Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
Vader

The Next President

Recommended Posts

Trump's rise to me isn't so much an indictment of the US political system, as it is some structural elements of it that have become more common in recent years.  Interestingly enough, the whole thing started with an abduction and alleged murder by freemasons when John Quincy Adams was president.  I think that most people, myself included, don't understand how the primary system in the US works as well as we should, and the importance that has been placed on it in recent years.  Most people are familiar with Citizens united, and it's effect on the amount of money in politics, but the problems started way before then.  There was at various points in our history a few scattered political parties, and those parties would coalesce into larger groups during elections but were not formally linked.  The primary system is what created the republican and democratic parties as we know them today, where those parties have full time employees and fundraising mechanisms that never turn off.  Someone like trump is the inevitable consequence of money, gerrymandering, the electoral college, and the creation of a political industry, something I don't think anyone understands quite well enough to come up with a remedy for.  The primary system has become so ingrained in our politics that no one considers any parties other than the democrats and republicans because they effectively run our elections.  Independent candidates, and candidates of other parties, don't appear in televised presidential debates because the RNC and DNC simply decide not to invite them.  We often forget this, as many of their members are representatives of government, but the democratic and republican national committees are not actually government organizations.

 

Personally I think Trump's days are numbered, it's only a matter of time until he has to tone down his rhetoric to win in a general election, or does something that breaks his mystique.  Trump may be winning in primaries while being supported by frustrated voters, and when districts are considered arbitrarily by the party branch in that state, but that is a far cry from the circumstances of a general election, not to mention the caucuses.  I mean on the other side of the aisle, the superdelegate system basically exists so the democratic party elites can put forward whoever the want, which at this point should be pretty clear is Hillary Clinton.  Beyond that, it is really difficult I believe for anyone to say what is going to happen in this election.  The system we have has allowed the democrats and republicans to exert unprecedented control over swathes of the electorate, and I just don't see them as willing to mutually give that up.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The super delegates would go the way of the people, if it came to that. It would tear the party apart, otherwise. Or that's what more informed people have been telling me since the first primary this year. They're just there to make people think it's hopeless. An appearance of overwhelming victory, rather than a true rigging of the system.

Not that I expect it to swing Bernie's way. (Although I do hope!)

I've learned quite a bit about how our political process works this year (as it's the first year I chose to get involved), and a lot of this shit is seriously fucked up beyond all reason. It's insane to me how rigged everything feels when you start looking at it in detail.

There are three things I'd do if I had the power:

1) make voting mandatory. Fine people if they don't show up. Make voting days a holiday, no matter what day it is.

2) limit campaign funding to an amount provided by tax payers. No more contributions from anybody.

3) we have the technology now, so switch everything to popular vote, instead of all these weird layered systems. Get rid of gerrymandering. Get rid of the electoral college.

I dunno how realistic any if that is, and I know that even if possible, there's a lot more detail that would need to be figured out, but that's the shit that feels the most broken to me. I realize the first one in particular is probably the most controversial. It could poorly affect people who are stuck in shitty situations and can't make it to the voting stations. But they could still do mail in votes, so I dunno. I dunno. Everything just seems so broken. \:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The super delegates would go the way of the people, if it came to that. It would tear the party apart, otherwise. Or that's what more informed people have been telling me since the first primary this year. They're just there to make people think it's hopeless. An appearance of overwhelming victory, rather than a true rigging of the system.

Not that I expect it to swing Bernie's way. (Although I do hope!)

I've learned quite a bit about how our political process works this year (as it's the first year I chose to get involved), and a lot of this shit is seriously fucked up beyond all reason. It's insane to me how rigged everything feels when you start looking at it in detail.

There are three things I'd do if I had the power:

1) make voting mandatory. Fine people if they don't show up. Make voting days a holiday, no matter what day it is.

2) limit campaign funding to an amount provided by tax payers. No more contributions from anybody.

3) we have the technology now, so switch everything to popular vote, instead of all these weird layered systems. Get rid of gerrymandering. Get rid of the electoral college.

I dunno how realistic any if that is, and I know that even if possible, there's a lot more detail that would need to be figured out, but that's the shit that feels the most broken to me. I realize the first one in particular is probably the most controversial. It could poorly affect people who are stuck in shitty situations and can't make it to the voting stations. But they could still do mail in votes, so I dunno. I dunno. Everything just seems so broken. \:

If voting was mandatory it seems like you could just mail everyone an absentee ballot and forgo voting stations all together.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There are three things I'd do if I had the power:

1) make voting mandatory. Fine people if they don't show up. Make voting days a holiday, no matter what day it is.

2) limit campaign funding to an amount provided by tax payers. No more contributions from anybody.

3) we have the technology now, so switch everything to popular vote, instead of all these weird layered systems. Get rid of gerrymandering. Get rid of the electoral college.

 

This would be a good start, but ultimately you'd also need to 

 

4) Eliminate the electoral college system for presidential elections, and have the winner decided by the overall popular vote.  At the moment there is basically no reason for a democratic candidate to care what people in Texas say, or a republican candidate to care what people in California say.  For those that don't know, originally in the US people used to vote for electors, the number of which was determined by the population of the state.  Those electors would then go to a convention and vote whichever way they wanted, so it was still a nationwide contest.  Today however, if you win the majority of the votes in a state you get all the electoral college votes for that state (in most cases), so it is possible for a candidate to win the opverall popular vote but lose the election.  In order to do this however, you'd have to convince both the republic and democratic party to give up their power base.

5) Make campaigns publicly funded, with a requirement to get public funds being a number of signatures.  You want to know why Donald Trump was so easily able to start his campaign?  Because in the US if you want to get on the ballots, the requirement is that you raise 5,000 dollars.  You literally buy your way onto the ballot.

6) Hold debates run by a branch of the government, not by the political parties themselves so that all candidates appearing on the ballot get an equal chance.

7) Get rid of the idea of tickets, or voting for both a president and a vice president, and have the runner up be the vice president.  This is how our elections originally functioned, and I personally believe it was a great benefit that simply didn't catch on the way term limits did.

 

There is a lot more that would need to be done from there, but I doubt much of it would actually be possible.  

 

Edit. Also a bit of a clarification on superdelegates.  They only truly exist within the democratic party, in that there are high ranking members of the party in each state that can vote whichever way they wish.  That is why, despite Sanders' victories in many states, he didn't technically "win" any of them.  Those delegates are under no obligation to consider the opinion of the voters in their state.  The RNC has a similar system, where each state gets 3 additional delegates, but they are obligated to consider the public's opinion in casting their votes.  In both cases however, a system exists where a single person's vote counts as much as thousands of others.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Your number 4 is my number 3, and your number 5 is my number 2 (although I didn't explicitly lay it out like you did, that's what I was thinking). U:

 

I almost added a 4 to match your 6, but then didn't want to bother differentiating between gov't run debates and debates managed by third parties.

 

I hope by "runner up" you don't mean that, for example, Trump would be Hillary's VP... The reason they did away with that system is because it resulted in the VP trying to block everything the P was trying to do. They'd constantly be at war with each other.

 

The superdelegates can claim whatever they want for now, but if Sanders somehow turned this around and banked the most delegates in the end, and the superdelegates still picked Hillary anyway? People would lose their shit. The Democratic party would fall apart.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I hope by "runner up" you don't mean that, for example, Trump would be Hillary's VP... The reason they did away with that system is because it resulted in the VP trying to block everything the P was trying to do. They'd constantly be at war with each other.

 

That is exactly what I'm suggesting, but only part of it.  Our political system has been so designed to never require the parties to work together that effectively only 1 can get anything done, and in a way that party elites dictate.  Our political system was designed back when it took months weeks or months to cross the country, and only about 20% of the population was literate.  What made sense back then have become vestiges or are active impediments to modern democracy.  As you point out technology has progressed incredibly since then, but virtually none of that has become integrated into the political process.  I don't mean to go on a rant here, but in change the surface elements of our democracy I think we'll just end up compounding the problems. At a minimum we need structural changes to the various branches, if not a complete rethinking of the constitution.

 

As for superdelegates, I'm not convinced their dictating the outcome of the primary will have any lasting effect on the democratic primary.  Clinton still enjoys a great deal of support, and superdelegates exist exactly for the purpose of party officials

. This situation has played out a few times, even as recently as 2008, and since their inception superdelegates have come to dictate more and more the outcome of the primary process for the democratic party.  At this time, Clinton only has a couple hundred delegate lead over sanders if you don't consider superdelegates, and a nearly 600 delegate lead if you do consider them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

When Hillary ran against Obama in 2008, the superdelegates switched to Obama after it became clear he had the most delegates.

Trump and Hillary in the same office would be so pointless.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Why would it be so pointless?  Even if Bernie wins the nomination, and then the election, both congress and the senate are controlled by republicans.  I'm certain most of the obstructionism in recent years is due to Obama's race, but if both parties had an in to the executive branch I can't see either as being less likely to engage with it on legislative matters.  Some changes there might even lead to changes in the system of leadership in the senate and house, where the 2 party system is ingrained in the very legislative process.  The VP doesn't have much in the way of formal powers or responsibilities, so his ability to block a democratic candidate's agenda wouldn't be any greater than Ted Cruz's is right now.  The reason for many of the problems in our political system today is that the two parties have been able to consolidate their power so effectively that their involvement is a foregone conclusion.  Wouldn't you be more likely to get involved in a political process and consider third party candidates if it weren't a winner take all situation?  I know I would, and I think it would be a good first step in reversing the trend of lower and lower voter turnout.   

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I guess I get what you're saying... But I react in horror at the idea of there always being a guaranteed Republican in either spot.

 

I guess I don't much like Democrats either, but whatever! Better than the alternative.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am a supporter of Sanders, but he is wildly behind, no matter how you squint at the delegates.

 

Fortunately, Trump as the nominee for the Republican party is just about their own worst nightmare. That's exactly the reason they're starting to jockey and line up to try and split the convention. Not only does he not represent the Republican base interests, he's lined up to get absolutely annihilated in a general election.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yes, Sanders won't win.

 

However, it's dangerous to act like Trump has no chance of winning.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Speculating about ways to improve the voting system is interesting enough, but it seems like reality is moving in the opposite direction with voter ID laws and campaign finance rulings. As an outsider, I wonder how much of this is due to ingrained cultural notions of US exceptionalism. It feels like there's this expectation to balance any kind of criticism with a reminder that the US is obviously still number one, and the "world's greatest democracy". Is this big ole mess allowed to stay messy and get even messier because political figures can't speak harsh truths for fear of being perceived as unpatriotic?

 

The weird thing about Trump is that Austria, too, recently saw a clownish, old, rich guy with silly opinions try to enter the politics, and it was a total failure. Maybe that speaks to a different political climate, maybe we got lucky that he wasn't as charismatic as Trump, or maybe local xenophobes are just satisfied sticking with the nationalist parties that have consistently been making gains here.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie is less than 200 delegate down if you don't factor in Superdelegates with 3k left to go. It's a little early to call it.

 

I agree with you guys that our election process and messed up, it's hard to change a broken system when you must rely on it to try to enact change, it's a hard thing to try to fix. 

 

 

 

 

The weird thing about Trump is that Austria, too, recently saw a clownish, old, rich guy with silly opinions try to enter the politics, and it was a total failure. Maybe that speaks to a different political climate, maybe we got lucky that he wasn't as charismatic as Trump, or maybe local xenophobes are just satisfied sticking with the nationalist parties that have consistently been making gains here.

 

I think the thing with Trump is that he has spent the last 20 years selling his brand to the American people, he has has a crazy excited base who are extremely anti-establishment. I honestly think they are a tiny minority of voters but are just great with voter turnout. It's embarrassing how few people vote in this country. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Bernie is less than 200 delegate down if you don't factor in Superdelegates with 3k left to go. It's a little early to call it.

 

Hey, I continue to hold out hope. I want to believe. But when I think about it realistically, his chances are super slim!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bit, but (and I wasn't into politics at that time, so feel free to call me out on any false things!) from what I understand, around this time it was already obvious Obama was more popular. He didn't lose Super Tuesday, right? That's a big thing. Plus, the states where Hillary loses are almost always really close, whereas the states where Bernie loses are almost always overwhelming losses.

 

I mean, you're right, regardless of anything I just said. It's not impossible. I hope! Hope!

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A little bit, but (and I wasn't into politics at that time, so feel free to call me out on any false things!) from what I understand, around this time it was already obvious Obama was more popular. He didn't lose Super Tuesday, right? That's a big thing. Plus, the states where Hillary loses are almost always really close, whereas the states where Bernie loses are almost always overwhelming losses.

 

I mean, you're right, regardless of anything I just said. It's not impossible. I hope! Hope!

 

Bernie crushed it in Kansas (like 68-32), so there's that! 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That's the thing though. Bernie Sanders has done well in states with higher than average white voters. I don't know if it is possible to become the Democratic nominee without doing better among blacks, latinos, etc. because that is an important and significant portion of the Democratic base.

 

The other interesting thing is Sanders does extremely well with young Democratic voters, whereas Clinton does much better with older Democratic voters. Young voters are much less reliable when it comes to voting in primaries however, so that's another structural disadvantage Sanders faces. There was sort of this theory he had that once the American people saw what Sanders was offering that would energize a lot of people that don't normally vote to go out and vote, but so far that theory hasn't panned out at all.

 

Too bad though, considering the potential Republican candidates, I think Sanders would be a perfectly competitive general election candidate.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

i wonder what the odds are we'll get a clinton/sanders ticket? too white? i feel like that used to be very common in both parties, for the 2nd place person to vp the winner. particularly in this case where the likely winner doesn't need somebody shoring up their foreign policy credentials. (regardless of how poorly you think of her foreign policy decisions. har har.) 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Sanders gets the nomination (which he won't) and gets into the presidency, will he be able to do much during his term? Especially when both houses will be runned by Republicans. I feel like we will have another gridlock where nothing is done.

Even though I don't like Hillary, I feel like she's the only one that can work within this heavy partisan atmosphere we're in. I just hope she does pull the same shit that Bill did during his presidency: passing laws that heavily punished black people in criminal system and the super predators bullshit.

If Trump gets the nomination, I just can't see him winning. I feel that the Democratics will have the presidency for a while, while the Republicans will have the Senante and Congress.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

if clinton or sanders win it will likely be in a bit of a sweep. assuming they're facing cruz or trump the potential for downballot massacre is significant. particularly with trump i believe. it was one of the reasons mcconnell was talking about basically running ads against trump, to protect senators. the senate can flip, house, unlikely. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Even if Sanders gets the nomination (which he won't) and gets into the presidency, will he be able to do much during his term? Especially when both houses will be runned by Republicans. I feel like we will have another gridlock where nothing is done.

Even though I don't like Hillary, I feel like she's the only one that can work within this heavy partisan atmosphere we're in. I just hope she does pull the same shit that Bill did during his presidency: passing laws that heavily punished black people in criminal system and the super predators bullshit.

If Trump gets the nomination, I just can't see him winning. I feel that the Democratics will have the presidency for a while, while the Republicans will have the Senante and Congress.

 

Honestly I feel like the strongest argument for Sanders over Clinton in the Democratic primaries is that Clinton will have a more hawkish foreign policy agenda compared to what the average Democratic primary voter would want. Congress can obstruct legislative agendas but they can't interfere to the same degree with foreign policy so that is really where you would see the biggest difference.

 

The legislative agendas are really more an exercise in affinity-based politics, and while I wouldn't say it is totally unimportant, I think it is a mistake when people get really wrapped up over whose healthcare plan would be better. We saw how difficult it was to get the ACA passed when Democrats had a majority in Congress (thanks to Blue Dogs, industry/lobby friendly politicians, etc.). The idea that anything besides small fixes can get passed strikes me as incredibly unrealistic.

 

There's also the question of administrative appointments, which is incredibly important, and I am incredibly ignorant about how that process works so I don't know what to say about it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Honestly I feel like the strongest argument for Sanders over Clinton in the Democratic primaries is that Clinton will have a more hawkish foreign policy agenda compared to what the average Democratic primary voter would want. Congress can obstruct legislative agendas but they can't interfere to the same degree with foreign policy so that is really where you would see the biggest difference.

 

Hillary is most decidedly not who you want in charge under the broad interpretations of the AUMF that Obama's DOJ has been working under. Both of the current AUMFs in effect are already stretched past their original intention, and arguably past the point of legality.

 

 

Specifically, the statute states

That the President is authorized to use all necessary and appropriate force against those nations, organizations, or persons he determines planned, authorized, committed, or aided the terrorist attacks that occurred on September 11, 2001, or harbored such organizations or persons, in order to prevent any future acts of international terrorism against the United States by such nations, organizations, or persons.

 

This is not as broad as the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, but it has been made to be so -- and in that, it has been rendered as large a failure. The legal acrobatics necessary to use this to justify drone strikes on ISIS are impressive, one would imagine, but it's impossible to say since the legal justifications for war are classified. Hillary's hawkishness would continue to stretch the statute, and given the precedence of classified legal justifications for war, the public would continue to be robbed of a substantive debate about whether or not going to war is the right thing to do. The only possible obstacle to further war would be for the UN Security Council, wherein the US has veto power, to pass a resolution authorizing advisory findings to be made on the legality of said war, and even that wouldn't be substantively meaningful; regardless of the findings, a suit cannot be brought against the federal government in its own country if it hasn't waived immunity. Rex non potest peccare.

 

(Please note: I am not a lawyer and wartime/international law is incredibly complex so any or all of this could be wrong.)

 

There's also the question of administrative appointments, which is incredibly important, and I am incredibly ignorant about how that process works so I don't know what to say about it.

 

You nominate someone and they get confirmed. You usually nominate someone who gave you a lot of money so that you could get elected, which is how a former lobbyist for cable corporations is the current chairman of the FCC.

 

After every presidential election, the appropriate committees of the Senate and House of Representatives get together and publish the Plum Book, which lists all the positions subject to noncompetitive appointments nationwide and when the terms of those positions are set to expire. As the terms of an appointment expire you appoint new members, or re-appoint the same members if they're still eligible. To continue with example of the FCC, the entire FCC board of commissioners have terms expiring 2017 - 2020, so by the time the next president has served their first term, there could be 5 new commissioners in charge of the FCC. Not immediately, but by the end of 2020.

 

(Please note: I am not an expert. I had it explained to me a few years ago at a bar in DC, I may be wrong about this as well.)

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This is not as broad as the Gulf of Tonkin resolution, but it has been made to be so -- and in that, it has been rendered as large a failure. The legal acrobatics necessary to use this to justify drone strikes on ISIS are impressive, one would imagine, but it's impossible to say since the legal justifications for war are classified. Hillary's hawkishness would continue to stretch the statute, and given the precedence of classified legal justifications for war, the public would continue to be robbed of a substantive debate about whether or not going to war is the right thing to do. The only possible obstacle to further war would be for the UN Security Council, wherein the US has veto power, to pass a resolution authorizing advisory findings to be made on the legality of said war, and even that wouldn't be substantively meaningful; regardless of the findings, a suit cannot be brought against the federal government in its own country if it hasn't waived immunity. Rex non potest peccare.

 

This is my main concern with a Trump presidency, where Obama and Bush were given incredible leeway to act with the military as they saw fit.  Technically he doesn't even need congressional approval to deploy some marine and special operations units, but if he were given the same liberty as his predecessors I can only imagine how disastrous it would be.  I'm also no Hillary fan myself, but honestly my biggest problem with her are her supporters.  For example today I saw a bunch of friends posting this image that said "I'm for Universal health care, and I'm with Her".  Then I thought to myself, well she isn't for universal health care, it is expressly not a part of per platform, so why is this the reason you support her?  I think it's hard to see anything but the vitriol Trump has been producing in his campaign, or maybe this is just me being a bit older and more aware of these things, but I just can't get over how much of people's opinions are informed by meaningless marketing slogans like that.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×