US Elections 2016 Part II: The Debates & General Election

[Ithekro]

Scale can effect structure drastically, be it engineering or political. Not only when you start increasing the number of people by several factor but also the diversity of those people and their conflicting needs and goals as you not only increase in numbers but also area they populate.

The scale of the United States should not be underestimated when one thinks about a political system. The United States is roughly the land mass of the continent of Europe. with about as diverse a region of climates, terrain, and resources. All scattered about in different states and regions. People living in Iowa will have some different needs than those living in Delaware or California or even Utah. Some places have entirely different wants and desired for resources depending on climate. It gets pretty cold in Vermont in the winter, but not at all in Hawaii and winter along the coastal regions of California is very mild compared to Montana. The lowest it gets around here is just below the freezing point of water and that lasts for maybe a month during the nights, while the rest of the time it is around 10 degrees Celsius. By February it would be like Spring anywhere else in the country, and between late April and now-a-days early November it is like Summer with it wavering depending on the weather patterns in October and November between Summer and Fall. There is almost no winter really as it snows maybe once every 11 years here and has only stuck to the ground with a centimeter or so of snow once in the last 40 years.

The wants of a Californian is going to be different than an Iowan or a Texan. This is magnified by the numbers of urban population centers and the distances of rural areas between them and the micro-cultures that have developed over the centuries in some areas verse others, as well as the cultures of some industry towns that have fractured as the industries collapse with no replacements.

So Switzerland's effectiveness probably would not work on a country as large and diverse as the United States because of the huge variations of needs, wants, and cultures within this country as well as the geographic and climatic diversity of the country.

[KiraYamatoFan]

Originally Posted by Dauerlutscher

Good luck America. The next 4 years will be shit for hundred of millions.

It will be shit for everyone. Drain the swamp, my ass.

[ImperialKnight]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Last I checked this was a thread about American politics. Discussing the dis/advantages of the EC certainly has a place in here, no matter what you say.
too.

Last I checked my post was targeted on those who talk about how the system should be dismantled in favor of better ones.

Not about the dis/avd of the other though you do need to understand that everyone is different. What works for one does not necessarily work for another.

Though I was trying to be nice and point out the pointless arguments cause you guys are literally going in circles about it. And neither side is going to relent. I don't recall any of you taking this serious when Obama was elected or the previous presidents.

[Eisdrache]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

[...]

So Switzerland's effectiveness probably would not work on a country as large and diverse as the United States because of the huge variations of needs, wants, and cultures within this country as well as the geographic and climatic diversity of the country.

A political system doesn't stop Montana from preparing for winter or Hawaii having earthquake warning systems or Delaware from doing whatever cultural or geographic problems they might have. All of that would work exactly as it does with either Switzerland's or the US' system.

edit: I had planned to include a paragraph about the diversity of Switzerland but I came out somewhat poorly written so I left it out when I made this post. Certainly not as eloquent as Kakurin's post below. I do however agree with what he wrote.

The more interesting question is what would happen if the US were to have more parties and have the president elected by the house and senate.

Originally Posted by ImperialKnight

Last I checked my post was targeted on those who talk about how the system should be dismantled in favor of better ones.

Discussing the replacement of one political system with another, one could almost think this to be a political thread.

Originally Posted by ImperialKnight

Not about the dis/avd of the other though you do need to understand that everyone is different. What works for one does not necessarily work for another.

Though I was trying to be nice and point out the pointless arguments cause you guys are literally going in circles about it. And neither side is going to relent. I don't recall any of you taking this serious when Obama was elected or the previous presidents.

The thought that because something didn't happen in the past you somehow have less reason to do it in the present would just result in nothing being ever done at all. Also a discussion doesn't have to end with one side 'winning'. All sides can bring in their opinion as long although I'd prefer arguments having a certain logic to support them which is ... lacking sometimes. On both sides.

[Kakurin]

Originally Posted by Ithekro

So Switzerland's effectiveness probably would not work on a country as large and diverse as the United States because of the huge variations of needs, wants, and cultures within this country as well as the geographic and climatic diversity of the country.

The needs, wants, climatic situation and cultures of the Italian-speaking Swiss living in Ticino south of the Alps is very different from the same situation for a Swiss-German-speaking Swiss living in Zurich or a French-speaking Swiss living in Geneva. If you talk about diversity you chose a bad example with Switzerland, which is the model country for diversity, something also showing in the political situation. The standard deviation of the party results across the different cantons of Switzerland is huge. In addition, nearly 25% of the people living in Switzerland are foreigners. What makes the Swiss political system work is their firm committment to compromise, something that's decidedly lacking in the US. That's got more to do with mentality rather than size.

[Anh_Minh]

Originally Posted by ImperialKnight

Wouldn't it? I mean there's a very good reason why most so called democratic countries do NOT have the exact same system.

Everyone is different. That's just my 2 cents.

Which is why countries with similar sizes, economies and so on can have different political systems. It doesn't imply they're relevant factors. It says nothing of the ability of the Swiss, or German or French systems to scale up. Or the Chinese or Indian systems to scale down.

Originally Posted by Ithekro

That there is a major divide in the country. A divide that needs something other than pure democracy to elect the President it would seem. When the country is not as divided, the popular vote and the electoral college are generally in agreement. When they are not, it is not because the electoral college isn't working, it is because the country is divided and the electoral college is there as a means to resolve a situation where the candidates both have less that 50% of the popular vote with some amount of certainty.

And how does the EC address the "divide"? It doesn't favor compromise candidates. It favors minority, possibly extremes, candidates, so that the majority of voters can be very unhappy. I don't call that a solution. Hell, in some ways it's a cause of the problem.

Ultimately, a political system "works" if its constituents accept it and its results. By that extremely low bar, the American system works... barely. But considering what the American accept, I'm half-convinced other, even sillier systems would work just as well. Like drawing lots. Or gladiatorial combat. Or straight up auctioning off the offices. Or Big Brother style reality TV with elimination.

[Brother Coa]

"Pentagon memo on Trump's priorities doesn't mention Russia: report."

According to the Dec. 1 memo, those are:

— Developing a strategy to “defeat/destroy” the Islamic State in Iraq and Syria.

— Building a strong defense, including eliminating budget caps and increasing force size and readiness

— Developing a comprehensive, whole-of-government cyber strategy

— Finding greater efficiencies, including pursuing and building on “great work” by Deputy Defense Secretary Bob Work.

An anonymous Trump transition official told Foreign Policy that the memo is a not a comprehensive list of Trump’s priorities.

“For the media to speculate that this list of issues represents all of the president-elect’s priorities is completely erroneous and misleading,” the official told Foreign Policy.

But the absence of Russia on the list is raising eyebrows in light of Trump’s comments on improving relations with Moscow.

Throughout the campaign, Trump praised Russian President Vladimir Putin as a strong leader.

“Wouldn’t it be nice if we got along with Russia?” Trump asked.

About time they start to normalize their relations.

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

Considering that he's disliked by more than half the voters, no.

So? Let's take a look at previous elections

Rp\Dp
2004 | 62,040,610 59,028,444
2008 | 59,948,323 69,498,516
2012 | 60,933,504 65,915,795

Basically it means that 59 mil disliked winner of 2004, 59 disliked winner of 2008, 60 disliked 2012. Popularity vote is just a formality and does not matter anyway.

P.S. the question is why in 2012 the saint of democratic party (I swear I saw that comparison) gained less votes than 2008, considering that America became greater with him

Originally Posted by Eisdrache

What Kakurin is getting at is that yes, 63 million is a large number but you have to look at America as a whole, not just those who voted for him.

If we look at America as a whole we can consider that both candidates gain the same amount of votes as for the amount of votes is just 2% difference (also remembering recount - 100mil well spent & more votes for Trump yay - we can assume that there are fraudulent votes too)

Those who did not vote mostly do not care or just knowing that their vote won't affect the state and decided to ignore it. It is not that they all are hostile towards both candidates (though there are people like this too). And in the end we won't even know either.

Originally Posted by Brother Coa

About time they start to normalize their relations.

There are benefits working with Russia for sure

[Reckoner]

Can you guys stop talking with people who don't understand that 2+2=4? It just makes the thread more toxic.

[ChuckE]

Originally Posted by Reckoner

Can you guys stop talking with people who don't understand that 2+2=4? It just makes the thread more toxic.

Sure.

P.S. though I will miss my doses of fun in that topic

[Ithekro]

Originally Posted by Kakurin-san

The needs, wants, climatic situation and cultures of the Italian-speaking Swiss living in Ticino south of the Alps is very different from the same situation for a Swiss-German-speaking Swiss living in Zurich or a French-speaking Swiss living in Geneva. If you talk about diversity you chose a bad example with Switzerland, which is the model country for diversity, something also showing in the political situation. The standard deviation of the party results across the different cantons of Switzerland is huge. In addition, nearly 25% of the people living in Switzerland are foreigners. What makes the Swiss political system work is their firm committment to compromise, something that's decidedly lacking in the US. That's got more to do with mentality rather than size.

Now just keep increasing the scale not only of types of peoples but also variety of conditions they live in, and you'll start to see why different people vote different ways in the United States to the point the relative small scale system will not work as intended. The scale is why compromise has been compromised for a long, long time in the United States. The United States has 50 or more Switerland equivalents that are the states (some states have as many or more sub-regions within regions as Switzerland) and then has to balance those with each other. The scale is far, far greater than you are giving it credit and that was one of the things the news media admitted they had failed at following the election. They hadn't bothered to take into account what a huge part of the country was even wanting when it came time to elect a President, much less what was happening in those regions. They more or less only interviewed people in New York and wrote off the rest of the country because that was what was within their budget.

[Draco Spirit]

To be honest the fact area as large as the USA works as a democracy under one leader is a pretty impressive feat all by itself. Democracy is way easier when you have a small uniform area with a population with similarish needs.

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by Draco Spirit

To be honest the fact area as large as the USA works as a democracy under one leader is a pretty impressive feat all by itself. Democracy is way easier when you have a small uniform area with a population with similarish needs.

The US isn't a democracy. It's a Republic. States tend to their own needs (or fail to do so) so that is more or less why it's worked out reasonably well for us aside from the Civil War.

[Key Board]

I wonder if the Trump admin are going to extradite Fethullah Gulen

Erdogan has always blamed Fethullah Gulen for the failed coup, and now it seems they are linking the recent terrorist act to him to

With recent Erdogan Putin Trump dynamics I wonder where this might head

[MCAL]

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opini...0047c#comments

I know I supported this guy who said he would shoot me, but I didn't know he was literally going to shoot me!

[GDB]

— Building a strong defense, including eliminating budget caps and increasing force size and readiness

Remember when republicans were supposedly fiscal conservatives?

[frivolity]

National defence is one of the basic functions of government (the others being the enforcement of contracts and protecting third parties from spillover effects arising out of transactions that don't involve them), so having a large military in response to a high level of external threat is perfectly consistent with conservative principles. This is treated differently from using government to achieve other social functions, which conservatives are generally against.

There are arguments to be made that there is scope to trim a lot of fat in military spending relative to the level of external threats, and discussions should be had about where and how far the military is deployed, but increasing military size is not in itself conflicting with conservatism.

[GDB]

That's all well and good for a different argument, but it ignores the part in bold about eliminating budget caps.

[justinstrife]

Originally Posted by KiraYamatoFan

It will be shit for everyone. Drain the swamp, my ass.

It will not be shit for everyone. Just as the last 8 years weren't rosy for everyone either. Many hated the last 8 years as well. Some groups benefit, and some don't. It all depends on how and why they are benefiting from each party..

[Reckoner]

Originally Posted by justinstrife

It will not be shit for everyone. Just as the last 8 years weren't rosy for everyone either. Many hated the last 8 years as well. Some groups benefit, and some don't. It all depends on how and why they are benefiting from each party..

Basically if you're a white collar worker making a good living, particularly if you are white then it's great for you! Otherwise, good luck!

And the people who will suffer the most are all those rural white voters. Ironic and hilarious .

Hey at least I'll probably get some lower taxes -_-;.