Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[The new erato]

Somebody please explain me the logic behind all this primaries stuff. Why is it better than simply having all candidates run in November and let the one who gets more than 50% of the votes win, or if nobody gets that, let the first two go for the runoff?

But that would take all the show and fun out of it? I.e the same reason that a finale in an US cup in some sport never is one match, but five or seven, and that each match has lots of breaks so you can have some fun, celebrations, hot dogs and TV Commercials. So it would go against the grain to keep it that simple, so to say.

[Florestan]

But that would take all the show and fun out of it? I.e the same reason that a finale in an US cup in some sport never is one match, but five or seven, and that each match has lots of breaks so you can have some fun, celebrations, hot dogs and TV Commercials. So it would go against the grain to keep it that simple, so to say.

Well, when the system was designed, and for more than a century thereafter, there were no Superbowl, no celebrations, no hotdogs and no commercials. There must be more than that behind it, don´t you think?

EDIT: timeframe expanded.

[The new erato]

Well, when the system was designed, and for more than a century thereafter, there were no Superbowl, no celebrations, no hotdogs and no commercials. There must be more than that behind it, don´t you think?

EDIT: timeframe expanded.

I guess at that time, there were a meeting by a very limited number of men in a few constituencies who decided who their representative were to be and that it were a good system.

With time it blew out of all proportions, but as it seemed perfectly fit to the US Entertainment industry, it was impossible to change it. Why give people bread when they can have cake instead?

[(poco) Sforzando]

Somebody please explain me the logic behind all this primaries stuff. Why is it better than simply having all candidates run in November and let the one who gets more than 50% of the votes win, or if nobody gets that, let the first two go for the runoff?

Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/zqn7cup

You do understand, first of all, that the US president is not elected by popular vote (otherwise Al Gore would have become president), but by each state's electors, the total number of which is equivalent to the total number of members (currently 538) of Congress? So to become president, the candidate must win 270 electoral votes, and when people vote for president in November, they vote for whichever electors carry their own state. And so the whole convoluted, labyrinthine system of primaries and caucuses is designed eventually for each party to choose its candidate, and then it's the electors who actually cast the deciding votes.

And if you think this is difficult to you to understand, believe me, it's every bit as difficult for most of us.

[drogulus]

Somebody please explain me the logic behind all this primaries stuff. Why is it better than simply having all candidates run in November and let the one who gets more than 50% of the votes win, or if nobody gets that, let the first two go for the runoff?

     An appeal to logic as prior cause for social evolution doesn't work very well.

     Karma Still a Bitch: Seattle Min Wage Edition

[drogulus]

     There are 1,079 unallocated delegates on the Repub side, then you have 156 pledged to the walking and stationary dead (Kasich will hold on to the convention and make a deal for something, make a king, whatever).

     Trump has 661, and needs 576 more. Cruz has 406 and needs 831 more. I don't see enough chances for Cruz to get close. Trump is approaching a first ballot nomination.

     Can an establishment conspiring with Cruz steal back the nomination from Trump? If Trump falls a few delegates short, as he might, and if the procedural machinations now underway pry a few more Trump delegates loose, the convention itself will become a festival of blatant corruption beyond anything in human memory. It's not, so I've read, against the law to offer or take cash bribes for political convention votes. There are many, many Trump delegates than can barely afford to pay their own bills to attend the convention. Me, I'd take money from both sides and when the whips came around it would be like "make me a final offer". I don't know if I'd have the brass to say it twice, though, principled as I am.

[André]

Trump foresees (pledges?) riots if he falls short by a few votes and is eliminated at the Convention.

From the NY Times: http://www.nytimes.com/politics/first-draft/2016/03/16/donald-trump-warns-of-riots-if-party-blocks-him-at-convention/?_r=0 

[Karl Henning]

http://www.youtube.com/v/cRly-0wwl_g

[drogulus]

Trump foresees (pledges?) riots if he falls short by a few votes and is eliminated at the Convention.

     Trump opponents are unlikely to riot over his defeat, so who's supposed to riot? Say what you will about Trump supporters, I don't think they are the sort that will riot on cue.

     Given the course of his campaign, it's really hard to tell when Trump is saying something too outlandish even for his supporters. He could threaten a "biblical plague" to rain down concrete bibles on Cruz supporters. Some Trumpists might say this would go too far.

[Pat B]

Can an establishment conspiring with Cruz steal back the nomination from Trump?

For this to succeed it will need near-complete unity. I'm not sure Cruz, an abrasive extremist with no experience in dealmaking, will get that.

[drogulus]

For this to succeed it will need near-complete unity. I'm not sure Cruz, an abrasive extremist with no experience in dealmaking, will get that.

     The effort will be led by the party apparatchicki, all hands on deck. Cruz will agree to be their tool. After the election he'll be told to piss off.

     

[Florestan]

Try this:
http://tinyurl.com/zqn7cup

Thank you. Most helpful.

And if you think this is difficult to you to understand, believe me, it's every bit as difficult for most of us.

Well, the mechanism in itself is not that complicated, although it takes some headscratching to figure it out. My question is rather --- why should it be so? Why is not the popular vote enough by itself? If the Electoral College does nothing more and nothing else than ratifying the popular vote then it is superfluous; if it nullifies the popular vote then it is undemocratic. In both cases there is no logical or moral reason for its existence. 

[André]

I have no idea whence the party election process began to take form. But I suspect it was drafted in the late 18th Century or early 19th - when there were no highways, no 'national' roads, and when communications from one outpost to the nearest city took some time. And every vote counted, down to the last. In the end, a State being what it was, a few weeks were necessary to connect all the dots and tally the popular votes. And then, on to the next state or group of states, and so on.

Is it possible that the process began form some 200 years ago and has not really been changed since ?

Sorry for any oversimplification, but that's how it looks from the outside  .

[The new erato]

Thank you. Most helpful.

Well, the mechanism in itself is not that complicated, although it takes some headscratching to figure it out. My question is rather --- why should it be so? Why is not the popular vote enough by itself? If the Electoral College does nothing more and nothing else than ratifying the popular vote then it is superfluous; if it nullifies the popular vote then it is undemocratic. In both cases there is no logical or moral reason for its existence. 

Historicallly it was difficult to collect/count votes I guess, much easier if each district elected a representative who travelled, cumbersomely, and represented his district. That was how the Norwegian constitution was decided, and I guess the US one as well.

Edit: Seems Andre has the same idea as me.

Why they have kept the system is quite another matter, you Americans seem quite wedded to your founding fathers ideas (as in gun legislation); not recognizing that the world has moved on?

[Gurn Blanston]

I have no idea whence the party election process began to take form. But I suspect it was drafted in the late 18th Century or early 19th - when there were no highways, no 'national' roads, and when communications from one outpost to the nearest city took some time. And every vote counted, down to the last. In the end, a State being what it was, a few weeks were necessary to connect all the dots and tally the popular votes. And then, on to the next state or group of states, and so on.

Is it possible that the process began form some 200 years ago and has not really been changed since ?

Sorry for any oversimplification, but that's how it looks from the outside  .

In America, anything is possible, even if it is nothing at all!    Yes, the process was instituted at the Beginning of Time, and is essentially unchanged since then. Ain't life grand?   

[Todd]

Do you really want to go that route? Then how about an All Native American Tribes Conference issueing a declaration stating that they have lost too many young men to USA wars against them to trust any American leaders ever again?

Many Native American leaders do not trust the US Federal Government, and with good reason.  I don't blame them one bit. 

Should undemocratic bridges be built? Most of them are undemocratic, most should be built. The Metro thing is an oddity that causes voters to get involved. Nobody cares how "undemocratic" our democratic bridge builders act most of the time. We have bridges, too. Someone built them. I'll vote for politicians that favor that, and then vote against them if they have the temerity to ask my permission.  

You are conflating two separate issues.  The CRC was an unelected commission, with Oregon delegates appointed by Democrats, that, due to incompetence, could not even select a bridge design to replace the current I5 crossing which has been in place for a century.  They considered many proposals, including a mega-project that would result in a huge bridge for cars and light rail, but then plans got scaled back, and then scaled back again, until they finally picked a design for cars only that couldn't be built for both engineering and legal reasons.  It took years and $175 million of taxpayers' money to reveal the full scope of incompetence involved in the project.  Bridges is tough, even for Dems.  Alas, for the Dems, another Dem, then Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler (the probable next mayor of Portland, and then Governor after that) publicly called into question the economic assumptions backers of the project used.

Metro, which is elected, pushed to build a light-rail extension into Clark County both in tandem with the CRC for a while, and then separately.  This would require at least another bridge, even without the CRC.  But Clark County voters did not support it, nor did Clark County elected officials.  And with bridge funding dead right now, it is going nowhere.

But fear not, the choo-choo cuckoos in Metro did see fit to build a light-rail line right up to Jantzen Beach, directly across the Columbia from Vancouver.  Part of the thinking was and is if they build it, the northern extension will come.  The dream will never die.  Plus, they pushed through another eastside line, are pushing for another westside line, and they are even looking to expand the boondoggle that is WES (at a per-ride subsidy rate of $13.50) from one small suburb down to the state capitol in Salem at a proposed initial cost of a mere $10 million/mile.  Based on the experience with WES, I would guess 3-4 times that would actually be needed.  Wasteful, useless public projects are alive and well, drogulus, count on it.

Why they have kept the system is quite another matter, you Americans seem quite wedded to your founding fathers ideas (as in gun legislation); not recognizing that the world has moved on?

All that's needed to swap out the Electoral College with a popular vote is one Amendment to the Constitution.  Should be easy. 

Incidentally, incorporation of the Second Amendment only occurred this century.  A proper court balance, depending on one's views, can reverse that.

[drogulus]

   

You are conflating two separate issues.  The CRC was an unelected commission, with Oregon delegates appointed by Democrats, that, due to incompetence, could not even select a bridge design to replace the current I5 crossing which has been in place for a century.  They considered many proposals, including a mega-project that would result in a huge bridge for cars and light rail, but then plans got scaled back, and then scaled back again, until they finally picked a design for cars only that couldn't be built for both engineering and legal reasons.  It took years and $175 million of taxpayers' money to reveal the full scope of incompetence involved in the project.  Bridges is tough, even for Dems.  Alas, for the Dems, another Dem, then Oregon Treasurer Ted Wheeler (the probable next mayor of Portland, and then Governor after that) publicly called into question the economic assumptions backers of the project used.

     I see, routine mismanagement is liberal idiocy. These things happen all the time. They are ideological because Dems fight nimbyism and other forms of hostile localism, while the Repubs are safe behind their private sector cowardice. In Massachusetts there are 2 kinds of public infrastructure, the Dem kind that get built and often sucks (the Big Dig) on its way to becoming great, or not great like the next partial tunnel collapse, and then the other kind, the "Repub alternative", also known as "no such thing as a public good".

     

Wasteful, useless public projects are alive and well, drogulus, count on it.

     That's a net win for everyone, including you. It's a risk you have to take. The bridge to nowhere is the price you pay for all the bridges the Repub "no such thing as the public good" geniuses cross to get to work. Too bad the Dems aren't more competent, and too bad the Repubs are gutless with their "high principles" fronting for their shallow interests.

[Todd]

I see, routine mismanagement is liberal idiocy.

Now you're getting it.

That's a net win for everyone, including you.

No, it's not.  Such programs harm social welfare, eroding confidence in government (not so important) and misallocating limited resources (very important).

Of course, I will admit that one of Metro's policies does benefit me directly: Metro's artificial urban growth boundary helps inflate home prices.  These policies contributed to the Portland area having the highest in the nation 11%+ property value growth in the last year.  Educated, middle-income and upper-middle-income and upper-income families who own homes reap a substantial economic benefit for doing nothing.  (And thanks to three ballot measures, voted on by The People directly, property tax increases are capped each year, budgetary needs be damned.)  Of course, the poor and young are priced out of the housing market, and now average rent in the area is the same as my mortgage payment - and I increase my equity each installment paid whereas renters get squat.  Here in the Portland area, the Left is doing more to hurt the poor and young than Republicans ever dreamed of!  Go team D!

[drogulus]

No, it's not.  Such programs harm social welfare, eroding confidence in government (not so important) and misallocating limited resources (very important).

Of course, I will admit that one of Metro's policies does benefit me directly: Metro's artificial urban growth boundary helps inflate home prices.  These policies contributed to the Portland area having the highest in the nation 11%+ property value growth in the last year.  Educated, middle-income and upper-middle-income and upper-income families who own homes reap a substantial economic benefit for doing nothing.  (And thanks to three ballot measures, voted on by The People directly, property tax increases are capped each year, budgetary needs be damned.)  Of course, the poor and young are priced out of the housing market, and now average rent in the area is the same as my mortgage payment - and I increase my equity each installment paid whereas renters get squat.  Here in the Portland area, the Left is doing more to hurt the poor and young than Republicans ever dreamed of!  Go team D!

     Better public infrastructure is a better solution than poor infrastructure taken as proof that no building is better. The net win comes from all the building, good and bad, since the good can only come with the bad. Of course you know this, but you like the safety of maintaining that failure to succeed means deliberate failure is smart. No, the liberal idiots are right to try and sometimes fail. All public infrastructure had to be built. It doesn't get better by not building the good liberal idiot projects, all the good ones, to prevent the bad ones.

[Todd]

All public infrastructure had to be built. It doesn't get better by not building the good liberal idiot projects, all the good ones, to prevent the bad ones.

Patently false.  What you apparently don't know about some of the Portland programs is that some rely on existing private infrastructure.  There were also alternative public programs, proposed by Liberals, that focused on the far less expensive option of using buses and increased budgets for road maintenance.  But choo-choo cuckoos here, they can't get enough.  To be fair, cost-benefit analyses can be hard to read through ideologically tinted glasses.