So why does it have to be just 2 people?

[mmmmm...beer 691]

Why not like a final 8 or 4? The last 8 or 4 standing get on the Presidential ballot... winner take all.

 

These two horrible schmucks are a joke. Wtf...

[edjr 5,552]

there were 19 at one point

 

problem is you people that vote are focking nimrods

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

there were 19 at one point

 

problem is you people that vote are focking nimrods

 

there were 18

 

17 repubs and Hillary, it was an automatic bid for her, no matter what Bernie could have done, they just let him run so people wouldn't be bored

[fandandy 3,311]

Our system sucks. Canadians were complaining about their last election cycle being too long at like 3 months. Ours seems to be years now. We should have the Republican and Democrat debates nationally televised and then take a poll on who we like, like America's Got Talent. The top 4 from each make it to the debates and we get to keep voting them off after each debate. When it's down to 2 we have the election show.

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

Our system sucks. Canadians were complaining about their last election cycle being too long at like 3 months. Ours seems to be years now. We should have the Republican and Democrat debates nationally televised and then take a poll on who we like, like America's Got Talent. The top 4 from each make it to the debates and we get to keep voting them off after each debate. When it's down to 2 we have the election show.

 

with the way reality TV has controlled America lately, this isn't a half bad idea

 

make it like Survivor where 20 republicans and 20 democrats are pitted as a TEAM first, then each side that loses various challenges has to vote off one of their own, when it gets down to 3 on each side, they merge and can build their teams from the eliminated party members and bring in an outside VP candidate if desired.

 

this would make the entire party work together to find who the party as a whole feels is the best candidate, and force them to work with people in the end who might not agree with them. (It also would have eliminated Trump and Hillary very early)

 

my biggest issue was that there was no democrat nomination this cycle

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

Then the public votes make up 50% and the party votes make up the other 50%

 

and we call it

 

Presidente Royale

[Gladiators 1,904]

I've never bothered to look, but does anyone know how much money is spent on the entire presidential election process?

[fandandy 3,311]

I've never bothered to look, but does anyone know how much money is spent on the entire presidential election process?

All said, I would guess a couple Billion prolly.

[wiffleball 4,635]

A lot of this is on the candidates presented. Sure, the system is stacked against them, but theoretically, we could have had 4-5 or more candidates - each from separate parties.

 

There just wasn't enough interest in 3rd party candidates to get on the stage.

 

Hillary is Hillary - like her or hate her, but the fact that Trump won handily over 15 other GOP candidates speaks volumes about the dysfunction in that party. First, the Fundies rooned it, then the NeoCons and Now the Teabaggers. Meantime, the Conservatives (true cons) are so disgusted, they're not even showing up to vote.

 

That's largely what happened with Obama - a full SEVEN MILLION Republicans who previously voted for Bush at least once just flat out dropped out of the pool. I can see that happening again this time.

 

If they can't unite together, then they should split into separate parties and bring forth their best candidate.

 

Just realistically, no reason why Obama gets two terms and HRC is fixin to be next - speaks more about the failure and dysfunction of the GOP than the quality of the Democrats.

[wiffleball 4,635]

The Brits not only limit the length of the campaign, no TV advertising is allowed and costs are severely capped.

 

I'm not saying we could do exactly the same given our size, but there's a lot of pointers we should be looking at.

[KSB2424 3,082]

I was on the John Kasich bandwagon. A normal, sensible Republican. Unfortunately the Trump madness came about, and Hillary Clinton will be our President.

 

:puke:

[frank 2,144]

There can be only one!

[IGotWorms 3,309]

there were 19 at one point

All of them were god awful except Sanders. And while I like Sanders, he was probably too extreme

[IGotWorms 3,309]

I was on the John Kasich bandwagon. A normal, sensible Republican. Unfortunately the Trump madness came about, and Hillary Clinton will be our President.

 

:puke:

Oh yeah, I forgot Kasich. He was a good candidate

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

because we have been conditioned to believe that the only answer is democrat or republican and like most of the political blowhards on this board and in real life, you are dem or repub because that's what mammy and pappy raised you as. Its the same issue with religion. Children are rarely allowed to grow up without being influenced in a certain direction, learning about the vast amount of religions as they get older and eventually decide on the one they think fits them best. Theres really no way around it but its a shame. i get a lot of religious nuts with that one. "do you even know why you're catholic? or did mom and dad tell you thats what you were?"

 

anyway.... back to the politics.

 

donald trump is as much a republican as I am. He ran republican because he knows there is no chance a 3rd party candidate would ever win the presidency. Luckily, all of the republican candidates were horrible and enough people are tired of the same old politicians making grand promises and failing to deliver and doing bad behind closed doors that we find out about later. So here comes Trump, hes brash, brazen, doesnt give specifics and rarely censors himself. He puts it all out there as opposed to a hillary who hides it until it comes out.

 

speaking of which, one of the big complaints against trump is that he avoids specifics.... and I get it. That looks bad. So its better to promise specifics and never deliver, right?

 

 

Luckily, I think the democrat/republican lines are becoming more and more blurred as we go from terrible president (Bush) to terrible president (Obama) and continue to see an influx of generally terrible candidates from both parties. If Donald Trump wins, I think we will start to see 3rd party politicians get a greater chance.

 

Imagine a Mark Cuban running for president as an independent. He'd get my vote in a heartbeat.

[WhiteWonder 2,171]

I was on the John Kasich bandwagon. A normal, sensible Republican. Unfortunately the Trump madness came about, and Hillary Clinton will be our President.

 

:puke:

 

honest question. If Kasich was a "normal, sensible Republican", and im not disputing that, then why didn't the republican party end up with him as their nominee? Donald Trump signals the end of the world supposedly yet here he is having bested every other republican candidate. Certainly basic theatrics wouldnt be enough to sway the republican voters away from whatever qualifies as a normal, sensible republican....?

[GobbleDog 816]

"Both candidates suck" sentiment rears it's ugly head every election. But this election is without question the worst candidates I've ever seen. And I'm old. Makes ya wonder if these idiots can get this far, who's the next bozo to get this close to the presidency? Just hope the US can hold on for another 100 years for my future grand-kids. After that... to hell with it.

 

 

Snoop Dog in 2020.

[BunnysBastatrds 1,913]

The Brits not only limit the length of the campaign, no TV advertising is allowed and costs are severely capped.

 

I'm not saying we could do exactly the same given our size, but there's a lot of pointers we should be looking at.

Eliminating free speech? The right to assemble? The right to give charitable donations to causes you agree with but may conflict with others?

[RaiderHaters Revenge 3,569]

All of them were god awful except Sanders. And while I like Sanders, he was probably too extreme

The fact that you don't think sanders was god awful as well speaks volumes

[rholio 339]

Eliminating free speech? The right to assemble? The right to give charitable donations to causes you agree with but may conflict with others?

Some people say there are no stupid questions... those people have never heard of Bunny.

[hoytdwow 202]

We need

 

 

Instant Run-Off Voting

in·stant run·off vot·ing
noun
an electoral system whereby voters rank candidates in order of preference. In the event that one candidate fails to achieve a sufficient majority, the candidate with the fewest number of first-preference rankings is eliminated and these votes redistributed, the process being repeated until one candidate achieves the required majority.

 

[edjr 5,552]

Bet Mitt Romney wishes he was the nom this time

[Mike Honcho 4,014]

Why not like a final 8 or 4? The last 8 or 4 standing get on the Presidential ballot... winner take all.

 

These two horrible schmucks are a joke. Wtf...

 

The rules of our government, votes needed to pass laws through house/senate/president, override vetos favor a two party system. I think our foundering fathers did a great job re-inventing democracy, but one thing I prefer when I at the British parliament is the parliament chooses the PM. So you get maybe 5 or 6 different parties represented in the House of Commons, and they need a coalition of say 3 parties working together to choose the PM. If the coalition breaks up, they hold new elections. Granted there are 2 major parties in the UK, but they often have to work with the smaller parties. I feel that is more representative of the population as a whole. I doubt there are many people in the US who would whole-heartily agree with every single point of either party.

 

The Brits not only limit the length of the campaign, no TV advertising is allowed and costs are severely capped.

 

I'm not saying we could do exactly the same given our size, but there's a lot of pointers we should be looking at.

 

It's the TDS, but it discusses what you are talking about...our system is absurd with the amount of money in it now.

 

[IGotWorms 3,309]

The fact that you don't think sanders was god awful as well speaks volumes

Meh, seems to me you have no credibility if you can't divorce the man from his policies.

[jerryskids 5,188]

Yesterday my daughter asked me how we could get two candidates that nobody likes. I responded "the thing is, they were both elected in by voters in their parties. Well, Hillary may have been a little fixed, but the Donald won fair and square. And yet we are all sitting around complaining that the candidates suck."

[Frank M 181]

Oh yeah, I forgot Kasich. He was a good candidate

I would have voted for him were he the Republican candidate.

[Frank M 181]

 

honest question. If Kasich was a "normal, sensible Republican", and im not disputing that, then why didn't the republican party end up with him as their nominee? Donald Trump signals the end of the world supposedly yet here he is having bested every other republican candidate. Certainly basic theatrics wouldnt be enough to sway the republican voters away from whatever qualifies as a normal, sensible republican....?

People who are mad don't want a guy who is normal and sensible. They want a loud, brash champion who they think will upend the system. They don't want someone who tells them the truth, that bipartisanship and hard work and maybe a little pain for everyone is the solution to most of our problems. They want someone who says our problems are somebody else's fault and that he'll solve them and we'll all have everything we want.

 

People want snake oil, whether they think they do or not.

[kutulu 1,545]

Yesterday my daughter asked me how we could get two candidates that nobody likes. I responded "the thing is, they were both elected in by voters in their parties. Well, Hillary may have been a little fixed, but the Donald won fair and square. And yet we are all sitting around complaining that the candidates suck."

how was it fixed?

[hoytdwow 202]

Yesterday my daughter asked me how we could get two candidates that nobody likes. I responded "the thing is, they were both elected in by voters in their parties. Well, Hillary may have been a little fixed, but the Donald won fair and square. And yet we are all sitting around complaining that the candidates suck."

Civics much?

 

They were chosen by delegates appointed by their party apparatus.

[TD Ryan2 314]

how was it fixed?

 

it's ALWAYS fixed... by money... those with the most money pad the political war-chests and then have significant control over the elections... from corporations, to individuals, to special interests and lobbyists to Super Pacs and "non-profits".... it's a rigged fockin' system.

 

it's a big part of why campaign finance reform and term limits need to be in place long before we can even begin to "fix" things... right now, nobody is incentivized to "fix" things... they are incentivized to raise money, and win an election so they can continue to raise money and win more elections.

[kutulu 1,545]

 

it's ALWAYS fixed... by money... those with the most money pad the political war-chests and then have significant control over the elections... from corporations, to individuals, to special interests and lobbyists to Super Pacs and "non-profits".... it's a rigged fockin' system.

 

it's a big part of why campaign finance reform and term limits need to be in place long before we can even begin to "fix" things... right now, nobody is incentivized to "fix" things... they are incentivized to raise money, and win an election so they can continue to raise money and win more elections.

Yeah but that's true of both sides and didn't seem to be what jerry was getting at as he said trumps was fair and square

[TD Ryan2 314]

Yeah but that's true of both sides and didn't seem to be what jerry was getting at as he said trumps was fair and square

 

so... having the most money for a campaign wasn't a decisive factor for Trump? OK.

[kutulu 1,545]

[Voltaire 4,556]

I wouldn't mind seeing the Rent is Too Damn High candidate and Trump go at each other over rental policies in New York City.

[hoytdwow 202]

 

so... having the most money for a campaign wasn't a decisive factor for Trump? OK.

Er, Trump spent far less money than all the other GOP candidates. If it was just money, Jeb! would be the guy.

[jerryskids 5,188]

Yeah but that's true of both sides and didn't seem to be what jerry was getting at as he said trumps was fair and square

 

I was referring to the super delegates that all went to Hillary.

[kutulu 1,545]

 

I was referring to the super delegates that all went to Hillary.

well that's the system...stretch to call it rigged but I get your point.

[jerryskids 5,188]

well that's the system...stretch to call it rigged but I get your point.

 

True it's the system, but I don't recall hearing about this issue in the past, so my perception is that what happened this time around is not normal. Then again I'm not a tree-hugging democrat so I might not have noticed.

[kutulu 1,545]

 

True it's the system, but I don't recall hearing about this issue in the past, so my perception is that what happened this time around is not normal. Then again I'm not a tree-hugging democrat so I might not have noticed.

what issue?

[jerryskids 5,188]

what issue?

 

That Hillary got virtually every superdelegate.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2016

 

Versus say 2008 when Obama was the nominee:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Democratic_Party_superdelegates,_2008

 

It seems statistically to be virtually impossible to have that much consensus among the superdelegates, unless they colluded of course.