Dadd @ 2/2/2016 22:29

Herm @ 2/2/2016 16:28 Lol, I'm not reading all this text, but Bernie Sanders's ideas are not impossible. If it works here in Europe, then why can't it work over in the United States? you stay on your side of the pond Herm!

Dadd @ 2/2/2016 22:39

Where are you Herm?

Sweden.

Herm @ 2/2/2016 16:44

Dadd @ 2/2/2016 22:39 Where are you Herm? Sweden.

Oh, right ... I remember that being part of a mafia lynching write up.

It was Christmas Mafia, I laughed so much when Brian wrote Hjälp!

Herm @ 2/2/2016 16:49

It was Christmas Mafia, I laughed so much when Brian wrote Hjälp!

yessss! I was the Caroler and towards the end, so I like to imagine Brian put some extra love into my write up.

i do what i can

I'd put everyone but Trump/Cruz ahead of Hillary tbh

I like Bernie the most out of the viable candidates but I'm not quite as crazy about him as some people. Gary Johnson would be my first pick I think (again), I just wish it was possible for a non-Rep/Dem to be elected

Can someone who knows shit about politics explain why third party candidates even bother running? I never really understood that. Seems like a waste of time/money in the current system. I mean Nader got a decent amount of traction but he still didn't even get that close to winning

I got Brian/Vic flashbacks last night while Bernie/Hillary near tie votes were coming in

vic probably feels the burn after that night at the club

i'm okay with being a robot

Chris25 @ 2/2/2016 13:20

Hilary is a corporate shill, thats pretty much a fact. Is she a better corporate shill than say Cruz, Rubio or Trump? ABSO-FUCKING-LUTELY.

fwiw I don't think Trump's a corporate shill. He's not really in anyone's pocket but his own, I think he'd fight for his policies just as hard as Bernie would his (the fact that they're mostly stupid is beside the point)

Boc @ 2/2/2016 16:19

I'd put everyone but Trump/Cruz ahead of Hillary tbh I like Bernie the most out of the viable candidates but I'm not quite as crazy about him as some people. Gary Johnson would be my first pick I think (again), I just wish it was possible for a non-Rep/Dem to be elected Can someone who knows shit about politics explain why third party candidates even bother running? I never really understood that. Seems like a waste of time/money in the current system. I mean Nader got a decent amount of traction but he still didn't even get that close to winning

Because they've gotten more and more popular each year. Gary Johnson was even interviewed on TV in 2012, which was a big breakthrough. It didn't amount to much, but it was a small bit of traction. You just got to keep fighting and hope that one day they'll get the recognition. And I really do think one day they will, but with the media the way it is now, it won't be for awhile. This year is the first election year in awhile I haven't heard much about anything third party, but I think that stems from Bernie's huge internet popularity.

>TFW you can't vote against Hillary until after the election

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2016/02/02/clinton-wins-at-least-six-iowa-precincts-by-coin-flip/

Always fun to watch some American "politics", and soon I can watch some american "sports"

Boc @ 2/2/2016 23:19

Can someone who knows shit about politics explain why third party candidates even bother running? I never really understood that. Seems like a waste of time/money in the current system. I mean Nader got a decent amount of traction but he still didn't even get that close to winning

The issue is the way our government is structured is what you would call a "winner-takes-all" system, wherein the party that wins the presidency gets control of the whole Executive Branch. Because of this, the competition will almost always be between two parties struggling to convince the "middle" to shift their direction. This dynamic doesn't work out so well, because folks have more than a left-right dynamic. Instead, most people can be better judged politically on a two-dimensional spectrum, where one dimension is government intervention in economic issues and the other is government intervention in social/moral issues.



I disagree with where this scale placed a few individuals (like Gingrich should be much lower down) but this should supply the gist of what I am saying. Anyway, given we are more complex than a two party system can address, we find ourselves frustrated much of the time with being unable to vote for someone who fits what we are looking for, so we hold our nose and vote for the "better of two evils". This systemic issue isn't necessary, because most other countries do not have a winner-takes-all system. Instead they have a parliamentary system wherein you elect your person to the Legislative side, the legislators all get together and then decide who will be the Executive. In this case, the smaller groupings of the legislative are better able to elect a third, fourth, or even fifth or greater party. This requires that the person who wants to be Executive needs to work with multiple parties within parliament to get themselves into the Executive, which usually requires them to offer positions within their Cabinet to other parties in order to form a coalition government (it can be rarer for a single party to dominate the parliament and thus not need to compromise with any other parties). So there is a lot more chance for additional parties to influence government than in our system.

So why do we have a winner-takes-all instead of parliamentary systems that allow better expression? Because both systems have advantages and disadvantages. Our system, while less representative of individual wishes and desires, is also very stable. Unless a President does something really fucked up, he is in for at least four years and potentially eight years if reelected. This allows the Executive side of government to be very stable during this period. A parliamentary system is much less stable- given most governments formed this manner are made up of coalitions of "willing" parties, all it takes is enough of the current coalition partymembers to become dissatisfied with the current executive government to dissolve it and force a new government to form. Whenever you hear about other countries having a "no-confidence vote", this is exactly what is happening- some of the members are asking for a vote to see if the current coalition government can continue as is- if the vote goes down, then a new government has to be formed (which means parties and partymembers start negotiating and jockeying for positions). So the executive side can suddenly stop at any time and this can play havoc with policies.

Which brings us back to your initial question: given our system, why even run for president as a third party? The answer is that, while our system will only really work with two parties jockeying for the Executive, what those two parties are is not necessarily a stable thing. Over time as opinions change, the parties themselves have to adjust to the times or get replaced. Often a third party starts to rise and essentially eclipses one of the two primary parties, leading to a new two party dynamic. The last major instance of this was the rise of the Republican Party which fed off of the dying Whig party and a number of anti-slavery groups. The original Republican party was quite different from the modern one, but that's a whole other discussion.

What we've seen to a certain extent is that the current Republicans have moved socially right, despite their claims to the contrary, fiscally "liberal" (lowering taxes while raising spending is anything but fiscally conservative). The Dems have moved more right in the square to appear more "centrist", but have actually moved into the right hand side. Folks like Bernie represent the more left side of the square, which typically has broken off into the Green party. The libertarians tend to split up, but most are higher up the box towards the top.

I could go on, if necessary. ;)