T Nation

Trump: The Third Year


#883

Exactly, it creates the possibility of more inclusion.


#884

Greater impact per capita to the winning side, of course. But by nature of that, it means you see more ‘losers’ than ‘winners’ as scaling happens.

Wouldn’t this boil down to ‘catering to demographics’ that already happens in our country? We have the religious crowd, fiscal crowd, 2A crowd, donttouchmahwelfare crowd, etc. They’re just prelumped

Although to your point it does offer the ability to kinda ‘navigate the stream’ if you’re not a 1 issue voter, where you can pick the unique combination that gives you the most of what you want.


#885

Doesn’t this only work that way because of the parliamentary systems popular everywhere else? Where the PM needs to form a coalition to actually govern…

We would need some serious amendments to go over to a parliament.


#886

Yes, but they’re out in the open with their goals as separate political entities and they have to publicly state their stance on every issue, so you know who you’re dealing with.

Take Netherlands for example - you’ve got the entire political spectrum represented in parliament, from run-of-the-mill Conservatives, to Bible thumpers (Christian Union) to theocratic Calvinists (Reformed Political Party) who want the abolish universal suffrage and the abhorrent concept of women voting. And that’s just the right part of the political spectrum.

Correct.


#887

Great stuff, guys!

VERY informative!
Thanks!


#888

Also, another point - multiparty systems are (well, in theory) more resistant to extremes from both ends.

Again, Netherlands as an example - conservative Christian voters vote for separate Christian religious parties. If there was a two-party system such a disciplined, highly engaged single issue voting bloc could in theory take over one of the parties through primaries, for example (that’s how the UK Labour Party was taken over by extreme leftists) This in turn means that centrist politicians do not have to cater to the extreme fringe elements to make sure they go out and vote for the “lesser of the two evils”.


#889

I heard a great proposal for campaign finance reform that might work. Never mind big corporate money, there’s nothing you can do about it anyway. Give every registered voter $100 a year that they can’t actually put in their pocket, but that they have to give to the candidate or candidates of their choice. That’s a lot of money to counter the big corporate and private donors.


#890

image


#891

Yep, serious. It’s public funding of elections, which I wouldn’t have approved of, but having to choose between a douche-bag and a shit sandwich is getting old.


#892

It will be nice to give myself an extra $100 every election season. I can assure you that I am my candidate of choice. I like it.


#893

Would it really have that big of an impact though in our traditional two party system? If we assume roughly 50-50 or even 52-48 or something we’re looking at close to a wash. And then the big money still has the real influence.

Anyways an interesting thought though. I still like making Election Day a federal holiday so more people have time to vote.


#894

You suggest that today? Of all days? The day of PRESIDENTS. We must celebrate this day. Washington would have much preferred a day about him


#895

How about, instead of letting D.C. make the rules for the rest of the U.S., we demand that it only do certain things? How about we have 50 separate places that can do anything but a few things that the U.S. has been given the power to? Pretty radical, but it may be worth trying.


#896

That was your first mistake.


#897

States rights? Dog whistle!!! Why do you want people in chainz???!

/s


#898

Definitely didn’t use this racist term.

#triggered

Don’t translate the whistle in public!

Why end it? The people who believe states’ rights=duh racislaverism are so ignorant they deserve nothing more.


#899

Yeah. You’re not going to get rid of the big donors and “special interests.” I don’t think we should, because “special interests” are presumably citizens also. But the primaries are decided by who have raised the most money. If ten million people supported Bernie, they could throw him one billion dollars, that’s nothing to sneeze at. I didn’t like Bernie, but don’t think his millions of supporters should have been ignored because of money.

Edited for grammer


#900

We might have to adjust the scale a bit lol

Roughly 180M registered voters means it shakes out to ~18B per election cycle


#901

How so? 10 million times 1 hundred equals 1 billion. That presumes they wouldn’t spread their money around, but I said could.


#902

Right, so for every 10 million people that $100 shakes out to 1B

So total voting population of 180M people = 18B total spending.

Haha 18B seems like a lot of money regardless of how it’s spread out.

Maybe like $20 a head instead of $100