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.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
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.
I think the subtle difference is that here in Canada I don't think the old government sits in the house for those 6 weeks. Once a Prime Minister wins the election they become the PM. Then nothing happens until they choose the cabinet and the house resumes?
I always did find it odd that the old government sits in power for that length of time in the US.
under normal circumstances, functioning adults with some sense of duty and responsibility execute the transition.
There are a lot of moving parts to a transition. Lots of preparation, staff, etc. There are also the number of procedural hurdles to certify/verify the election.
With that said, I would love the whole process to be shrunk down. The presidential election shouldnt take 2+ years.
And the dumbest thing about that is that most of that time is spent during the primaries, which feature a lot of people that have no chance at winning the nomination. The actual campaign between the two general election candidates lasts only like four months.
Think of how much money was wasted on the campaigns of people that didn't come close to sniffing the nomination. Kamala Harris spent $25 million and didn't win a single delegate. Michael Bloomberg spent a BILLION DOLLARS and all he won was American Samoa!
It's simple: Rank Choice Voting, campaign finance reform. These two movements alone would reduce the length of elections, the power of political parties.
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.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
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.
Yes, PA. had an objection, but I don't think there was much of a debate about it. Senators basically went in and and someone spoke for a few minutes and then they had the Vote(92-7).
Did the House have a long Debate?(I went to sleep)
Yes, PA. had an objection, but I don't think there was much of a debate about it. Senators basically went in and and someone spoke for a few minutes and then they had the Vote(92-7).
Did the House have a long Debate?(I went to sleep)
Connor Lamb brought the wood. Then there was the altercation.
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.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
0
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,756
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.
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.
I'm not understanding why it is weird that people vote in a primary to pick who they want to run for their respective party. I agree that there is some primary fatigue after a while but I don't see how else to do it.
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?
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
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.
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.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
0
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,756
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?
Neither of those fellows were high on anyone's radar as POTUS favorites as the primaries began.
Don't recall who it might have been in 92....Tsongas? Brown? Would not have been Clinton. Most didn't even know who the dude was before Gennifer Flowers came out.
In 08 it would have been Hillary. No doubt. (Unless Bill had never been President and it had been Tsongas. )
We cannot change the entire system to block Trump. You read past my point about it being the idiots much more than the system. We have hundreds of years in place without Donald Trump. The country is fucked up and we do some bad shit to anyone who isn't white and we do bad shit to other countries and we don't support anyone well who doesn't have a lot of money....but the problem isn't primaries. The problem is people. Largely, white people.
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.
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.
I'm not understanding why it is weird that people vote in a primary to pick who they want to run for their respective party. I agree that there is some primary fatigue after a while but I don't see how else to do it.
This is much closer to democracy than how UK or Canada chooses its PM.
0
F Me In The Brain
this knows everybody from other commets Posts: 31,756
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.
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.
I'm not understanding why it is weird that people vote in a primary to pick who they want to run for their respective party. I agree that there is some primary fatigue after a while but I don't see how else to do it.
This is much closer to democracy than how UK or Canada chooses its PM.
maybe in principle, but when it essentially comes down to who has more money and which candidates are given time to speak on the stage, they're kind of chosen for you.
Hugh Freaking Dillon is currently out of the office, returning sometime in the fall
And now that I think about it - EC votes could still be doled via RCV.
Also to explain further - candidates then are tallied by their amount of votes. If any one candidate garners a majority of #1 votes they're automatically the winner. Otherwise, you keep lopping off the least preferred until you get a majority. Better explained here:
Comments
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.
Think of how much money was wasted on the campaigns of people that didn't come close to sniffing the nomination. Kamala Harris spent $25 million and didn't win a single delegate. Michael Bloomberg spent a BILLION DOLLARS and all he won was American Samoa!
Pearl Jam bootlegs:
http://wegotshit.blogspot.com
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.
Did the House have a long Debate?(I went to sleep)
"Well, you tell him that I don't talk to suckas."
This! Canada has it figured out, why can't we?
This makes sense, not knowing much more about it than you shared.
RCV you can vote for as many or as little candidates as you'd like to vote for, and you rank them - #1 most preferred #Z least preferred.
Also to explain further - candidates then are tallied by their amount of votes. If any one candidate garners a majority of #1 votes they're automatically the winner. Otherwise, you keep lopping off the least preferred until you get a majority. Better explained here:
I don't see the downside in rewarding the candidate with the broadest appeal instead of the one that fans flames.