learn me the american presidential race

Keith Tanner wrote: I understand how it works in terms of individual candidates - in most states, anyhow. Sounds like it would be a pain in GA and LA. But what happens when Congress consists of 45% Party A, 35% Party B and 20% Party C? It happens outside the US, and it's a fairly stable situtation - the third party does not necessarily get absorbed. I know it's not going to happen in 2016, I'm discussing the mechanisms here.

They'd have to build a coalition, just like in parliamentary countries. It's just almost impossible to achieve that in the U.S. the way the system is set up. What's more likely to happen is: a party fractures on ideological lines, the existing party that doesn't fracture gets the presidency and sweeps the congressional races by like 70%. Halves of the fractured party struggle to split the 30% of seats they're able to take. The party that didn't fracture pushes its agenda through unimpeded until one of the two factions from the fractured party emerges as the stronger and is able to provide leadership to challenge the party that remained whole.

This thread is depressing.

Keith Tanner wrote: I understand how it works in terms of individual candidates - in most states, anyhow. Sounds like it would be a pain in GA and LA. But what happens when Congress consists of 45% Party A, 35% Party B and 20% Party C? It happens outside the US, and it's a fairly stable situtation - the third party does not necessarily get absorbed. I know it's not going to happen in 2016, I'm discussing the mechanisms here.

Frankly, the US is never going to get better until that becomes a reality. I for one can't berking wait. As long as we've got the unstoppable force hitting the immovable object like we do now, the only thing that will keep happening is that the American people will get flattened in between. We need a thorough demolition of the R/D dichotomy so that some kind of consensus building is required to move forward.

Yes, unfortunately the U.S. system essentially requires two parties, both fighting for 51% and maneuvering their positions appropriately. I feel confident this was not the intended result.

Keith Tanner wrote: I understand how it works in terms of individual candidates - in most states, anyhow. Sounds like it would be a pain in GA and LA.

It has its advantages, particularly as the number of viable parties goes up. For one thing, voting for a third party is much less throwing your vote away - a candidate has to beat all the other candidates put together. So a split in one voting block can be straightened out in the runoffs. And if there were a huge number of parties on the ballot, this would prevent somebody who only, say, 20% of the population supports from winning.

Keith Tanner wrote: But what happens when Congress consists of 45% Party A, 35% Party B and 20% Party C? It happens outside the US, and it's a fairly stable situtation - the third party does not necessarily get absorbed. I know it's not going to happen in 2016, I'm discussing the mechanisms here.

For ordinary legislation, I think this might not be a very big deal. A lot of bills are things that don't really fit neatly along party lines anyway, and you sort of have to put together a one-time "coalition" to get the bill through. And for things that do seem to be party-line votes, you'd have to craft a bill so it gets at least two parties on board.

In reply to Duke:

Agreed, the two party system is basically berkeleyed.

What I would really like to see emerge at some point in the near future is a political process reform movement absent any positions, stances, whatever aside from just reforming the process. Get the corporate money and lobbyists out, get rid of the blood sucking career politicians (term limits on every office or something), abolish the silly redistricting/gerrymandering bullE36 M3, ect just to throw a few ideas out there. There's a lot more to it and I'm sure there are people much better informed on the topic than I with better ideas than I could come up with.

The premise would basically be we can all agree there are a lot of serious issues facing this country and while we can't always agree on what the solutions to those problems are, the majority of people have zero faith in our current system to solve them. So let's put everything else aside for now, focus on fixing the system to a point where it is actually capable of taking on specific problems once again. Call it a 'soft revolution' if you will.

Of course this is completely pie in the sky and I'm sure if such a movement did emerge someone would come along and ruin it in short order

Beer Baron wrote:

Keith Tanner wrote: I understand how it works in terms of individual candidates - in most states, anyhow. Sounds like it would be a pain in GA and LA. But what happens when Congress consists of 45% Party A, 35% Party B and 20% Party C? It happens outside the US, and it's a fairly stable situtation - the third party does not necessarily get absorbed. I know it's not going to happen in 2016, I'm discussing the mechanisms here.

They'd have to build a coalition, just like in parliamentary countries. It's just almost impossible to achieve that in the U.S. the way the system is set up. What's more likely to happen is: a party fractures on ideological lines, the existing party that doesn't fracture gets the presidency and sweeps the congressional races by like 70%. Halves of the fractured party struggle to split the 30% of seats they're able to take. The party that didn't fracture pushes its agenda through unimpeded until one of the two factions from the fractured party emerges as the stronger and is able to provide leadership to challenge the party that remained whole.

What is it about the US system that drives it to a two party end game? Again, I'm not asking about scenarios about how it would play out if a third party appeared tomorrow, but if there's something baked into the system that ends up this way.

Obviously, it's possible in other countries. There must be something fundamental I'm missing.

Keith Tanner wrote: What is it about the US system that drives it to a two party end game? Again, I'm not asking about scenarios about how it would play out if a third party appeared tomorrow, but if there's something baked into the system that ends up this way. Obviously, it's possible in other countries. There must be something fundamental I'm missing.

Winner takes all.

Seats are attached to geographic districts and represent the people who live in that location, rather than representing a portion of the population in general. Winning candidate in that district takes that seat - rather than parties receiving seats based on proportion of votes across the country.

It's not "There are 100 seats open. Everyone in the country votes on which party they prefer, and parties get that proportion of seats." It is: "There are seats open for 100 districts. Whatever candidate gets the most votes in that district gets that seat." You are only voting for the seat associated with the district you live in.

Winner-take-all means getting anything less than 50.1% is essentially worthless.

Specific example: If I still lived in California, I wouldn't vote for which party I would like to give a seat to in the Senate. I would vote for whether I wanted Barbara Boxer (D) or [her opponent] (R) to get the senate seat for California.

Even though third party candidates essentially can't win major seats, they still serve a purpose in a winner-take-all system. They send a message to one of the major parties by stealing their votes. So if one party pisses off enough of their constituents enough that they're willing to split off and vote third party, it wakes that party up enough to realize they need to adjust their platform to draw back in the people they've disenfranchised.

I don't see how it's different. In fact, it sounds pretty much exactly the same as Canada. You vote for who you want to represent you, and they go to DC (in theory) to be the voice of their constituents. The ruling party is the one with the greatest number of elected officials.

There's nothing in that system you've described that prevents a third party from sending people to Washington. You can get elected with less than 50.1%, you just need more votes in your district than anyone else. Some districts will have a blowout, some will come down to hanging chads. But the total popular vote doesn't matter.

Unless you are only given two options as part of the design of the system or you are required to have 50.1%. What's preventing the California Freedom Party from having a name on the Senate ballot?

Now, it could be that you're used to it being a two party system with any third party basically being crackpots and whackjobs that have no chance of being elected. But I haven't heard anything that forces it to end up that way.

A guy I worked for said we should have the option of voting for candidate A, candidate B, etc - or "None of the above." If "None" took the majority vote then we had to start over with different candidates.

In a "Winner Take All" (is that a regulatorily defined term?) if there are three candidates, doesn't whoever gets the most votes win? Or does it still require over 50%? and why?

EDIT: Keith's on the same track I am.

Keith Tanner wrote: I don't see how it's different. In fact, it sounds pretty much exactly the same as Canada. You vote for who you want to represent you, and they go to DC (in theory) to be the voice of their constituents. The ruling party is the one with the greatest number of elected officials. There's nothing in that system you've described that prevents a third party from sending people to Washington. You can get elected with less than 50.1%, you just need more votes in your district than anyone else. Some districts will have a blowout, some will come down to hanging chads. But the total popular vote doesn't matter. Unless you are only given two options as part of the design of the system or you are required to have 50.1%. What's preventing the California Freedom Party from having a name on the Senate ballot? Now, it could be that you're used to it being a two party system with any third party basically being crackpots and whackjobs that have no chance of being elected. But I haven't heard anything that forces it to end up that way.

A big part of it is gerrymandering with the districts. Every 10 years, whoever is currently in power gets to redesign the districts. Which allows voting districts to look like this. PA congressional district 7 highlighted in red.

France is the only other country with the districting like this, but by being in a seat of power, you can pretty much lock the district in just on voter population. The 3rd parties would have to get to be pretty heavy hitters to hold on and be able to structure more towards their benefit.

I'm holding out for a slim chance this coming generation, despite all their faults and laziness, will use the internet and social media to really push for big changes. I think the generation that is growing up from toddler to death with a phone and social media should allow for reaching greater audiences, and could draw up the signatures needed and get the presence out there in other ways. It shouldn't be difficult for non big party candidates to hold their own livestream debates online instead of fighting to be one of the faces tv, which is a medium losing younger viewers every day.

There is a chance for great change to come from this, but I'm not an optimist. Especially seeing how the candidates are using social media these days, my idea may be buried before it could get off the ground.

The senate has the negative of only having two per state, instead of congress with varied numbers. I think part of it is fear of change, but another part is how much harder it is to get the backing and public recognition from a third party candidate without the money and other resources of the big parties.

Winner Take All is not a defined term. Whoever gets the most votes wins.

The difference (I believe) is that I don't vote for who I want to represent me, I vote for who I want to represent my district.

A third party could theoretically win the most votes and take that seat. We have options for third party candidates. For most major seats you will see candidates from the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, and Independent parties. What prevents third parties from winning is the two major parties trying to have the broadest platform available to pick up the people. For example, the Democrats build their platform to try to appeal to people who might also be attracted by the Green party.

You see third party candidates win seats in the House of Representatives, because it's a lot easier to get enough like minded people that are less main stream if you cast a smaller net. It's a lot harder to win those seats in a wider race, like a Senate seat in a bigger state, and nearly impossible for a Presidential seat.

(This is not a flounder, I swear.) That's why Sanders is running for president as a Democrat, because he couldn't win as an Independent or Socialist (affiliations he's held in the past). He's kind of the exception that proves the rule. He won his Senate seat first as an Independent. But he won it in a relatively small, homogenous, and very liberal state (Vermont), he also won it only after building a political career as a mayor then a Representative. It took a lot more political work and track record to win than it would have with the resources and power of a major party.

There is actually no mention of political parties in the U.S. Constitution. The founders were generally opposed to the idea of political parties. They just evolved as a natural bi-product of how the rules were written, because it was the easiest way to win.

I've had similar thoughts about how the net could affect the process. Suddenly it's getting easier to reach more people nationwide without working through the established parties. It has to potential to really change things.

But potential is easily squandered or thwarted.

Keith Tanner wrote: I don't see how it's different. In fact, it sounds pretty much exactly the same as Canada. You vote for who you want to represent you, and they go to DC (in theory) to be the voice of their constituents. The ruling party is the one with the greatest number of elected officials. There's nothing in that system you've described that prevents a third party from sending people to Washington. You can get elected with less than 50.1%, you just need more votes in your district than anyone else. Some districts will have a blowout, some will come down to hanging chads. But the total popular vote doesn't matter. Unless you are only given two options as part of the design of the system or you are required to have 50.1%. What's preventing the California Freedom Party from having a name on the Senate ballot? Now, it could be that you're used to it being a two party system with any third party basically being crackpots and whackjobs that have no chance of being elected. But I haven't heard anything that forces it to end up that way.

There kind of are three parties this time around. I don't think Trump is a crack pot or a whack job, but he is not easily identifiable as either republican or democrat. In fact he was a declared Democrat for a while wasn't he? And both sides are out to get him. Really he is an independent masquerading as a Republican.

Beer Baron wrote: A third party *could* theoretically win the most votes and take that seat. We have options for third party candidates. For most major seats you will see candidates from the Republican, Democrat, Libertarian, Green, and Independent parties. What prevents third parties from winning is the two major parties trying to have the broadest platform available to pick up the people. For example, the Democrats build their platform to try to appeal to people who might also be attracted by the Green party.

You can also turn this around and look at it from the perspective of a candidate. Running as a party member usually confers some considerable advantages in terms of fund raising, voter databases, access to useful insiders and mentors, and other parts of the political machine. And the bigger the party, the more of those resources you get. So if you're a would-be politician with relatively conventional views, the advantages of hanging that D or R next to your name on the ballot frequently outweigh whatever benefits you'd have as an independent or a third party.

This appears to be what has happened with Sanders and Trump this go-round - neither one is a regular member of either party, but both have opted to pick an established party for election purposes.

Okay. Visual example. We'll have three parties (A, B, and C), and 5 districts, with 10 people in each.

D1: A, A, A, A, A, A, B, B, B, C

D2: A, A, A, A, A, B, B, B, B, C

D3: A, A, A, A, B, B, B, B, B, C

D4: A, A, A, B, B, B, B, C, C, C

D5: A, A, B, B, B, B, B, C, C, C

Total votes for A: 20 Total votes for B: 21
Total votes for C: 9

In the U.S. system, A would have 2 seats (D1, D2), B would have 3 (D3, D4, D5), C would have 0.

In a proportional system, A would have 2, B would have 2, C would have 1.

In the Canadian system, you'd have the same 2A, 3B, 0C split. But somehow Canada has more than two parties and has for a long time. In reality, only two of the parties take turns as the ruling party - but the third one does affect things quite a bit, and even managed to be the official opposition in the last government.

So it's not really baked into the system that you'd end up with two parties. It's just how the US system has evolved, and it's going to be difficult to unevolve it.

revrico wrote: From what my research has shown me, it's not entirely possible. The rules have changed since Perot ran and almost had a chance. But some rules stay the same, like those that kept him out of debates for not being in either party. Of course, if you go back to pre-1950s, Democrats and Republicans were polar opposites. Todays democratic party stood for all the things the republican party did then, and vice versa. All democracies inevitably fail, all through out history. Because of pretty much what is going on now. Polarized sides that are both working for the same benefactors (sounds like a good word), essentially eliminating parties all together.

FWIW, the major parties have flip flopped ideologies a multitude of times in our history, all it really shows is that they're both completely interchangeable with each other and only manipulate us with said ideologies in an effort to gain votes.

Keith Tanner wrote: What would happen if there was a third party and nobody got a majority of the electoral votes? Not so much the long term effects, but how would it work day to day? I'm assuming two of the parties would have to work together to get legislation passed. Obviously the president would be whatever candidate got more electoral college votes than anyone else, but I'm thinking of congress. I don't know enough about the US system to know. Or is it simply not possible?

If cantidates fail to win the electoral college, then it reverts to Congress to vote for our stupid citizen asses and elect whomever they want. It hasn't happened in 200 years, but that very likely could be considered the death of our democratic republic.

Man, it's confusing about who's running this show. Is it the President, who is (sorta) elected by the people but doesn't necessarily have the support of Congress. Or is it the members of congress, who can get vetoed by the President? Or is it the Senate, which does...I don't know what the Senate does in the US? Why is the President so important, was that a mistake when this whole thing was put together?

I was assuming congress vs senate was representation by population vs representation by state, but I need to check that.

I guess I need to start studying to figure this out. The Canadian system does without the President, the Prime Minister is simply the leader of the party with the most seats and can be hot-swapped at any time. The PM also doesn't have the special powers that the US President does. I suppose the queen occupies that role, but she has a very hands-off role with her colonies.

BTW, thanks for this discussion. It's interesting stuff.

Keith,

You've got a clear understanding of the right answer here. Any of the three (US House, US Senate, US President) can typically stop a law from being passed. If both the House and Senate really want to pass a law that the President does not want, they can overturn his veto but this takes 2/3 of both houses and is rare.

One fourth item is that any law that a citizen is affected by can have its constitutionality challenged in the court system, up to the Supreme Court for really controversial cases. Major new rights were granted to the individual citizens and the Federal government by the 13th, 14th, 15th, and 16th amendments.

The whole point of this system is to prevent a tyrant in any one position from doing too much damage. When the Constitution was written, the states REALLY didn't trust the Federal government. Any republic whose constitution was written after ours relies on responsible government - not many ways for a party in the minority to bind up the works, elections that allow citizens to replace the entire legislature and executive branch, easier constitutional amendments.

In contrast, we have a system of irresponsible government, which has allowed us to be free citizens of a powerful country most of the time despite some real turkeys in positions of nominally impressive power.

To understand the Senate, imagine if Canada had two Parliaments rather than their Parliament and Senate. Imagine that any new law needed to pass both Parliaments. Now imagine that PEI got the same number of representatives in the Emergency Backup Parliament as Ontario.

(Edited to switch Nunavut to PEI to make it clearer that we're talking about provinces. A Senator for Wyoming represents as many people as the mayor of Aurora, Colorado.)

In reply to chaparral:

While we are sharing our confusing government setup with others, might as well mention that pertaining constitutional amendments that are proposed by congress, and if passed, still don't become amendments until a majority of states ratify said constitutional amendment within the time allotted to do so. Otherwise a passed amendment doesn't become an amendment to the constitution.

Sounds like it's the same Senate setup that Canada has, only they're elected and they actually do something.

I was looking at the history of constitutional amendments a while back - studying for the citizenship test The last one to be submitted and ratified was 45 years ago, and most of the recent ones have been dinking around with the electoral process.

The most recent one to be ratified took 202 years - it was submitted at the same time as the Bill of Rights (that must have been a hell of a meeting), but didn't get ratified until 1992. And it's about salary changes for Congress.

Keith Tanner wrote: Unless you are only given two options as part of the design of the system or you are required to have 50.1%.

In my state, Washington, we have a "top 2" vote law. Any number of candidates can run in the primaries, but only the top 2 vote getters (with the sole exception of the President) are allowed to run in the general. Yes, we have had a D go up against a D in the general because of it. It's a berkeleyed as berk law.