Decision 2016

[vegietarian18]

Originally Posted by wriggz

I don't know about you but I don't want the jobs that typically go to Illegal Immigrants.

I am not a fan of this argument. I don't want those jobs either, and it's because they are in the the country illegally that illegal immigrants are paid such ridiculously low wages for such hard work.

We need to make it easier for people to come to the country legally and then enforce those laws precisely to prevent these things. Illegal immigration should not be tolerated just because it gives employees for jobs no one wants to do, it just perpetuates both the poverty of current and future illegal immigrants and their children.

[Rich10]

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

My point with the reference to art - and with the link to the article - is that there is no reason to think that the money spent by the wealthiest of the wealthy inures to the benefit of anyone but themselves.

We'll just have to disagree on this. Bill Gates (I think he's still the wealthiest man in the world) was partly responsible for making a company that employs many people. He has a foundation that does good deeds. Even if you go back to the "robber barons" such as Vanderbilt, Carnegie, and Rockefeller, they made large corporations that employed many people to middle class and above careers. They helped to build the USA. Certainly, they personally benefitted from their efforts, but I think that their wealth also inures to the benefit of society.

Originally Posted by Dad_Scaper

Is there a rational connection between Trump's immigration policies and employment in this country? I certainly wouldn't assume that the answer to that question is "yes," or that the people with whom you've spoken are competent to analyze it. Employment has risen steadily under Obama; I don't know why that wouldn't continue under Clinton.

I don't know the answer, and I'm sure that better informed people on both sides could make a stronger argument than I. My personal work skill is in an arcane area of finance and accounting so illegal immigration doesn't affect me personally. But if 11 million (I don't know the latest estimate of illegal immigrants) people entered the country with skills in finance and accounting, I would be worried. Similarly, if I was in competition from illegal immigrants with limited ability to negotiate for better compensation, I would be worried.

While the unemployment rate has dropped under President Obama, I hear that this is due to lower paying service jobs like Walmart greeters. I'm not an economist and don't know how to judge this, but this is something that I hear frequently. The median household income in the US has decreased during the past 15 years or so.
https://fred.stlouisfed.org/graph/?id=MEHOINUSA672N

wriggz, I don't want to compete for jobs against illegal immigrants either. But, there are many legal residents of the US who are.

[Dad_Scaper]

I stand by everything I've written so far, including my favorable comments about Clinton and her worthiness as a candidate. But I don't really care to go on pretending this is a contest between two worthy (or similar) nominees:

Originally Posted by CNN

"Hillary wants to abolish -- essentially abolish the Second Amendment. By the way, if she gets to pick, if she gets to pick her judges, nothing you can do, folks. Although the Second Amendment people, maybe there is, I don't know," Trump said.

Enough already. The prospect of a Trump presidency should be so frightening to every rational American that he or she should not exercise the luxury of cynically staying home or voting for some third party candidate, which is an equally empty gesture. You want to improve the system, improve it a step at a time. Making it worse by allowing this would-be demagogue (sorry for the name-calling) to open the door to the White House and struggle to find the light switch would make nothing better. Only worse.

LINK

[Nukatha]

But I also cannot vote for an individual who treats national security so wantonly by throwing classified information around to and from a personal computer. Whether intentional or not, that is extreme carelessness.

I cannot vote for an individual who immediately hired another person who resigned earlier that day for collusion against another member of her own party. (Debbie Wasserman Shultz)
I cannot vote for someone who claimed that an terrorist attack against the US consulate in Libya was motivated by some random online video, despite knowing full well that was not the case.
I cannot vote for an individual whose 'charity' bearing her family's name continues to have shady dealings worldwide, with 'coincidental' political decisions (that strongly benefit a specific individual or organization) appearing days or weeks after a Clinton gives a speech for a huge sum of money to said organization. (I strongly recommend watching Clinton Cash on Youtube, then fact-checking everything yourself. I'm a huge fan of 'trust, but verify')

Therefore, I shall vote, but I shall not vote for either of them.

This would be a slam-dunk election for the Democrats if they had nominated, say, Joe Biden instead of Clinton, or would be a grand-slam for the Republicans if literally any other primary candidate had been chosen.

[dok]

Originally Posted by Arch-vile

What I really want to see is the implementing of multiple votes - as in, I don't just vote for Trump, or Hillary. I vote saying "I'd be okay with any of the following individuals for president: Jill Stein, Gary Johnson, etc. I think that would be a good way to eliminate the extreme power of the two-party system without abolishing or replacing them with other parties as has happened in history.

This is typically called "approval voting" and it is, indeed, a very good system.

Another system you hear about a lot is "Instant Runoff Voting". This uses a ranked ballot and essentially runs, as it says, a series of runoff elections using the ranked preferences of the voters. While IRV has some serious flaws in the case where there are multiple viable candidates, it actually does a quite good job of preventing the "spoiler effect" of third party candidates.

My personal favorite alternative voting system is some variant of Condorcet voting, using a graded ballot.

Anyway, the upshot of all of this is that, if you really want viable third party candidates, you should be working for alternative voting methods. In our current voting system, votes for third party candidates have nearly the opposite effect of what those voters usually want.

In the mean time, I usually tell people to be tactical. Vote for the lesser of two evils, and support the down-ballot candidates you care about.

[Nukatha]

In the mean time, I usually tell people to be tactical. Vote for the lesser of two evils, and support the down-ballot candidates you care about.

In general, I agree with you there, but this time I don't know who the lesser of two evils is.
So, I'm taking the advice of the one US President who became president without a majority of the electoral vote, John Quincy Adams: "Always vote for principle, though you may vote alone, and you may cherish the sweetest reflection that your vote is never lost"

Honestly, if more states split their electoral votes proportionally (or by district), then House decisions among the top three could be far more common.

Completely off topic, here's an election-related musing: What happens if a presidential candidate is incapacitated between the general election and the electoral college members submitting their ballots. Technically, the electors are supposed to vote their conscience, (unless a state law says otherwise). Would they cast their presidential votes for the otherwise VP candidate, and someone new for the VP slot?

[Rich10]

I thought this was a good article that expresses why I just can't vote for Donald Trump.
http://www.latimes.com/opinion/op-ed...nap-story.html

"Trump’s blathering about international affairs seems rooted in ignorance rather than ideology. He quite simply doesn’t have a clue about foreign policy. He has no advisors of stature, military or diplomatic — no one who can rein in his “bromance” with Russian leader Vladimir Putin or explain to him why we must honor our commitments to NATO."

"You can believe — as I do — that Clinton has a problem with the truth, but must also acknowledge — as I must — that in that regard she doesn’t hold a candle to Trump’s prevarications. Simply put, as the old adage goes, “How can you tell when Trump is lying? Answer: When he is moving his lips.” You really can’t predict what he will say from one day to the next, or if he will say the same thing again the following day. He is an unstable egomaniac who is unfit for public office, any office."

[keglo]

Well I would have to disagree with that article on at least one thing. In a contest of liars Hillary would win hands down. And if I had only two choices, either Clinton or Trump, I would vote Trump. I dislike the man immensely, but not nearly as much as I loathe and distrust Hillary.

It is a very sad day in America when these two are our only realistic options for President.

I will be following the lead of @Nukatha and John Quincy Adams, and I will vote for principle. My vote will go for neither of these two idiots.

[ollie]

Originally Posted by keglo

Well I would have to disagree with that article on at least one thing. In a contest of liars Hillary would win hands down.

I find this fascinating. I am genuinely interested in how you came to this conclusion. What evidence are you looking at?

Increasingly we all live in media bubbles where our own views can get more easily reinforced, but I don't think I'm being too old-fashioned in holding that there is some sort of objective answer to the question of whether Trump or Clinton is being more dishonest. I also don't see any way that the answer isn't Trump by a bajillion miles. Is that my media bubble? What are you seeing that makes you think differently?

Originally Posted by Donald Trump, yesterday

ISIS is honoring President Obama. He is the founder of ISIS. He is the founder of ISIS, okay? He is the founder. He founded ISIS. And I would say the cofounder would be crooked Hillary Clinton.

(source)



Separately, the question of minor-party voting in a first-past-the-post system is an interesting one, and one I've thought a good amount about on and off over the years (albeit mostly in the context of the UK's differently structured first-past-the-post system). I'm increasingly convinced of the value of minor-candidate votes, albeit with some caveats.

First is the fundamental reason for voting. On one side there is the keglo/Nukatha/JQA opinion that a vote is an expression of your political principles and to do anything other than voting for the candidate that best reflects them is morally wrong. That's a perfectly sound position.

The other side is that a vote is an action that has consequences and you should cast your vote in the way that leads to the consequences you most desire. This is usually brought up to convince you to vote for one of the two main candidates, and I think this is probably the right thing to do in a state where the race between them is close. If you're in Ohio (is Ohio close again this year? way to early for even a moderate poll nerd like me to be paying close attention) then your choice of vote might affect the overall winner, which is presumably what you care most about, and so therefore you vote for whichever of Trump and Clinton you prefer.

However, a big fraction of races are not close (Vermont, for one, and also all three of the different voting districts I lived in in England). Most of the votes in a one-sided state are as "wasted" (both votes for the winning and for the losing candidate) as a minor-candidate one

Even here there's an argument for voting Clinton/Trump even if that's not your ideal---for example, although it doesn't count for anything officially whether a candidate wins a majority of votes nationwide (or the size of that majority) has a bearing on the mandate the winner is considered to have.

On the minor-candidate side though, it's important to remember there is more to the race than winning: increased legitimacy to push for a different system; reaching minimum levels to be included on ballots, in debates, etc.; and again that soft power that comes from having your positions recognised as ones that resonate with (some) voters.

It's even plausible that you could value these minor-candidate advantages as more important that who wins overall if you live in a battleground state and do not have a strong preference between the two main candidates.

[wriggz]

It is funny that seemingly to be Smarmy but saying your aren't (Clinton) is worse than being Smarmy and revealing in it (Trump).

I suppose there is value in being honestly dishonest instead of being Dishonestly (Dis?)honest.


As far as voting your conscious, that is a tricky and increasing pointless action. The really scary thing about gerrymandering is that the lines are not drawn to exclude all other candidates, but rather to keep things status quo. 3rd part enclaves are eaten up by the other parties.


Here are some of the worst offenders:

Those are honest to goodness territories. That is how you keep the status quo. That coupled with Millions of dollars in advertising to convince people who generally don't care very much, don't have much time, and are just getting by to vote. Also there are no rules for Truth in Election adds in the same way there is for Cars and Pills.

[ollie]

As I understand it, that gerrymandering is to the benefit of one of the two parties at the expense of the other (and it varies which party is which from instance to instance). The idea is to clump the votes of the opposing party into a smaller number of regions that they'll win overwhelmingly in those while you take narrower victories in a larger number of regions.

A third party that is up even as high as 20% of support will get no seats regardless of gerrymandering without some sort of proportional representation system.

[vegietarian18]

I am not of the opinion that Trump is completely ignorant and just spouting random racist comments. I think the comments like "there has to be some sort of punishment", "he is the founder of ISIS", "they're sending their rapists" are heavily calculated words that he's using to:

1. gain free publicity
2. gain support from the Barrack HUSSEIN Obama crowd
3. rile up his normal supporters into thinking media is twisting his words

I think he's playing himself as the anti-establishment candidate, and would have had a similar strategy but with democratic ideals if he ran in 2008. He is not running with a goal of implementing any policies, just with the goal of winning the election and technically being president.

I actually think when he started he didn't have the goal of winning, just the goal of stopping Jeb Bush. He just didn't expect the strategy of railing on Jeb Bush in every debate to actually be a path to the nomination, and once it actually was, he decided to stick with it.

Regardless of what you think of Trump, he has definitely changed campaigns forever and it's been completely strategy rather than personality or policy. He's not an ignorant person.