See other (s)Elections Articles
Title: Why Trump Is in Trouble?
Source:
[None]
URL Source: https://www.lewrockwell.com/political-theatre/trump-trouble/
Published: Aug 6, 2016
Author: Llewellyn H. Rockwell, Jr.
Post Date: 2016-08-06 16:03:34 by Ada
Keywords: None
Views: 335
Comments: 22
Writes Jay Stephenson: Trump’s spokesperson got laid into this week for blaming Obama for the death of the Khan family’s son in Iraq during Bush’s tenure. The real reason why she said it, I believe, is because after the campaign fired Cory Lewandowski and influenced Trump to pick a neocon as a VP, a decision was made not to attack Bush anymore. So what can Trump do as he’s getting hammered by Bush-era cronies this week given this newstrategy? Basically nothing. The right way to attack is to blame Bush/Clinton/Obama, but he has to stick with cliché GOP talking points that they’ve been using ever since Obama took office. It’s a losing strategy.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
Begin Trace Mode for Comment # 20.
#2. To: Ada (#0)
As long as billary is his oppenet, he's fine.
Amazing, isn't it? It's why the founders were so adamantly opposed to political parties. (As well as jews, muslims, and other suspect groups.)
I've been pushing for "Approval" voting as a superior vote system. With this system, people can vote for as many candidates as they want. The candidate getting the most votes wins. It occurred to me much more recently that with Approval voting, political parties can be done away with. Primaries become obsolete, because there's no reason to limit the ballot to one candidate per party at the general election.
While it sounds good in theory to do away with the 2 party system by bringing in "Approval" voting or other facsimile systems instead, theory doesn't always translate into better outcomes in the real world. For example in California, the Demrats pushed for and won Prop. 14 which implemented a "Non- partisan blanket primary" voting system and it stinks. Now we have 2 Demrat politicians running against each other in many elections. Eliminating the 2 party system and giving lots of choices to the electorate assumes that voters are open minded and are intelligent enough to make educated choices based on platforms; that they're not idealogues. But in the USA - especially in states like CA. where you have so many Third World naturalized socialist voters and limousine liberals and large college campuses with young Utopian brain- washed voters etc etc, all it means is that there is no choice for what's left as candidates in the 2nd round run off. Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
All too true! I would caution against expectations of instant beneficial results. I'm not familiar with the CA's prop 14 or even aware anything like this had happened, but seems to me at first glance that the longer term result would be that the R party would become less popular because no R's end up making it to the general election. So more candidates end up registering as D's. Longer term, no one really cares what the D platform is because everyone is a democrat. They instead have to understand what each candidate stands for, which is what should be happening anyway. Without the R party, the D party stands for nothing. I don't follow this. Eliminating the party system means there are no platforms on which voters can base choices. It should be understood first and foremost there is no perfect voting system. That's been mathematically proven, or so I read. There are many. Pluralist voting which we have now (about the worst there is), AV as I described. Run-off which is in play in many countries. Instant run-off which has mathematical quirks where the order in which candidates are first removed can alter the final result. A system where everone gets 100 votes and allocates them to the degree they favor candidates, and at least one more I won't bother describing. The current dilemma in the US is that candidates from 3rd parties (so-called) have about zero chance of attracting votes due to the "wasted vote syndrome" which is in fact an encouragement for people to vote strategically instead of according to their honest preferences. I.e. a vote for Johnson for president is in fact a vote for [Trump/Clinton] because Johnson isn't going to win and you are throwing your vote away. So if you really hate Clinton and you don't vote for Trump, you are helping Clinton to win. I'm sure you're familiar with all that. Again no system is perfect. But I do see the current pluralist voting system a relic from the days when ballots were probably hand written 200 years ago. Tech makes a lot of things better, and with voting, it should be no different.
#21. To: Pinguinite (#20)
200 years ago the only voters were free, White, male land-owners at least 21- years old. That scenario would change the current election lineup: no Hillary Clinton, no Bernie Sanders. Maybe no Donald Trump. Certainly no televangelist preacher like Ted Cruz. Jeff Bezos/Warren Buffett/Mark Zuckerberg/Bill Gates would be rich, eccentric idiots and would define a distinct minority of voters considered to be "cranks".
The current dilemma in the US is that candidates from 3rd parties (so-called) have about zero chance of attracting votes due to the "wasted vote syndrome" which is in fact an encouragement for people to vote strategically instead of according to their honest preferences. 1. I was referencing the campaign platforms - as in the particular positions - espoused by each individual seeking office. In California non-partisan blanket primary is non-partisan in name only. What the Demrat party has been doing is providing big bucks to multiple high profile Demrat candidates to run against lesser known candidates say from the R and Green parties, for example. So with the big bucks which also buys lots of advertising, in the first round, the 2 Demrat candidates win hands down and then those 2 proceed to run against each other in the final round. The Demrat Party wins no matter which of the 2 candidates wins. And there's no R candidate in the second round of voting who can show how his platform/his positions differ or why the opposing candidate has warts. The 2 Demrat candidates typically don't do more than a girlie slap fest with each other because the Demrat Party wouldn't want warts revealed. So the non-partisan primary B.S. ultimately takes away choices for the voter. 2. 3rd partys would never work in the USA anyways. 3rd parties work in a Parliamentary system of government, which the USA does not have.
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#4. To: titorite (#2)
#7. To: Lod (#4)
#8. To: hondo68 (#7)
#10. To: Lod (#8)
It's why the founders were so adamantly opposed to political parties.
#16. To: Pinguinite (#10)
#20. To: scrapper2 (#16)
While it sounds good in theory to do away with the 2 party system by bringing in "Approval" voting or other facsimile systems instead, theory doesn't always translate into better outcomes in the real world.
For example in California, the Demrats pushed for and won Prop. 14 which implemented a "Non- partisan blanket primary" voting system and it stinks. Now we have 2 Demrat politicians running against each other in many elections.
Eliminating the 2 party system and giving lots of choices to the electorate assumes that voters are open minded and are intelligent enough to make educated choices based on platforms;
all it means is that there is no choice for what's left as candidates in the 2nd round run off. Be careful not to throw out the baby with the bath water.
Replies to Comment # 20. But I do see the current pluralist voting system a relic from the days when ballots were probably hand written 200 years ago.
#22. To: Pinguinite (#20)
I don't follow this. Eliminating the party system means there are no platforms on which voters can base choices.
End Trace Mode for Comment # 20.