Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
Features, not bugs.I know most people are here for the two-party food fight, so this thread likely won't get much traction, but it seems we have a real problem with our election system. Neither party seems capable of, or interested in, nominating someone who will be a good leader for the country as a whole. And voters can't seem to break out of the habit of voting for Ds or Rs no matter how bad the candidates are. Why is that? And how can we fix it?
In my view, strategic voting (lesser-of-two-evils) is the biggest culprit. It tells us that we need to vote for bad candidates because the "other guy" is even worse. Fear is an easy sell, so the parties lean heavily on this strategy, spending most of their time demonizing the opponent rather than holding up the virtues of their candidate (which are virtually non-existent). Ranked choice would eliminate lesser-of-two-evils voting and finally allow voters to vote "against" candidates they find unacceptable (by ranking them last). This would discourage divisive partisan fear mongering and make it more likely that consensus seeking candidates are elected.
There other problems, of course, and I'm curious what you all think they are. Although, to be clear, I'm not talking about corruption or "stolen" elections. I'm talking about the systemic problems with the way we're doing elections that make it seemingly impossible for good leaders to get elected.
^ This.The Founders never intended for "professional" politicians to be in office for 4, 5, or even 6 DECADES!!!! The idea, and Trump was correct on this, was, is, and should be ordinary citizens coming from a variety of backgrounds to serve for a limited time in government, then leave when their term is up.
I've always advocated reform of the existing GOP. Get rid of the backstabbing two-faced RINOs in favor of real Conservatives. Problem with multiple parties is that influence is greatly diluted to the point of ineffectiveness.Features, not bugs.
Two criminal gangs dominate US politics.
They won’t permit any other party to get off the ground, and they control the entire apparatus.
Their ball, their field, their officials, their rules.
The End
Every "fake" democracy has that problem - not just the USA. AFAIK there is only a single true democracy on this planet, and that would be Switzerland.I know most people are here for the two-party food fight, so this thread likely won't get much traction, but it seems we have a real problem with our election system. Neither party seems capable of, or interested in, nominating someone who will be a good leader for the country as a whole. And voters can't seem to break out of the habit of voting for Ds or Rs no matter how bad the candidates are. Why is that? And how can we fix it?
In my view, strategic voting (lesser-of-two-evils) is the biggest culprit. It tells us that we need to vote for bad candidates because the "other guy" is even worse. Fear is an easy sell, so the parties lean heavily on this strategy, spending most of their time demonizing the opponent rather than holding up the virtues of their candidate (which are virtually non-existent). Ranked choice would eliminate lesser-of-two-evils voting and finally allow voters to vote "against" candidates they find unacceptable (by ranking them last). This would discourage divisive partisan fear mongering and make it more likely that consensus seeking candidates are elected.
There other problems, of course, and I'm curious what you all think they are. Although, to be clear, I'm not talking about corruption or "stolen" elections. I'm talking about the systemic problems with the way we're doing elections that make it seemingly impossible for good leaders to get elected.
Yeah, I don't know what the OP is talking about.Why Can't the Major Parties Produce Good Candidates? Why Can't We Elect Good Candidates?
Well….let’s look at recent candidates
Joe Biden- Almost 40 years in the Senate and 8 years as Vice President. Probably the most qualified candidate in history
Donald Trump- No Government experience, Unqualified both emotionally and intellectually
Barack Obama- One term Senator. Least qualified since JFK
George W Bush- Texas Governor, Executive experience
Bill Clinton- Arkansas Governor, small state
George HW Bush- 8 years VP, CIA Director, Congressman. Highly qualified
Well in that case you should never vote for an incumbent then... But you do.The Founders never intended for "professional" politicians to be in office for 4, 5, or even 6 DECADES!!!! The idea, and Trump was correct on this, was, is, and should be ordinary citizens coming from a variety of backgrounds to serve for a limited time in government, then leave when their term is up.
Really? We have term limits. They're called elections. What we need is a less apathetic electorate.Term limits, problem solved.
If I ran for office Republicans would go to my elementary school, and take a long hard look at my Permanent Record. They would warn the voters about all the times I had to stay after school for talking out of turn.It seems for the most part nobody worth voting for will even run for national office, especially POTUS, due to not being willing to put themselves and the families though the forth coming attacks.
No matter which party you belong to, if you run you will automatically have 1/3 or more of the country instantly hate you and attack everything you do. Your family will be fair game and any mistake you made in your life will be brought to the light of day for the whole world to know about.
Trump is a good argument against what he claims.The Founders never intended for "professional" politicians to be in office for 4, 5, or even 6 DECADES!!!! The idea, and Trump was correct on this, was, is, and should be ordinary citizens coming from a variety of backgrounds to serve for a limited time in government, then leave when their term is up.
Mandatory term limits you dumb shit.Really? We have term limits. They're called elections. What we need is a less apathetic electorate.
Trump was President for one term how the fuck can that be equated to a professional politician. Biden however fits the definition to a T. He has never had a real job and been a politician his entire adult life.Trump is a good argument against what he claims.
And you think that will get rid of corruption? It will actually increase itMandatory term limits you dumb shit.
You think being a politician isn't a "real job"? Your shift at 7-Eleven isn't as challengingTrump was President for one term how the fuck can that be equated to a professional politician. Biden however fits the definition to a T. He has never had a real job and been a politician his entire adult life.
The RNC/DNC are sleeping together in the same bed. Public education pushes 'groupthink over the all important 'critical thinking' process. The mantra "YOU DESERVE" takes precedent over "YOU HAVE TO EARN". Third party candidates are attacked by BOTH the DNC/RNC. Independent candidates are 'set up to fail' either by scandal or by being belittled. The RNC/DNC corporations DO NOT LIKE COMPETITION!I know most people are here for the two-party food fight, so this thread likely won't get much traction, but it seems we have a real problem with our election system. Neither party seems capable of, or interested in, nominating someone who will be a good leader for the country as a whole. And voters can't seem to break out of the habit of voting for Ds or Rs no matter how bad the candidates are. Why is that? And how can we fix it?
In my view, strategic voting (lesser-of-two-evils) is the biggest culprit. It tells us that we need to vote for bad candidates because the "other guy" is even worse. Fear is an easy sell, so the parties lean heavily on this strategy, spending most of their time demonizing the opponent rather than holding up the virtues of their candidate (which are virtually non-existent). Ranked choice would eliminate lesser-of-two-evils voting and finally allow voters to vote "against" candidates they find unacceptable (by ranking them last). This would discourage divisive partisan fear mongering and make it more likely that consensus seeking candidates are elected.
There other problems, of course, and I'm curious what you all think they are. Although, to be clear, I'm not talking about corruption or "stolen" elections. I'm talking about the systemic problems with the way we're doing elections that make it seemingly impossible for good leaders to get elected.
Which neither of the 2 criminal gangs will EVER agree to.Mandatory term limits you dumb shit.
^ Blatant Democrat hatred for the working class they pretend to represent on display.You think being a politician isn't a "real job"? Your shift at 7-Eleven isn't as challenging
^ Blatant Democrat hatred for the working class they pretend to represent on display.
Yet again.
Not what he claims, but what the Founders envisioned.Trump is a good argument against what he claims.
Ahh the plush lifestyle of the professional politician must be agonizing. All that dirty money filtering their offshore bank accounts. Yeah real challenging.You think being a politician isn't a "real job"? Your shift at 7-Eleven isn't as challenging
When I go to a doctor I want a doctor with a lot of experience. When I vote for a politician I want a politician with a lot of experience.Not what he claims, but what the Founders envisioned.
