2024 The last election

[Insidious Von]

Now that President Biden has pissed off the plutocrats, who have had the run of everything since 1982, his or Harris chances of winning in 2024 are zero.

Very bad news for Canada is the USA becomes despotic.

 

[glamphotographer]

FREEDUMB!

 

[y2kmark]

FREEDUMB!

FREEDUMP, as in horse dump. Maher is a comedian, after all...

 

[Insidious Von]

Catelyn Jenner wanted to be the mouthpiece of the plutocrats, he was running in California on tax cuts alone. She finished 13th.

 

[Darts]

I actually like the U.S. system better than Canada's because the voters get to pick their president, House and Senate representatives. We Canadians only get to pick the House of Commons members.

 

[Valcazar]

I actually like the U.S. system better than Canada's because the voters get to pick their president, House and Senate representatives. We Canadians only get to pick the House of Commons members.

It is theorized that is one of the major reasons for the gridlock under the US system, though.
The argument goes that Presidential systems are more unstable because they give separate claims to legitimacy for the executive and the legislative branch. That lets them be at odds. (Similarly with the bicameral system.) Especially because the different groups (senate, house, president) have veto points and the US ends up with more veto points than most systems.

The thing with voting for the executive separately is that you need to define what powers it has versus the elective and then how do you resolve competition between them. The executive being chosen by the legislative gets rid of that problem somewhat.

 

[y2kmark]

One thing a lot of people are missing. You want to get a lot of Americans to get out and vote? Just tell them they can't. There may be no blue Tsunami, but the Repugs are on very low ground just lately, so any ripple could do them in...

 

[Darts]

It is theorized that is one of the major reasons for the gridlock under the US system, though.

Yes, I heard the same with the PR system (Italy as an example has or had PR). The problem with our system is that the winning party has almost dictatorial power (PM, House and Senate).

"For almost half a century after World War II, Italy’s electoral system was based on proportional representation, a system in which seats in an elected body are awarded to political parties according to the proportion of the total vote that they receive. Between 1993 and 1995, several changes were made by national legislation and popular referenda."

 

[Valcazar]

Yes, I heard the same with the PR system (Italy as an example has or had PR). The problem with our system is that the winning party has almost dictatorial power (PM, House and Senate).

"For almost half a century after World War II, Italy’s electoral system was based on proportional representation, a system in which seats in an elected body are awarded to political parties according to the proportion of the total vote that they receive. Between 1993 and 1995, several changes were made by national legislation and popular referenda."

What systems are stable and why is one of those things people study but you can't really run experiments on.
The US system was designed with the problems of the UK system as it then existed in mind. They didn't like parties so they designed a system where they thought parties wouldn't exist and the checks would be between the two houses. They couldn't think of a system where there wasn't a separate executive (in their world, the king) but they didn't want a monarchy so they came up with the idea of a separately elected president. Would they have done that if the UK system had already moved to giving the Prime Minister actual executive power? Who knows.

Of course, the Constitution was their second try. The Articles of Confederation was the first try and it didn't work.

As for "dictatorial power" - the question has always been how do you put accountability in the system and how do you put reins on power in the system. Too few veto points or ways to nullify a government can be dangerous. Too many are also a problem if you claim to want democracy. It's not an easy needle to thread.

 

[Darts]

What systems are stable and why is one of those things people study but you can't really run experiments on.
The US system was designed with the problems of the UK system as it then existed in mind. They didn't like parties so they designed a system where they thought parties wouldn't exist and the checks would be between the two houses. They couldn't think of a system where there wasn't a separate executive (in their world, the king) but they didn't want a monarchy so they came up with the idea of a separately elected president. Would they have done that if the UK system had already moved to giving the Prime Minister actual executive power? Who knows.

Of course, the Constitution was their second try. The Articles of Confederation was the first try and it didn't work.

As for "dictatorial power" - the question has always been how do you put accountability in the system and how do you put reins on power in the system. Too few veto points or ways to nullify a government can be dangerous. Too many are also a problem if you claim to want democracy. It's not an easy needle to thread.

Yeah, tough question. What is the best political system? However, I think there is something wrong with a system when the party with the most popular votes sits in opposition.

How about a "benevolent dictatorship" with me as the dictator? Just kidding! Seriously, a benevolent dictatorship worked well for Singapore (but that doesn't mean it works for everybody)..

 

[Frankfooter]

Yeah, tough question. What is the best political system? However, I think there is something wrong with a system when the party with the most popular votes sits in opposition.

How about a "benevolent dictatorship" with me as the dictator? Just kidding! Seriously, a benevolent dictatorship worked well for Singapore (but that doesn't mean it works for everybody)..

You'd do better with royalty, though the one's that came with our country are particularly overbred.

 

[Valcazar]

Yeah, tough question. What is the best political system? However, I think there is something wrong with a system when the party with the most popular votes sits in opposition.

I agree. Pluraity voting with single-member districts is just generally shitty.

 

[Insidious Von]

This is surreal, MAGA types know how to bend the chisel.

Maybe Maher isn't far off. Either some of these MAGA types come to their senses and realize Donato isn't Jesus Christ reincarnate or the USA turns into one big Hotel Rwanda.

 

[Valcazar]

Maher isn't far off.
He's just repeating things people much smarter than him have been saying for a while now.

 

[Insidious Von]

Colin Quinn is doing the same as Bill Maher, Maher has a better platform.

This is what I like about the Jim and Sam Show, they mainly bring on fellow comics. Ari Shaffir said Joe Rogan is a doofus.