Countdown to Extinction: The 2016 Presidential Election

[Madiel]

I'm glad you came 'round and I didn't have to correct you. 

The second time I was merely quoting the words from the graphic. Congress and Parliament are merely two different terms for a legislature. What the United States actually doesn't have is a Westminster system of government where the executive is headed by members of the legislature. But it still does have a Parliament. There are in fact many countries where the term "parliament" is used in a Presidential system.

That this is so is rather clear to an Australian constitutional lawyer, because our Parliament is deliberately based on your Congress. Our system was intentionally designed to fuse USA and UK aspects.

[Ken B]

I don't care what any of you think about Obama ("worst president in history," and other yapping), but I thought his speech tonight was outstanding. He just mopped the floor with that 70-year-old insect.

I don't feel the need to debate if we should be truthful, but I guess Obama disagrees.

I thought this a pretty good analysis.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/06/president-obamas-sermon-of-2-perversions.html

You don't have to like Trump to favor honest discussion do you?

[mc ukrneal]

I haven't read the article that accompanies this graphic, but hey, GMG loves speculating wildly on things without context, right?!

I don't subscribe to the Economist, but the numbers look wrong to me. Even in a Parliamentary system like the UK has, you vote for your local MP right? So if that is the case, the Democrats (represented by Sanders and Clinton) would not have a majority (if we use Congressmen as a proxy). There is also no clean way to split to the conservative side. It looks like they split the numbers based on national views/votes, rather than local votes.

[Jo498]

This depends on the system. The UK is also badly stacked agains smaller parties because one votes only for the local MP and only the winner of the local election gets into parliament. So if the votes for one spot in parliament are 35% for the conservative, 30 for the labour, 20 for the libertarian and 15 for the Green, the conservative enters parliament and 65% of vote(r)s in that region are not represented.
The graphic probably thinks of a purely proportional system where one only votes for a party and votes from the whole country are taken together. So if the example was an average region and there were the 4 parties mentioned, with a purely proportional system parties in the parliament would have the above-mentioned percentages of seats. And there would probably be a conservative-libertarian coalition (55%) ruling that imaginary country. Because for some decisions MPs might not vote along party lines, for some important ones a quorum of 2/3 might be required etc. the non-ruling parties in parliament also get to have some influence.

[(poco) Sforzando]

I don't feel the need to debate if we should be truthful, but I guess Obama disagrees.

I thought this a pretty good analysis.

http://althouse.blogspot.com/2016/06/president-obamas-sermon-of-2-perversions.html

You don't have to like Trump to favor honest discussion do you?

Yes, I read it, including 300+ comments including one from Ken B. "Honest" discussion, of course, is anything that snipes at Obama for any possible shortcoming, real or imagined, and concedes nothing to him.

[Brian]

I don't subscribe to the Economist, but the numbers look wrong to me. Even in a Parliamentary system like the UK has, you vote for your local MP right? So if that is the case, the Democrats (represented by Sanders and Clinton) would not have a majority (if we use Congressmen as a proxy). There is also no clean way to split to the conservative side. It looks like they split the numbers based on national views/votes, rather than local votes.

What they did is eliminate gerrymandering and use census polling instead. Gerrymandering has a pretty heavy effect on the current Congress. In 2012, Democrats got 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, but Republicans won 33 more seats.

[Karl Henning]

Jesus wanted them to do that.

[Madiel]

What they did is eliminate gerrymandering and use census polling instead. Gerrymandering has a pretty heavy effect on the current Congress. In 2012, Democrats got 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, but Republicans won 33 more seats.

Seems a bit odd to eliminate gerrymandering, though. You can certainly have gerrymandering in "parliaments". A couple of Australian States definitely used to. I'm not sure whether we ever had the same problem at the federal level.

So maybe the graph should have said "if we had a Westminster system and an independent electoral commission"...

[Ken B]

Aside from anything else, when you change the rules you change how people vote. So the Economist trick is really just foolish click bait.

[Todd]

In 2012, Democrats got 1.4 million more votes than Republicans, but Republicans won 33 more seats.

Most excellent.  Democrats have to up their game.

This illustrates why, for all the hoopla with this election, it is the election of 2020 that will really be important.  Can't wait.

[Ken B]

Whatever happened to Merrick Garland?

I saw a lot of twaddle from both sides, but basically I think it's unreasonable to hold off voting on a nominee for almost a year. This is a place where even the US constitution has unwritten aspects. It assumes people will act reasonably. Limbo for a year is unreasonable. If he's bad, reject him, if he's good confirm him.

To me he seems a perfectly acceptable, mainstream choice. Not perhaps the choice Romney would have made, but Obama won the election. His nomination is in no way a provocation or extreme. I say vote on him, and confirm him.

[Brian]

I suspect we will see Merrick Garland confirmed when the Senate Republicans decide that Trump's chances are too low, and that they'd rather stick with Garland than risk Hillary nominating a genuine "liberal" mind like Paul Watford or Loretta Lynch. Of course, she's likely to get that chance anyway in a few years.

[Ken B]

I suspect we will see Merrick Garland confirmed when the Senate Republicans decide that Trump's chances are too low, and that they'd rather stick with Garland than risk Hillary nominating a genuine "liberal" mind like Paul Watford or Loretta Lynch. Of course, she's likely to get that chance anyway in a few years.

If we assume the GOP senators are smart, yes. Unsafe assumption.

[Parsifal]

If we assume the GOP senators are smart, yes. Unsafe assumption.

GOP legislators may be smarter than they seem. Then know that the slightest hint of cooperation with the enemy can result in loosing their primary challenge to a Tea Party loony. Look at Eric Cantor.

[Karl Henning]

GOP legislators may be smarter than they seem. Then know that the slightest hint of cooperation with the enemy can result in loosing their primary challenge to a Tea Party loony. Look at Eric Cantor.

So many thing to choose.  Other than the preservation of one's integrity, I mean.

[Brian]

Trump just told a crowd in Atlanta that "Belgium is a beautiful city."

[Ken B]

Trump just told a crowd in Atlanta that "Belgium is a beautiful city."

They speak the Austrian language there.

[Karl Henning]

Trump just told a crowd in Atlanta that "Belgium is a beautiful city."

They speak the Austrian language there.

I get phlegm in the throat just thinking of't.

[knight66]

He needs to learn from hos opponent and explain that he misspoke himself.

Mike

[Karl Henning]

Trump just told a crowd in Atlanta that "Belgium is a beautiful city."

"The Media have been falling all over themselves misconstruing what I said . . . ."