What To Do To Reduce Partisan Dysfunction In Politics

I'll bet it could be done. A charismatic leader with name recognition would be a must to get it off the ground.

 

As I said, I would prefer a system in which judges adjudicate disputes between people.

I like the idea of a lottery, like jury selection.

 

No, maybe that's a stupid idea. Maybe judges should be elected, like they are currently in my state. That seems to work ok.

 

No, not purely on their personal feelings. They should determine whose property has been violated and determine the appropriate compensation.

 

That's putting it mildly. What helped Perot was that he was willing to spend 60 million or so of his own money. That was quite a lot back in 1992. Today we're talking billions. Hillary spent 1.4 billion to Trump's 968 million.

2016 was the ideal year for a charismatic third party candidate with the dislikes of both Trump and Hillary so high. None arose. Both major parties are look upon with disdain by a majority of Americans. Perhaps there is hope.

Only 37% of all Americans have a favorable view of the Democratic Party, 31% of the Republican Party. Questions 92A amd B. Their congressional delegations are even worst. 33% for the democratic congressional folks and 21% for the republican congressional members. Questions 108A and B

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/4e7f92zbz6/econTabReport.pdf

neither is well liked. The opportunity presents itself. But the hurdles are enormous.

 

I wish Ike could be resurrected ....

 

The Queen.
Or... the Church.
Or... direct democracy.
Or... tradition. The constitution.

We already have laws. I'd rather not keep inventing new ones.
In my country they pass something like 10 new laws a day.

This is a problem.

Why should I accept the laws of people who have nothing to do with me?
Or people who's interests are in direct opposition to my own?

Here is a solution to polemic politics.

Seperate.
Become two countries.

 

You are ignoring the role of the rw media. All things are not equal.

For example: The left wing attacks trump. The right wing attacks teenagers. The difference is undeniable. You can't ignore the brainwashing by the media. There are no reasonable solutions to problems with the right being pumped up daily by the likes of Rush and Hannity! [Ingraham is probably toast!]

What do we see here today, five threads by righties attacking teenagers, spurred on by the rw media? They are fanatical.

How many left wing voices do we hear attacking teenagers?

 

This might be pointing out the main philosophical division in American society - the divide between those who want government to do for them, and those who want government to refrain from doing to them.

 

Trump was the 2016 third party candidate.

 

Sir, with all due respect, politics is a partisan game. It has always been so. It is no worse today than it was in 1828 when people shed blood over the outcome up to and including the president elect himself. We have hit another one of those periods in which there is very little in the way of common ground to find. How do you compromise with the guy who thinks the solution to our sinking ship of state is to drill a few more holes in the bottom to let the water out? This period in out history began with Adlai Stephenson, another self proclaimed smartest guy in the room Democrat, proclaiming that Ike the architect of D-Day was too stupid to be president, went through the sixties with the far left claiming everyone that disagreed with them was a fascist. And since that time the titular party of the left has change only in that they now add racist to those other false charges. And with Trump they have thrown all of them, and continue to do so. They are aided and abetted in this calumny by the Bushites and Neocons, the last being neither particularly new nor particularly conservative thereby belying the whole name. Both wish desperately to destroy Trump. To their mind he is an interloper in the grand game, in certain regards they are similar in thought and attitude to the Greeks, and to a lesser extent the Carthaginians during The Second Punic War, who for the life of them couldn't understand why the Romans didn't understand the rules of the game or pay any attention to them.

 

That is how the common law came about.

 

Judges should be chosen by the mutual agreement of those choosing to defer to their judgement.
No need for either laws or democracy. Only the mutual respect of the aggrieved parties seeking outside resolution/adjudication.

Some people would refer their trials to the local tribal elder or to Don Corleone.
The judge should have the authority to carry out judgement and for it's results to be respected.

 

You and me both. I grew up in the 1950's and still rate IKE as the best president I have ever personally experienced. Everyone like IKE, even Democrats. Of course Eisenhower was about the most non-partisan president probably to hold the White House since WWII to today.

 

I have always be partial to Louisiana's jungle primary. All candidates on the ballot regardless of party. If no candidate receive 50% plus one vote they have a runoff six weeks later between the top two finishers. We went to that system in Georgia's special Congressional six election last year. Good reviews on it.

Presidential, since I think you're talking about that. With the electoral college as without an amendment it isn't going away. What I would do is give all the state's electoral votes to the winner of that state if they received 50% plus one vote. Now that didn't happen in 16 states in 2016. In those 16 states since no candidate received 50% plus one voted, they would award their electoral via winner of each congressional district with the remaining two electoral votes going to the plurality state winner.

I haven't figured out how the above system would have effected the 2016 election. Since the Constitution gives each state or let's each state determine how it will award its electoral votes, there would be no Constitutional amendment needed. For presidential elections, any solution must include the electoral college. You'll never get 2/3rds of the house and senate to agree to an amendment repealing it and 3/4ths of the states. Then there would have to be included in the amendment a different system to replace it which could be even harder than getting the above to agree to eliminate the electoral college.

In Georgia we have a runoff law that statewide if no candidate receive's 50% plus one vote, then a runoff between the top two finishers is required. So in the end, we have no winner of an election who didn't receive 50% plus one. No plurality winner.

 

He was referred to that by some pundits. But the fact remains he was the Republican candidate. Not an independent, he had a major party behind him. Both in name and in money and support.

 

"In name" - I agree.

"In money" - I confess that I do not know, but I think it is probably true.

"In support" - not so much, I think.

 

Here is a poll just prior to the election, taken on 7 Nov 2016 which I will refer to as to support. Granted some big name Republicans refused to help him, but no really the rank and file. I also remember the never trumpers.

https://d25d2506sfb94s.cloudfront.net/cumulus_uploads/document/l37rosbwjp/econTabReport_lv.pdf

Trump's favorable rating among Republicans was at 75% combining very favorable along with somewhat favorable. That was low when comparing to almost any other Republican nominee. Trump's unfavorable was at 24%, again combining the two which was extremely high. So you know what the GOP rank and file thought of Trump the day before the election. Question 11.

But come election day Trump garnered 88% of the Republican base vote. About average for any presidential candidate. The average is 90%. So for most GOP'ers their dislike of Trump didn't stop them from voting for him. Also Trump raised and spent 968.8 million, almost a billion dollars, so their financial support was there.

You can scroll though that pre election day poll and find a lot of good information. I think one could gleam out of it, that is was the anti-Clinton sentiments among the GOP that garnered their support to Trump and the disliked of Independents for Hillary 70% vs. 57% for Trump that pushed Trump to victory. Questions 10 and again 11 for the unfavorable ratings among independents. The Republican Party support was there, perhaps for some who gave their support grudgingly only because Trump's opponent was Hillary Clinton. Would they, the GOP have supported Trump as much if his opponent was a Biden, Sanders, O'Malley, Webb or some other candidate. I don't think so. It was the overall dislike of Hillary Clinton that carried the day for Trump, both among Republicans and Independents. I've said this many times, the Democrats probably nominated the only candidate, alive or dead that could have possibly lost to Trump.

 

Well, in this case even if you had posted the words "First Past the Post Plurality Voting" I would still be asking you for clarification. I don't know what it means.

But there is still a prerequisite for effective demand. It is true that the people always have the ultimate political power and the government is always afraid to let on that it exists. Note how Obama campaigned on "with your help we can ____" and "I can't do this without your support and your voice!" But once he took the oath and entered office, that all changed to "thanks, but I've got it from here" and all the requests for our voice and our help and our support vanished. They fear our united front more than anything else. If just 5 or 6 percent of the population were to show up in the streets and LOUDLY DEMAND change, it would happen. But to do that requires organization. We must be organized to get results. They know that and that's why they have both allowed and created conditions that divide us. And my pessimism is telling me that in order for us to get past the deep divisions we have, it will take an external force to unite us, like martial law, or nuclear war, or outright fascist dictatorship. But one way or another, we must organize and show up to force change. My 2¢.