Biden vs Trump 2020 - vote now and discuss!

HughFreakingDillon said:

6 weeks in canada. 6 weeks. 

what I find incredible in america is how people complain about the president golfing, but are ok with him travelling the country, campaigning for himself for 18 months, essentially not doing his day job. so if there's no campaigning, what else ya gonna do? might as well golf. 

It's simple: Rank Choice Voting, campaign finance reform. These two movements alone would reduce the length of elections, the power of political parties.

HughFreakingDillon said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

It's simple: Rank Choice Voting, campaign finance reform. These two movements alone would reduce the length of elections, the power of political parties.

imagine if all the money donated to political parties went to actual charities. this is what has always astounded me. how much money people throw at politicians. maybe they do both, I don't know. but i have a suspicion that many of those people only give money to political causes, not philanthropic ones. 

I can speak from personal experience. I do both, actually probably send more to campaigns. Because what I've personally realized is - until things change, and those that are The Haves are no longer punching down, that the only way to combat it is to give to public servants/candidates you believe in. Because it's where the real change can happen.

If we had solid representation, then we would have solid policies that wouldn't make a charity a charity. They would be a required service that all citizens can take advantage of without the charity fearing that they won't have the funding.

gimmesometruth27 said:

i have been saying for years that we should not have a 2.5 year campaign for a 4 year job. it is just fucking insane.

This!  Canada has it figured out, why can't we?

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i have been saying for years that we should not have a 2.5 year campaign for a 4 year job. it is just fucking insane.

This!  Canada has it figured out, why can't we?

the primary system is also ridiculous. our parties pick their own leaders in house based on who they think the people will vote for. none of this 13 people parading around the country and voting for the person you eventually hope to vote for. it's so weird. 

F Me In The Brain said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i have been saying for years that we should not have a 2.5 year campaign for a 4 year job. it is just fucking insane.

This!  Canada has it figured out, why can't we?

the primary system is also ridiculous. our parties pick their own leaders in house based on who they think the people will vote for. none of this 13 people parading around the country and voting for the person you eventually hope to vote for. it's so weird. 

Without the primary system we never would have seen Slick Willie nor Barack Obama become POTUS.  Letting the rotting sewer systems pick their own candidates would only work better if we had about 20 parties to choose from.

Not saying the primary system isn't messy (I cannot stand how the media stands up who they think the leaders will be before a single primary is held...and it is way too long...and some states don't even have a say based on the way it is laid out) but I do not think the system you describe is any more desirable.  Trump is a symbol of what is wrong with people more than what is wrong with system.  He would have been laughed off the primary podium without such a huge percentage of this country being total fucking morons.

how is never having trump as president less desirable? and why would bill or barry never be potus without the primary system?

PJNB said:

brianlux said:

gimmesometruth27 said:

i have been saying for years that we should not have a 2.5 year campaign for a 4 year job. it is just fucking insane.

This!  Canada has it figured out, why can't we?

One thing  I would like to add that you guys get right you vote for your president and senators individually. I have to vote for a member of parliament that is the same party as the prime minister that I want. I despise my conservative MP in my riding and much prefer the liberal MP who was currently elected. If I want a conservative prime minster I have to vote for the PC MP I do not want. 

yeah, i'd love to be able to vote individually as well. it's dumb our vote is for the entire party. 

Rank Choice Voting - let as many parties, candidates run as they'd like. Then the individual with the best policy proposals and ideas will win. I stick that this is the opposite of sports where the name on the front of the jersey (political party) matters more than the name on the back (candidate). Less institutional power is needed in politics. RCV gets rid of the need of primaries. Between only one election and taking away the power of parties all of a sudden you have shorter election cycles so that public servants can, ya know, serve the public. Then you reform finances of both campaigns and coporations, so that corporations aren't treated like individuals humans and reduce the power of PACs.

Jearlpam0925 said:

Rank Choice Voting - let as many parties, candidates run as they'd like. Then the individual with the best policy proposals and ideas will win. I stick that this is the opposite of sports where the name on the front of the jersey (political party) matters more than the name on the back (candidate). Less institutional power is needed in politics. RCV gets rid of the need of primaries. Between only one election and taking away the power of parties all of a sudden you have shorter election cycles so that public servants can, ya know, serve the public. Then you reform finances of both campaigns and coporations, so that corporations aren't treated like individuals humans and reduce the power of PACs.

This makes sense, not knowing much more about it than you shared.

mrussel1 said:

Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 

I m not understanding rank choice voting.  Like who votes? How do you know who’s policy is better? 

mrussel1 said:

Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 

I'm not talking about just the Presidential here. You can get there if you start bottom-up. States need to change the way they vote.

Jearlpam0925 said:

mcgruff10 said:

mrussel1 said:

Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 

I m not understanding rank choice voting.  Like who votes? How do you know who’s policy is better? 

What do you mean who votes? You vote.

Ok I just read up on it.....No thanks.

Hey this is good, too:

https://youtu.be/v7gZPEeOh1I

mrussel1 said:

Jearlpam0925 said:

mrussel1 said:

Rank choice voting requires the elimination of the electoral college,  unless you want every election decided in the house.  It's a pipe dream 

I'm not talking about just the Presidential here. You can get there if you start bottom-up. States need to change the way they vote.

I see.  Yes, it can be used in local elections (Maine?), but I'm cynical on the presidential side

I mean you're doing the same thing - awarding the EC votes to the winner of a state's election. Yes, Maine used it for the Presidential, too.

I don't see the downside in rewarding the candidate with the broadest appeal instead of the one that fans flames.