And she's off! Hilary Clinton announces her intentions to run.

[Damen]

I just know that I don't want to vote for her. Not for political reasons as much as for the fact that I do not want to see presidential dynasties start to take shape. "And as people head to the polls for the 2056 presidential elections, one question is on everyone's mind: Who will be our next president, Bush or Clinton?"

Of course, I'm a registered independent which means that come primary season I get to stay home and eat an all American dinner of tacos and burritos. Fuck you, Oklahoma for not having a third party presidential candidate slot for me to vote for.

[Canadian Mojo]

I'll vote for Hillary Clinton assuming the 2016 election is still relevant to me.

By which I mean that I'm taking a summer job in Canada this year that I can hopefully turn into something more permanent, and if I'm still living in Canada next year I'm not sure how much the next American election will actually matter to me.

 

You really have no idea how important America's well being is to Canada's well being.

[Random Gal]

Fair enough. American military and foreign policy definitely have a lot of influence on the world stage.

[dpareja]

Fair enough. American military and foreign policy definitely have a lot of influence on the world stage.

It's not that with respect to Canada; it's economics. There's so much trade between the two countries that a hit to the US's economy will necessarily affect Canada's, as will US protectionist policies.

It's actually better for Canada when Republicans are running things in the States, because whatever else you might say about them, they (at least the non-insane ones) tend more towards free trade than Democratic politicians.

[Lt. Fred]

What sort of working political system could you devise that would elect an executive?

Can you explain that a bit?

Something else just occurred to me. The whole Hillary '16 thing reminded me of something, some sort of feeling like I've seen this before. Where she was the presumptive nominee, that the party's nomination was hers to lose. Why does that sound familiar?

The US system has a separately elected executive, which, I think, is a good move (in my political system, legislature and executive are the same, which is silly). But the US voting system is silly. Could there be one that isn't?

[Second Coming of Madman]

I'm sure as hell not ready for another Clinton's shady business dealings.

[Sigmaleph]

What sort of working political system could you devise that would elect an executive?

Can you explain that a bit?

Something else just occurred to me. The whole Hillary '16 thing reminded me of something, some sort of feeling like I've seen this before. Where she was the presumptive nominee, that the party's nomination was hers to lose. Why does that sound familiar?

The US system has a separately elected executive, which, I think, is a good move (in my political system, legislature and executive are the same, which is silly). But the US voting system is silly. Could there be one that isn't?

What aspects of it do you find objectionable? The electoral college? That it's first-past-the-post?

(Specifying what exactly you find silly is important. Arrow's theorem implies that, for sufficiently broad values of "silly" there cannot be a non-silly voting system)

[Random Gal]

I really don't understand why the United States hasn't switched to electing the president by direct popular vote. At the very least, we should do what a couple of states have introduced and spilt the electoral votes so that a small lead in one state doesn't give a candidate the entire state.

[dpareja]

I really don't understand why the United States hasn't switched to electing the president by direct popular vote. At the very least, we should do what a couple of states have introduced and spilt the electoral votes so that a small lead in one state doesn't give a candidate the entire state.

For the second point, the way Maine and Nebraska do things is that they allocate by congressional seat, so 2 electoral votes will go to the statewide winner anyway (they represent the Senate seats), and the House seats, in many states, are gerrymandered all to heck anyway. I think someone actually did the math on this with the 2004 Presidential election and found that because of all the gerrymandering Bush would have received even more electoral votes than he did with the system currently in place.

Electing the Preisdent by direct popular vote would require a constitutional amendment, and that's not likely even to pass Congress. Right now, the parties can focus their advertising on the battleground states. If the President were elected by direct popular vote, that money would either be spread much more thinly (since then the parties would have to advertise in currently safe states like California, Texas and New York), or much more would have to be spent.

[Lt. Fred]

What sort of working political system could you devise that would elect an executive?

Can you explain that a bit?

Something else just occurred to me. The whole Hillary '16 thing reminded me of something, some sort of feeling like I've seen this before. Where she was the presumptive nominee, that the party's nomination was hers to lose. Why does that sound familiar?

The US system has a separately elected executive, which, I think, is a good move (in my political system, legislature and executive are the same, which is silly). But the US voting system is silly. Could there be one that isn't?

What aspects of it do you find objectionable? The electoral college? That it's first-past-the-post?

It's a two party system. Now, that's very easy to remedy at the Congressional level - simply close down the Senate, and elect the House through state-wide proportional representation; the entire state becomes an electorate, and you elect a number of congresspeople corresponding to state population. If the Yellow Party gets 8% of the vote, they get 8% of the congresspeople instead of, in the current system, 0%. Do that and you have a decent voting system.

But how do you develop a non-idiotic voting system when ultimately you elect only one person?

[Art Vandelay]

Let the poo flinging commence.

[mellenORL]

Trump implies the Presidency functions as a "Whore-in-Chief". Sounds about right.

[Canadian Mojo]

Let the poo flinging commence.

Stay classy Donald.

... so how satisfied are the people you answer to, Mr. chief executive?

[Second Coming of Madman]

Let the poo flinging commence.

Should have charged your phone up by about 40 percent.

Behold: the already idiotic nominee without a rather tight leash- or the "Nuge effect", if you will.

[dpareja]

What sort of working political system could you devise that would elect an executive?

Can you explain that a bit?

Something else just occurred to me. The whole Hillary '16 thing reminded me of something, some sort of feeling like I've seen this before. Where she was the presumptive nominee, that the party's nomination was hers to lose. Why does that sound familiar?

The US system has a separately elected executive, which, I think, is a good move (in my political system, legislature and executive are the same, which is silly). But the US voting system is silly. Could there be one that isn't?

What aspects of it do you find objectionable? The electoral college? That it's first-past-the-post?

It's a two party system. Now, that's very easy to remedy at the Congressional level - simply close down the Senate, and elect the House through state-wide proportional representation; the entire state becomes an electorate, and you elect a number of congresspeople corresponding to state population. If the Yellow Party gets 8% of the vote, they get 8% of the congresspeople instead of, in the current system, 0%. Do that and you have a decent voting system.

But how do you develop a non-idiotic voting system when ultimately you elect only one person?

I find the system you propose here idiotic because how do you get rid of a bad lawmaker who has large amounts of influence within his or her chosen party? If there are, say, twenty-five seats to be allocated, and the Yellow Party gets two of them, how can the general electorate--or even those voters who voted for the Yellow Party--ensure that those two seats to go people who aren't bad? Also, how can independent candidates get elected in this system? And further, if this is being done state-by-state, this system still has the issue of reducing to an "idiotic" system in a state with only one House seat (of which there are currently seven), and nearly so in states with very few representatives.