The positive things that could come out of a Trump presidency

[Kelly]

5x out of 45, yeah....not that many.

I think it had growing pains in the beginning, and I think it has been outgrown by our population to be structurally sound. Do I say go with popular vote only, no of course not....but from the ground up, primary season to the election...changes need to be made.

 

[Sithborg]

5x out of 45, yeah....not that many.

I think it had growing pains in the beginning, and I think it has been outgrown by our population to be structurally sound. Do I say go with popular vote only, no of course not....but from the ground up, primary season to the election...changes need to be made.

For the collective sanity of the world, yes.

 

[2kt09]

In or current system when 1 electoral vote = 217k people in Wyoming, 1 electoral vote = 705K in California, that is unfair to the people in California

California's population and overall voting record gives them an unfair advantage over states like Wyoming.

 

[The Overlord]

That's the same % in 2008, and a less percentage of people compared to 2012 actually stood out the election.
Just really glad more people are engaged and in the midst of people mocking each other, more people managed to debate and discuss.

I am sure there are democracies with far more voter participation then the US.

We have gone over this in that pop vote vs electoral college thread.


If we went by individual districts (assuming that's like the counties we have), that's an even more massive landslide victory for Trump. This Canadian system of districts you outlined sounds closer worse to what the electoral college is anyways, the number of representative voters relative to population sizes per state. If people want to update those rep numbers to better reflect those populations, be my guest.

Just guessing on Canada's district system, so by all means correct me.

I am not making partisan suggestions, just suggestions. If Trump won under a district by district system so be it, but it would be more Democratic then getting all the electoral votes if you get 50% + 1 in a state.

Canada has had Conservative majorities in the past, just recently between 2011 to 2015, so its not like the districts (we call them ridings) are rigged towards one party or another. Ridings can be convinced to switch from one party to another.

One party can win most of the seats in a province one election, lose them all the next election. You have sway the ridings one way or another, the Canadian system allows far more swing districts then the US one. Alberta went from 40 years of Conservative rule to having a Social Democrat government.

Canada has never had an election as bad as the one the US has just had. Its hard to say the US has a great system, when it has had a election has lowered the tone of debate and divided the US more. No one in other democracies is looking to this election as a shining example of a successful democracy.

The length of the campaign seasons in the US is terrible. Last year, Canada had a 3 month campaign season and that is the longest one we had, Canadians would be unhappy with the year and a half one America has.

Its naive to say the US has the best system in the world, that its system doesn't need reform or that it can't learn something from other democracies.

 

[KevanG]

Canada tends to talk about the issues at hand and not about religion, how 'nasty' or 'deplorable' the opposition is and I haven't seen what amounts to race riots happen in the past few elections once someone got elected.

It helps make clear who you'd like in office.

 

[SV Fan]

Adding in more House seats is a fine idea. But good luck with that.

You know, the first time Trump has to give a speech about a mass shooting at Trump Tower is going to be a thing.

I am not even saying add more house seats but you can increase the electoral vote count by not tieing it to congressmen and senators

I should also add for the Senate, any city with more then 1M people should get their own Senator(1 Senator for every million people), maybe instead of changing the electoral vote system those extra senators could even out thing a bit more because in California for instance you would have senators in LA(3), San Jose and I believe San Diego. I should also add if you in a city that has it's own Senator you can't vote in the State Senator races(thus making State Senators more representative of the State then the one big city they pander to)

 

[summerteeth]

If Senator Boxer's legislation to do away with the electoral college comes to pass, the Bernie crowd might actually be able to get their guy, or someone like him, into the oval office.

That would require a Constitutional Amendment. Do you realize that this is never going to happen? Do you realize what that even means?

 

[summerteeth]

I am not even saying add more house seats but you can increase the electoral vote count by not tieing it to congressmen and senators

I should also add for the Senate, any city with more then 1M people should get their own Senator(1 Senator for every million people), maybe instead of changing the electoral vote system those extra senators could even out thing a bit more because in California for instance you would have senators in LA(3), San Jose and I believe San Diego. I should also add if you in a city that has it's own Senator you can't vote in the State Senator races(thus making State Senators more representative of the State then the one big city they pander to)

That's insanity.

 

[2kt09]

I am not making partisan suggestions, just suggestions. If Trump won under a district by district system so be it, but it would be more Democratic then getting all the electoral votes if you get 50% + 1 in a state.

As long as by district-by-district you mean county-by-county.

Canada has had Conservative majorities in the past, just recently between 2011 to 2015, so its not like the districts (we call them ridings) are rigged towards one party or another.

One party can win most of the seats in a province one election, lose them all the next election. You have sway the ridings one way or another, the Canadian system allows far more swing districts then the US one.

Canada has never had an election as bad as the one the US has just had.

Just a suggestion, you guys could use more proportional representation since you already have the benefit of, like with the UK, having more parties than the major 2. We do caucuses within the major 2 as other parties slowly but surely gain a foothold. Those definitely had the much needed boost this year.

 

[SV Fan]

That's insanity.

How is it insanity? If a State like Wyoming or Vermont can have 2 Senators why can't a city with more then 350k people then either of those states get it's own representation

 

[summerteeth]

How is it insanity? If a State like Wyoming or Vermont can have 2 Senators why can't a city with more then 350k people then either of those states get it's own representation

You just described the House of Representatives. It's exactly why we have a bicameral legislature. So that the big states don't overrun the small states. This is civics 101 people. Let's all open our textbooks to chapter 5 Federalism and discuss the Great Compromise.

 

[SV Fan]

You just described the House of Representatives. It's exactly why we have a bicameral legislature. So that the big states don't overrun the small states. This is civics 101 people. Let's all open our textbooks to chapter 5 Federalism and discuss the Great Compromise.

Look at my post on the last page about 100 electors and 4M people. Because something makes sense in 1790 doesn't mean it's the best possible system in 2016

 

[summerteeth]

Look at my post on the last page about 100 electors and 4M people. Because something makes sense in 1790 doesn't mean it's the best possible system in 2016

California has 55/538 electoral votes that's about 10% of the entire electoral college. California has 12% of the population in the country. That's pretty proportional. The system isn't as flawed as you think.

Your idea not only changes the Electoral College system and puts it way out of whack by giving California even more importance but it also disrupts a different branch of the government and makes the Senate some weird hybrid for no real reason.

 

[The Overlord]

As long as by district-by-district you mean county-by-county.

Well I am not an expert on Canadian ridings vs. American counties, so I can't make that type of direct comparison. I am suggesting this rather basic suggestion, rather the US whole sale copying Canada.

Just a suggestion, you guys could use more proportional representation since you already have the of, like with the UK, having more parties than the major 2. We do caucuses within the major 2 as other parties slowly but surely gain a foothold. Those definitely had the much needed boost this year.

Prime Minister Trudeau ran on changing the first past the post system, but people are having disagreements on what should replace it.

I think the fact that Canada has more then 2 parties helps a lot and we also don't have parties at the municipal level, which means no partisanship at that level.

There is far less partisanship in Canada then the US.

I still think the Canadian system is better then the American system. The Canadian system has its flaws, it has a useless appointed Senate that is supposed to promote regional representation, but really has no power, does nothing and just creates the odd spending scandal. However I prefer my system, even with our useless Senate, over the long, sensationalist, partisan, gerrymandered system the US has. The Senate spending scandals that pop up occasionally are kids stuff compared to what Trump is proposing.

Canada has never had an election as bad as the 2016 American election and we have never had an election season that lasted a year and a half.

 

[Victarion]

That would require a Constitutional Amendment. Do you realize that this is never going to happen? Do you realize what that even means?

No to both questions.

 

[2kt09]

Prime Minister Trudeau ran on changing the first past the post system, but people are having disagreements on what should replace it.

I think the fact that Canada has more then 2 parties helps a lot and we also don't have parties at the municipal level, which means no partisanship at that level.

No municipal level? I should have known given the pop. difference + the places inhabited per capita.
Also, the prime minister is pre-chosen by the party? That's absurd.

There is far less partisanship in Canada than the US.

Surprising since you have more parties, thus more identities.
All I ever hear from every democratic nation is still Liberal vs Conservative.

I still think the Canadian system is better then the American system. The Canadian system has its flaws, it has a useless appointed Senate that is supposed to promote regional representation, but really has no power, does nothing and just creates the odd spending scandal. However I prefer my system, even with our useless Senate, over the long, sensationalist, partisan, gerrymandered nightmare system the US has.

I have my own solutions, but for now the big problem does seem to be that privatized sensationalism of this gerrymandering.

 

[summerteeth]

No to both questions.

Well, basically you need 2/3 of the House and 2/3 of the Senate to vote in support of it. Then you need 3/4 of the states to ratify said amendment. So 38 states need to support it.

 

[The Overlord]

No municipal level? I should have known given the pop. difference + the places inhabited per capita.
Also, the prime minister is pre-chosen by the party? That's absurd.

Prime Ministers are chosen by which party gets the most seats and who is the party leader is, is determined by a leadership convention:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_convention

Guess what, those things don't last a year and thus we do not have super long election system, which makes our population happy.

There is a municipal level of government, but no parties at the municipal level. Why are parties needed at that level? Candidates for mayor or councilors don't need to be in party run a city, parties are only needed for the more complex levels of government.

Its a bit hard for you to successfully criticize the Canadian system, when I know far more about the American system then you know about the Canadian one.

America just elected reality TV star with no experience who doesn't even seem happy he won, that is far more absurd then anything in the Canadian system.

Surprising since you have more parties, thus more identities.
All I ever hear from every democratic nation is still Liberal vs Conservative.

A larger variety of parties allows for a larger variety of viewpoints, more competition of viewpoints can involve more debate and more compromise. Instead of two parties just fighting all the time, a third party can become relevant and the two other parties may have to make deals with this third part to get things done. Far less tribalism that way.

I have my own solutions, but for now the big problem does seem to be that privatized sensationalism of this gerrymandering.

What are you getting at? That sensationalism and gerrymandering are both serious issues or that the gerrymandering issue has been sensationalized?

I don't see why some Americans are opposed to learning things from other Democracies, it never hurts to keep an open mind to new ideas.

 

[2kt09]

Prime Ministers are chosen by which party gets the most seats and who is the party leader is, is determined by a leadership convention:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leadership_convention

Guess what, those things don't last a year and thus we do not have super long election system, which makes our population happy.

Good for you, guys. Ours are likely longer because those primary candidates have more ground to cover and more people to get their message across.
3 months is the time from when the candidates of the major parties have been directly elected & announced to when the people decide. The electoral college has to organize all of those general election votes cast and vote with their respective majority to seal the deal.

I still can't wrap my head around how you guys depend on the winning party to decide on the nation's leader. For us, that's the equivalent of what happens in the Senate and the House, but those leaders don't suddenly become an entirely separate branch of government.

There is a municipal level of government, but no parties at the municipal level. Why are parties needed at that level?

I'd assume because people still don't do their research, thus vote based on party alignment, which on my ballot there were 6 different parties. Plus, those municipal candidates, outside of mayorship, don't seem to campaign much or get the word out.

It's a bit hard for you to successfully criticize the Canadian system, when I know far more about the American system than you know about the Canadian one.

You barely understood why we even have an electoral college.

A larger variety of parties allows for a larger variety of viewpoints, more competition of viewpoints can involve more debate and more compromise. Instead of two parties just fighting all the time, a third party can become relevant and the two other parties may have to make deals with this third party to get things done. Far less tribalism that way.

I'm a big proponent of doing away with parties because we're just turning representational democracy into any ol' sports match.

What are you getting at? That sensationalism and gerrymandering are both serious issues or that the gerrymandering issue has been sensationalized?

The gerrymandering was already a problem, but this election sensationalized those divisions, so the latter clearly made things worse.

 

[The Overlord]

Good for you, guys. Ours are likely longer because those primary candidates have more ground to cover and more people to get their message across.
3 months is the time from when the candidates of the major parties have been directly elected & announced to when the people decide. The electoral college has to organize all of those general election votes cast and vote with their majority to seal the deal.

Are seriously telling me that it is impossible to stream line that process and you seriously need a campaign process that lasts a year and a half?

Permanent campaign modes is big part of why the US system is broken.


Its not like America is at the top of the Democracy Index:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Democracy_Index

America is 20, right before Italy, the first flawed democracy and now that America elected its own Berlusconi, you might go down a notch or two, repeating Italy's mistakes.

I still can't wrap my head around how you guys depend on the winning party to decide on the nation's leader. For us, that's the equivalent of what happens in the Senate and the House, but those leaders don't suddenly become an entirely separate branch of government.

The Prime Minister is part the legislative body, he has a seat in the House of Commons and has to answer opposition questions every day he is there.

I can't believe Americans do not allow for the legislative body to directly question the President, it seems like there is less to hold the President's feet to the fire then a Canadian PM.

I'd assume because people still don't do their research, thus vote based on party alignment, which on my ballot there were 6 different parties. Plus, those municipal candidates, outside of mayorship, don't seem to campaign much or get the word out.

Its not perfect, but at least we are not fighting over the party loyalty of the dog catcher.

Occasionally you will get a wacko like Rob Ford, but some boring old conservative guy is running Toronto now.

You barely even understood why we even have an electoral college.

I understand why it exists (to prevent big populous city from dominating smaller rural communities) I do not think it serves that purpose well at this point. I understand it, I just think it doesn't think it works. Frankly I think the whole American system is Byzantine and over complicated, I think we can cut some fat out and stream line things. How many Americans know why the Electoral College exists?

And you did make a few assumptions about the Canadian system, you can't accuse me of talking about things you don't know about and then make some assumptions with no basis to them.

I'm a big proponent of doing away with parties because we're just turning representational democracy into any ol' sports match.

How would you do that? Every democracy I can think of is based around parties.

The gerrymandering was already a problem, but this election sensationalized those divisions.

I will agree with this.

I am not saying the Canadian system is perfect or America has to adopt every aspect of it (America is not a Westminster system, so the systems are pretty different) but this election has revealed some flaws with the American system and looking to other democracies is not a bad idea.

 

[TheVileOne]

Again. Black or white. I pity those who see things either or. The world isn't that narrow.

When I see absolutes, I can't help but think of:



And this goes for everything. I got lucky enough, or cursed enough, to basically be in the dead middle of many many things sociologically. As that guy, I've seen how ridiculous people get with absolutes when they can get a lot more done on both sides through working together and through more people acknowledging that the world isn't black or white.

Sounds like a lot of the anti-Trump people here are the ones only dealing in absolutes like the Sith. Just saying.

 

[2kt09]

Are seriously telling me that it is impossible to stream line that process and you seriously need a campaign process that lasts a year and a half?

I'm not. Heck, even our current president has to concede to the fact that Trump can "mobilize people" and he does so in a very short time span.
So, it's up to other candidates to attain that skill set.

Permanent campaign modes is big part of why the US system is broken.

Term Limits + Anti-Lobbying Clause. "Positive things that could come out..."

The Prime Minister is part the legislative body, he has a seat in the House of Commons and has to answer opposition questions every day he is there.

I can't believe Americans do not allow for the legislative body to directly question the President, it seems like there is less to hold the President's feet to the fire then a Canadian PM.

So heated, our government had to shutdown for a couple weeks because of it.

I understand why it exists (to prevent big populous cities from dominating smaller rural communities) I do not think it serves that purpose well at this point. I understand it, I just think it doesn't think it works. Frankly I think the whole American system is Byzantine and over complicated, I think we can cut some fat out and stream line things. How many Americans know why the Electoral College exists?

Not enough, unfortunately. We have a handful of big populous cities/states that are mostly single party supporters. So, based on just the popular vote, this nation would be ran by one party for decades OR candidates will only try to convince those few cities neglecting the rest of the country.

And you did make a few assumptions about the Canadian system, you can't accuse me of talking about things you don't know about and then make some assumptions with no basis to them.

I explicitly stated I did from the start and welcomed you to correct me on those assumptions.

How would you do that? Every democracy I can think of is based around parties.

You simply put an end to it. Individuals and their perspective on governing is more valuable, more specific than the collective they sprouted out of. Also, it incentivizes voters to have to actually research those candidates. This doesn't mean once elected they can't build whatever caucuses or groups within the government.

 

[Kyle]

Sounds like a lot of the anti-Trump people here are the ones only dealing in absolutes like the Sith. Just saying.

If that was against me, I'm one of the few that's been acting as a mediator saying both sides are reprehensible for their actions as well as bigotry. You know, just saying.

On here, yeah you have more anti-Trump so you have more who push it to the Black Panthers (or brotherhood of mutants) type level. Elsewhere is where you see a lot more of the pro-Trump dealing with absolutes. For example the belief that all those against Trump supported Hillary, which isn't really helping matters at all since it makes a lot think it's a political rather than humanitarian battle going on now.

 

[TheVileOne]

You say you are acting like a mediator Kyle. But other times, you act like the exact opposite from what I've seen. Anyway, done with politics for now. Back to complaining about Power Ranger zords.

 

[Kyle]

You say you are acting like a mediator Kyle. But other times, you act like the exact opposite from what I've seen. Anyway, done with politics for now. Back to complaining about Power Ranger zords.

I should stress - I see Trump as evil. I will not ever stand for Trump. To me he's evil on a humanitarian level. The guy's a fascist who studied Mein Kampf (on record as saying this in Vanity Fair) and has prominently brought alt-rights in to fill his cabinet. I was going to give him the benefit of the doubt when he said "stop" - then the next day he hired a famous anti-semite as his #1 strategist. However, I do remind people that not all Trump supporters are bigots and have been ragged on for doing as such. Thus, I'm mediator between the voting camps themselves - just, not behind Emperor Trumpatine wanting a First Order.