choose one and only one candidate? Maybe let it be a competition between the top three?

Nah! That's what normal countries do. ;-)

We can't do what other countries do, other countries are creepy and weird.

That settles it. Has to be a gunfight. No other option. Last candidate standing gets the nod.

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

#254

Post by eli_gottlieb »

chrisseaton wrote: post #51
eli_gottlieb wrote: post #47

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?

>Can't anyone apply to be on the ballot as long as they demonstrate a reasonable level of support?

Yes, but the two parties don't have to demonstrate that level of support. That is, they don't actually have to send organizers to every district to gather N signatures to get their candidate on the ballot. They're just on it, without investing even the proportionally smaller effort.

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

#255

Post by ciethrenn »

gotherewhere wrote: post #75

Don't see why folk don't vote for Gary Johnson. He appeals to both Bernie Sanders voters and disenfranchised Republicans.

i agree he is a brilliant middle of the road honest candidate with much to offer both sides https://www.reddit.com/r/GaryJohnson/comments/4vq33l/choose_...

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

#257

Post by thomasfoster96 »

pessimizer wrote: post #69
thomasfoster96 wrote: post #18

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…

In Australia or the UK, you can run without being a billionaire, and legislators who aren't members of major parties still have influence (sometimes disproportionate) on who is chosen as head of state.

> you can run without being a billionaire

It sure helps though, for example Clive Palmer in Aus in 2013.

> legislators who aren't members of major parties still have influence (sometimes disproportionate) on who is chosen as head of state.

Australia and the UK still have the same monarch, so the head of state is not chosen by anyone in either country - but if you mean the Prime Minister, then you are correct.

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

#258

Post by thomasfoster96 »

toomanybeersies wrote: post #182
thomasfoster96 wrote: post #18

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…

I most of the reason is that in a lot of countries, you don't get as much choice in who leads the country. The prime ministerial candidate isn't chosen by a primary, and the PM can be deposed by parliament without much trouble (as we've seen with Australia). In New Zealand, you're considered a bit of a loon if you're a card holding party member. I think that a lot more of the population is flexible in who they vote f…

> The prime ministerial candidate isn't chosen by a primary

Depends on the party. None of them have three or four months of primaries like America, but the Labour Party in the UK and the Labor Party in Australia both have the whole membership voting for the leader now. Others only have elected party members voting (equivalent to US super delegates).

> In New Zealand, you're considered a bit of a loon if you're a card holding party member. I think that a lot more of the population is flexible in who they vote for as well. An MP told me once that 1/3 of voters are independent.

I'd agree to an extent with Australia as well. Those who are party members are, in my experience, older, well connected within the community, more upper class and often involved in some sort of non-partisan activism. Unless someone is trying to be elected, they do avoid showing their colours.

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

#259

Post by thomasfoster96 »

afarrell wrote: post #43
icc97 wrote: post #27

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.

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

The same number who voted for Gerald Ford.

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

#260

Post by thomasfoster96 »

Someone1234 wrote: post #125
chrisseaton wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ig…

> 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. This is a textbook example of a "False Dilemma"-type fallacy. Either don't vote for the PM or vote for "more than a hundred" ministers. Those aren't the only two options and you know that. A vote…

> A vote for a PM could, implicitly, be a vote for the ministers that the PM would select. You select the PM, the PM selects their ministers and cabinet, that gives the public more Democratic power.

That's called a 'presidential system'.

Post reply on HN