I'm-not-voting-for-either-candidate

[Tarragon]

People constantly complain about the two party system and everyone with half a brain knows it cannot represent the people well but refuse any attempt or opportunity to change it. Same with the electoral college. They support it till it backfires on them then they sit around moping how they really won the popular vote. No. You lost the election. To I might add the most unpopular candidate in history. You lost it because it's a stupid system that has outlived it's usefulness and it's corrupt.

IIRC, there are now more independents than registered Democrats or Republicans.
Even being the majority they are treated with contempt. If you don't side with us you're helping the opposition. Well fuck. If we side with either party in a two party system we just keep going down the same shit slide fearing we might get dirty if we fall on the grass. The two parties are convincing the general public that independents are an insignificant minority when they actually have bigger numbers than them and are getting bigger. Then they blame independents for not wanting to vote. People have lost faith in the system. Lets try fixing that problem first. You know, have a government that works for the people instead of themselves and the lobbyists/economic elite.

That's why I'd like to start a "third party". With the right appeal to independents and centrists (if there are any left), it could be the First Party. I've been thinking about it since 2000, but knew the time wasn't right. People were comfortable and complacent and had the luxury of apathy and ignorance. I predict a lot of people won't want to go back to the Dems or the GOP after Trump. They'll want something genuinely new but stable. It has to start somewhere.

Anyone else feel this way?

At the very least, we can make money off it as Vendic suggested.

[vendic]

In essence what they engaged in was a form of electoral gerrymandering. And we might be able to call it that. And maybe it wasn't morally ethical. Maybe it wasn't playing nice. These days no one seems to be playing nice.

It kind of resembles a "bait and switch" and that can be a type of fraud. Generally, it looks like they used the letter of the law to violate the spirit of the law, which if not illegal is often seen as hypocritical.

Personally I think the term electoral fraud fits because almost everyone knows that it relates to trying to change the outcome of an election. If they did the same thing in the general, it would have been illegal and actual electoral fraud. I see no reason why doing the exact same thing of manipulating an election should be called anything different based on if it was government run or privately run. I really don't think we should be so pedantic about it that it obscures what was done here.

e.g. if someone just happened to deliberately remove hundreds of thousands of people off the general electoral role based on their likely voting preference, that is without a doubt electoral fraud. Do it privately though and we want to tone down the language.

r.e. fraud and what people lose legally etc. They lose the same thing as anyone doing actual illegal electoral fraud. It can quite easily be argued that they are the reason Trump is in and thus they changed the entire course of a nation by their deceit. Their actions are the same, the effect is the same since it directly affects the general election. So personally I find it strange that they are legally allowed to do it by way of indirection.

[geonuc]

Manipulating elections is called electoral fraud. In this case because they are a private group, it is legal.
So in the interests of not getting caught up in semantics, what can we agree on to refer to the process of legalized electoral fraud?
Suggestions?

All political parties are private groups.

'Electoral fraud', which I'm not sure is an actual legal term but we'll use it anyway, would be someone changing votes that have been cast, voting more than once, voting when not legally allowed to vote, votes deliberately not being counted. That sort of thing. Their are financial aspects that might be fraud as well. A political party choosing a nominee that they prefer over another and doing more to ensure that candidate gets more support in the primary election is not fraud. It's just a political party exercising their constitutional rights.

We're not going to agree on this. Correct me if I misunderstand, but you apparently believe that US primary elections should be run under the same rules and laws as the federal general election. I don't. I believe people have a right to assemble, discuss their political views and then put forward a candidate for the general election in any manner they choose. Open, secretive, unbiased, biased - doesn't matter. They can invite someone to run in the primary under their party's label and then work against him in favor of another, secretly or openly. If I were that candidate or that candidate's supporter, I'd certainly be pissed but no laws were broken. The recourse is to choose another party or start your own. As Fisher mentioned, someone might have a case for civil fraud if they were materially harmed by deceptive practices, but that's a money issue.

I'm reminded of the situation with the Boy Scouts of America and their stance on gays. Many in this country, almost exclusively liberals, believed that the BSA should be forced to accept LGBT scouts and scoutmasters under federal non-discrimination laws. I didn't. The BSA is a private group and has the right to assemble however they choose, including inviting whomever they want into their club. The only issue would be federal funding which is by law tied to non-discrimination requirements.

A similar thing would be the Augusta National golf club (host of the Masters tournament), who famously had a no-women policy. Same thing - it's their right to invite whomever they want. Public pressure forced them to relax the policy and that's OK. That's the recourse people have and should have to change something they don't like.

Voting for federal offices obviously reaches a higher level of importance than scouting and golf but it also invokes a more fundamental right - the right to choose the government you want.

As I said, we're not going to agree and that's fine. There are certainly aspects about the whole electoral process that I'd like to see changed, too.

[geonuc]

That's why I'd like to start a "third party". With the right appeal to independents and centrists (if there are any left), it could be the First Party. I've been thinking about it since 2000, but knew the time wasn't right. People were comfortable and complacent and had the luxury of apathy and ignorance. I predict a lot of people won't want to go back to the Dems or the GOP after Trump. They'll want something genuinely new but stable. It has to start somewhere.

Anyone else feel this way?

I'd certainly like a strong third party but recent history has shown it is perilous to attempt to form one. Two of the recent past elections have resulted in disaster because people were fed up with the two-party system and it ended up with a minority, poorly-qualified candidate winning the White House. The Bush II administration fundamentally changed the world and not for the better, and almost brought the world to financial ruin. The Trump administration is a whole new kind of disaster.

No, given the risk, I think it's better to change the two parties from within. The GOP have done this recently with the influence of the Tea Party Republicans. The Democrats can too, if people think it's necessary. I personally don't. Barack Obama was about as great a man as I could hope for in terms of advancing policies I agree with and being someone who acts thoughtfully and with the people's welfare in mind. And he won the prior two elections. Hillary Clinton is someone I believe would have governed in the same vein as Obama, and in the final analysis, that's what I care about. I care little about back-room machinations if the policies that come forward are ones I can support.

[vendic]

Manipulating elections is called electoral fraud. In this case because they are a private group, it is legal.
So in the interests of not getting caught up in semantics, what can we agree on to refer to the process of legalized electoral fraud?
Suggestions?

All political parties are private groups.

'Electoral fraud', which I'm not sure is an actual legal term but we'll use it anyway, would be someone changing votes that have been cast, voting more than once, voting when not legally allowed to vote, votes deliberately not being counted. That sort of thing. Their are financial aspects that might be fraud as well. A political party choosing a nominee that they prefer over another and doing more to ensure that candidate gets more support in the primary election is not fraud. It's just a political party exercising their constitutional rights.

Agreed. I'll get back to this later in this post however.

As I said, we're not going to agree and that's fine. There are certainly aspects about the whole electoral process that I'd like to see changed, too.

After reading your post it seems we are debating two different things.
Going by what you seem to think is happening, I'd agree with you fully.

I'll state again, I don't have a problem with the DNC making their rules any way they want. I'm not even particularly fussed about them preferring a particular candidate, that's what super delegates do by design. They give more preference to the party favorite. I don't particularly like the idea but it's their party.
I don't even care that they allow and disallow independents to vote in their elections. My personal belief is that the current system where there is no state consistency is more of a problem than if they go one way or the other but either other option has it's flaws.

Here's where my view differs from yours. I don't believe that the DNC just did those things alone.
Now, lets assume that the data I have is factual and correct, r.e. actual fiddling with votes, not counting votes etc . Would you consider this electoral fraud or still within their rights?

I call it electoral fraud. Some won't because the DNC can drop people off their records or cancel membership any time, it is a private organisation. That however is no longer a simple case of supporting their candidate. That is now messing with their members rights to vote as members of that private party and tampering with the natural flow of an election. One that will have repercussions on the federal level.

Now I know you don't want private organisations to be held to the same standards as a public election.
This is where it gets messy. Because membership to the Democrats excludes you from membership to the Republicans or any other party should it come along, they by virtue of dismissing your registration have effectively stopped you from joining another party. Now their actions are affecting the political direction of the country directly.

So while I don't believe that they should be held to the same standards as an official government election, I do believe that they have to be held accountable for holding fair and unbiased elections themselves because it does affect the country.

Now you might disagree and say that there was none of that tampering going on. That we can address separately.
If you believe as a private party they can do anything with cast votes and stop people voting even though they are members, we can't go any further.
If you however believe that they should hold legitimate fair elections among it's members, then we can explore it one example at a time instead of making it a convoluted mess like I've been doing so far.

[vendic]

I thoroughly agree. Most of my ire is not with the people on FWIS. Except when you all are blind to the great wisdom I am dispensing.

It's tough always being right. I know. I like to be challenged so I don't become victim to being my own sound bites, and you people are just not freaking helping!

[Tarragon]

I'd certainly like a strong third party but recent history has shown it is perilous to attempt to form one. Two of the recent past elections have resulted in disaster because people were fed up with the two-party system and it ended up with a minority, poorly-qualified candidate winning the White House. The Bush II administration fundamentally changed the world and not for the better, and almost brought the world to financial ruin. The Trump administration is a whole new kind of disaster.

No, given the risk, I think it's better to change the two parties from within. The GOP have done this recently with the influence of the Tea Party Republicans. The Democrats can too, if people think it's necessary. I personally don't. Barack Obama was about as great a man as I could hope for in terms of advancing policies I agree with and being someone who acts thoughtfully and with the people's welfare in mind. And he won the prior two elections. Hillary Clinton is someone I believe would have governed in the same vein as Obama, and in the final analysis, that's what I care about. I care little about back-room machinations if the policies that come forward are ones I can support.

Looking at history, it looks like the parties have been changed from within, and more toward satisfying oligarchy than democracy. Both parties were upset by swings to populism. Does anyone really think the correction will swing back towards democracy instead of oligarchy?

My desire isn't to set up a third party, but a first party. The main parties appear to have abdicated the middle and the majority. It would seem an easier climb to gather them to us than working against entrenched oligarchy interests in the established parties. Of course, this seems easier to me because my views are mostly centrist (if not moderate). What I refer to as "Star Centrist," since there are a few positions outside of the center.

If there are problems with having more than 2 parties, then we can address it in the platform. We can promote state and federal constitutional amendments that prevent spoiling. There are many ways to do this, some more structural and based on representation, and others more popular and democratic.

Ignore for a moment whether we can change the system, and tell me if you think there are election reform ideas that might work. What are they?

[Tarragon]

Everyone seems to be talking about the primary system. There isn't one. That is the say, there isn't one. There's several dozens. Each state has either a primary or a caucus, as do many territories. A caucus is run by the party, a primary is run by the state. There are different rules and laws for each type, and several subtypes (open, closed, semi) in each state or territory, and each political party can have its own rules.

Some of the problems I've heard were caucuses running late intentionally to cause people to give up and leave. Other complaints said the caucuses were held in small rooms so that not everyone can get into the room to be counted or have their voice heard in the debate phase. Others complain that a head count is not a suitable record and that intentional miscounting occurs, but without written records, it's hard to prove error, whether intentional or accidental. Other criticisms of caucuses are that it takes several hours at a set time when some people are unavailable and there's no absentee ballot one could cast in advance.

On top of this, many states have Sore Loser rules, to prevent someone who lost in a Primary Election from running in the general as an independent. Sometimes it's explicit, other times it's by having simultaneous registration dates that prevent one from registering for the general after losing the primary. Some may fault the DNC for allowing Bernie Sanders, an independent, to run as a Democratic candidate, but it was strategic. They knew that by doing so, he couldn't run against them in the general.

[SciFiFisher]

On top of this, many states have Sore Loser rules, to prevent someone who lost in a Primary Election from running in the general as an independent. Sometimes it's explicit, other times it's by having simultaneous registration dates that prevent one from registering for the general after losing the primary. Some may fault the DNC for allowing Bernie Sanders, an independent, to run as a Democratic candidate, but it was strategic. They knew that by doing so, he couldn't run against them in the general.

Now you are just confirming Vendic's belief that the DNC rigged things.

[SciFiFisher]

I'd certainly like a strong third party but recent history has shown it is perilous to attempt to form one. Two of the recent past elections have resulted in disaster because people were fed up with the two-party system and it ended up with a minority, poorly-qualified candidate winning the White House. The Bush II administration fundamentally changed the world and not for the better, and almost brought the world to financial ruin. The Trump administration is a whole new kind of disaster.

No, given the risk, I think it's better to change the two parties from within. The GOP have done this recently with the influence of the Tea Party Republicans. The Democrats can too, if people think it's necessary. I personally don't. Barack Obama was about as great a man as I could hope for in terms of advancing policies I agree with and being someone who acts thoughtfully and with the people's welfare in mind. And he won the prior two elections. Hillary Clinton is someone I believe would have governed in the same vein as Obama, and in the final analysis, that's what I care about. I care little about back-room machinations if the policies that come forward are ones I can support.

Looking at history, it looks like the parties have been changed from within, and more toward satisfying oligarchy than democracy. Both parties were upset by swings to populism. Does anyone really think the correction will swing back towards democracy instead of oligarchy?

My desire isn't to set up a third party, but a first party. The main parties appear to have abdicated the middle and the majority. It would seem an easier climb to gather them to us than working against entrenched oligarchy interests in the established parties. Of course, this seems easier to me because my views are mostly centrist (if not moderate). What I refer to as "Star Centrist," since there are a few positions outside of the center.

If there are problems with having more than 2 parties, then we can address it in the platform. We can promote state and federal constitutional amendments that prevent spoiling. There are many ways to do this, some more structural and based on representation, and others more popular and democratic.

Ignore for a moment whether we can change the system, and tell me if you think there are election reform ideas that might work. What are they?

I wonder if we should move this idea to a separate thread? Or does it make sense to keep it in this one?

[SciFiFisher]

I thoroughly agree. Most of my ire is not with the people on FWIS. Except when you all are blind to the great wisdom I am dispensing.

It's tough always being right. I know. I like to be challenged so I don't become victim to being my own sound bites, and you people are just not freaking helping!

Well, if you would just agree with me most of the time you wouldn't have that problem.

[Tarragon]

I'd certainly like a strong third party but recent history has shown it is perilous to attempt to form one. Two of the recent past elections have resulted in disaster because people were fed up with the two-party system and it ended up with a minority, poorly-qualified candidate winning the White House. The Bush II administration fundamentally changed the world and not for the better, and almost brought the world to financial ruin. The Trump administration is a whole new kind of disaster.

No, given the risk, I think it's better to change the two parties from within. The GOP have done this recently with the influence of the Tea Party Republicans. The Democrats can too, if people think it's necessary. I personally don't. Barack Obama was about as great a man as I could hope for in terms of advancing policies I agree with and being someone who acts thoughtfully and with the people's welfare in mind. And he won the prior two elections. Hillary Clinton is someone I believe would have governed in the same vein as Obama, and in the final analysis, that's what I care about. I care little about back-room machinations if the policies that come forward are ones I can support.

Looking at history, it looks like the parties have been changed from within, and more toward satisfying oligarchy than democracy. Both parties were upset by swings to populism. Does anyone really think the correction will swing back towards democracy instead of oligarchy?

My desire isn't to set up a third party, but a first party. The main parties appear to have abdicated the middle and the majority. It would seem an easier climb to gather them to us than working against entrenched oligarchy interests in the established parties. Of course, this seems easier to me because my views are mostly centrist (if not moderate). What I refer to as "Star Centrist," since there are a few positions outside of the center.

If there are problems with having more than 2 parties, then we can address it in the platform. We can promote state and federal constitutional amendments that prevent spoiling. There are many ways to do this, some more structural and based on representation, and others more popular and democratic.

Ignore for a moment whether we can change the system, and tell me if you think there are election reform ideas that might work. What are they?

I wonder if we should move this idea to a separate thread? Or does it make sense to keep it in this one?

Works for me. Should I start a new thread or should a mod move it?

[geonuc]

After reading your post it seems we are debating two different things.
Going by what you seem to think is happening, I'd agree with you fully.

I'll state again, I don't have a problem with the DNC making their rules any way they want. I'm not even particularly fussed about them preferring a particular candidate, that's what super delegates do by design. They give more preference to the party favorite. I don't particularly like the idea but it's their party.
I don't even care that they allow and disallow independents to vote in their elections. My personal belief is that the current system where there is no state consistency is more of a problem than if they go one way or the other but either other option has it's flaws.

Here's where my view differs from yours. I don't believe that the DNC just did those things alone.
Now, lets assume that the data I have is factual and correct, r.e. actual fiddling with votes, not counting votes etc . Would you consider this electoral fraud or still within their rights?

I call it electoral fraud. Some won't because the DNC can drop people off their records or cancel membership any time, it is a private organisation. That however is no longer a simple case of supporting their candidate. That is now messing with their members rights to vote as members of that private party and tampering with the natural flow of an election. One that will have repercussions on the federal level.

Now I know you don't want private organisations to be held to the same standards as a public election.
This is where it gets messy. Because membership to the Democrats excludes you from membership to the Republicans or any other party should it come along, they by virtue of dismissing your registration have effectively stopped you from joining another party. Now their actions are affecting the political direction of the country directly.

So while I don't believe that they should be held to the same standards as an official government election, I do believe that they have to be held accountable for holding fair and unbiased elections themselves because it does affect the country.

Now you might disagree and say that there was none of that tampering going on. That we can address separately.
If you believe as a private party they can do anything with cast votes and stop people voting even though they are members, we can't go any further.
If you however believe that they should hold legitimate fair elections among it's members, then we can explore it one example at a time instead of making it a convoluted mess like I've been doing so far.

i'm not sure i'm willing to put as much effort into it as you, but sure, if you succinctly provide examples of 'vote tampering' I may agree that the DNC overstepped legal bounds.

[geonuc]

I wonder if we should move this idea to a separate thread? Or does it make sense to keep it in this one?

Given the long-held tradition of derailing threads in these parts, your suggestion borders on heresy.

[geonuc]

Ignore for a moment whether we can change the system, and tell me if you think there are election reform ideas that might work. What are they?

1. Abolish the Electoral College. President and Vice-president will be chosen by popular vote, with a plurality winning the election.

2. Transfer, by federal law, all control of elections of federal government offices to the Federal Election Commission. State governments will no longer set rules, dates or any other aspects concerning federal elections. Moreover, states will be required to accommodate and not hinder federal elections (provide adequate and numerous polling locations, etc). Voter registration will be uniform and handled by the FEC. Requirements for a candidate getting on the ballot will be set by law and enforced by the FEC.

3. Institute a national ID card. This card, which can simply be the US passport card currently in use for limited travel in North America, will serve as proof of identity for voting in all elections (not just federal) and will be required to be shown when voting. We will have to work out logistics to ensure every citizen has ample and affordable opportunity to obtain and renew their card. We will have to work out details to provide for proof of current residency for Senate and House of Representative elections, but that too will be uniform by law and enforced by the FEC.

4. Make federal election day a national holiday.

[vendic]

By plurality winning the election, do you mean something like the STV system?

I agree with all of your points. I've been arguing that the US should change for years.

The only thing I'd add to this is that you implement mandatory voting here. After seeing the issues here, that itself might be enough to get the ball rolling on the other issues.

Unfortunately all of these things would require a power transfer from an oligarchy to the people and as such will be resisted greatly.

[vendic]

I wonder if we should move this idea to a separate thread? Or does it make sense to keep it in this one?

Given the long-held tradition of derailing threads in these parts, your suggestion borders on heresy.

Pretty much. It's very much on topic anyway but if people want it moved we can make it so.

[geonuc]

By plurality winning the election, do you mean something like the STV system?

I agree with all of your points. I've been arguing that the US should change for years.

The only thing I'd add to this is that you implement mandatory voting here. After seeing the issues here, that itself might be enough to get the ball rolling on the other issues.

Unfortunately all of these things would require a power transfer from an oligarchy to the people and as such will be resisted greatly.

Plurality means whoever gets the most votes. Doesn't have to be a majority of the votes.

[vendic]

i'm not sure i'm willing to put as much effort into it as you, but sure, if you succinctly provide examples of 'vote tampering' I may agree that the DNC overstepped legal bounds.

Yeah, I had plenty of time on my hands at various points to go through this and found enough evidence to satisfy myself that it has been going on. I know a lot of people don't want to or can't invest in that level of time. I also believe that a lot of people really don't want to hear it or can't hear it over the noise generated by the other issues they have heard about. e.g. look how long it took for me to even get people that I have know for years to think about the possibility that there was some bad shit happening even though I provided multiple sources through this thread and mentioned many times that this was not about what the DNC does if it plays within its own rules. I only mention this because I think it's relevant to the overall issue. Creating a smoke screen and a loyal base of supporters is what will keep them from getting completely ruined from backlash. So I believe there has been a deliberate attempt to mask it all by information saturation and mind games. This is politics and the retention of power is mot important above all else. But enough of that or I'll start to sound like a conspiracy theorist if some don't already think I am. So back to it.

Ok, true to my word I'm not going to throw one link in that covers everything even though a long investigation and report exists supporting my position.

New York. I'll summarize my findings at the time. I myself no longer have the time to do long follow ups as I'm in over my head trying to stay above water.
Over a 100,000 people were thrown off the Democratic resister. The Democrat's claimed it was a normal purge, but, according to their records this was way higher in number than a normal purge. They claim it is when people move residence, die, cancel their affiliation or didn't vote in the last two elections so were purged etc. I'll just bookmark the term normal at this point in case we go further with this because the statistical use of the word is what I am referring to and this is an on going theme the deeper you go. Both of us know statistics. So when statistical findings show consistent leaning in one direction over multiple issues and states, sometimes well beyond the acceptable confidence level, we should both agree that there is a problem that needs to be determined. It's one of the most important tools in checking the legitimacy of elections and one the US and foreign observers use. I just wanted to be clear on the meaning of the term "normal" in this context. It's not the colloquial usage.

There are a number of anomalies with this particular election. The numbers purged were very highly concentrated in the district Sanders was born and raised in. Thus he likely had a lot of support there. While many people might have been purged as a routine clean up, there were far more that did not fit the profile. One (last I checked) of the main people from the Democratic party was dismissed over this because of the severity of the backlash. There are also suspicious other dealings associated with her. We get to see similar behaviour numerous times in other elections setting up a pattern.

Here's a link to the woman that was fired and why. There are other sources if you don't trust this one.
http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/04/21/ ... l-removed/

http://newyork.cbslocal.com/2016/04/19/ ... -problems/
Covers problems with voting machines, lack of ballots and incorrect information.

The contraversy: http://www.nydailynews.com/new-york/ele ... -1.1367238

She sold it for more than a million above market value to a Democratic Superdelegate. I note here that she was in no position to bargain having let the place lapse and unable to pay fines and fees for it's upkeep. So a prime target for leverage if one wanted to. Not proof, but it is a know fact that debt issues are a security problem which is why financial records are checked for security clearance (not relevant here other than part of an acknowledged risk assessment technique which she would have failed as a possible target of manipulation by external forces).

[vendic]

By plurality winning the election, do you mean something like the STV system?
Plurality means whoever gets the most votes. Doesn't have to be a majority of the votes.

Ah, I thought you were after something more representative of the people, such as the STV.

I would add that to your list as what you are describing still devolves into a two party system far easier and makes other parties harder to establish. I know that even the STV can go that way but it is harder.

[SciFiFisher]

For the sake of argument what are the advantages of a 3+ party system over a binary? Having watched a little bit of the power brokering in Canada and other places to "form a government" due to no one party having a majority of the seats in their parliament it makes me wonder how a system like that gets anything done. Not to mention the potential for the constant realignment of the power. i.e. votes of no confidence and the dissolution of the ruling government group. Or you see a small minority group having a slight edge over the rest and basically running the government. Which is similar to what happens here when you have low voter turn out.

[vendic]

Fisher, it's been we explained by others so I'll just give you a couple of links. If you follow the whole series it makes more sense.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l8XOZJkozfI

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ac9070OIMUg

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PukSDm0RD2E


Here is a link to the first past the post (more like your system in the USA)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s7tWHJfhiyo


Hope that helps.

[vendic]

For the sake of argument what are the advantages of a 3+ party system over a binary? Having watched a little bit of the power brokering in Canada and other places to "form a government" due to no one party having a majority of the seats in their parliament it makes me wonder how a system like that gets anything done?

As opposed to this?

So lets put it into perspective. The USA has a huge wage gap discrepancy compared to other nations (I refer to only 1st world nations because it's pretty much on par with 3rd world nations on this).

The USA has no universal healthcare. It has little in the way of safety nets for it's citizens and plenty for big corporate interests. It's death rate of children is terrible, it's average age of lifespan is lower. The standard of living is lower. You are losing your middle class while the poor numbers grow. You incarcerate more people than any other country in the world, thank you Clinton's.

I can go on.
The US's two big claims are military might and money. The latter is concentrated in a small number of hands and the former relies on the minions to die regularly. The two are often closely tied together. How many years without any war has the US been in since it's history, Iirc it's been at war for over 214 years of it's existence. Basically about 25ish years of peace in about 250. Or at war about 90% of the time. It appears for all intents and purposes that the US economy is driven by the war machine. War makes jobs, stimulates the economy but it does so at the cost of the people.

So maybe you should ask, why does the system in the US not achieve as well as other 1st world countries?
The answer to that question is in the first link I gave.

[vendic]

For the sake of argument what are the advantages of a 3+ party system over a binary? Having watched a little bit of the power brokering in Canada and other places to "form a government" due to no one party having a majority of the seats in their parliament it makes me wonder how a system like that gets anything done?

As opposed to this?

So lets put it into perspective. The USA has a huge wage gap discrepancy compared to other nations (I refer to only 1st world nations because it's pretty much on par with 3rd world nations on this).

The USA has no universal healthcare. It has little in the way of safety nets for it's citizens and plenty for big corporate interests. It's death rate of children is terrible, it's average age of lifespan is lower. The standard of living is lower. You are losing your middle class while the poor numbers grow. You incarcerate more people than any other country in the world, thank you Clinton's.

I can go on.
The US's two big claims are military might and money. The latter is concentrated in a small number of hands and the former relies on the minions to die regularly. The two are often closely tied together. How many years without any war has the US been in since it's history, Iirc it's been at war for over 214 years of it's existence. Basically about 25ish years of peace in about 250. Or at war about 90% of the time. It appears for all intents and purposes that the US economy is driven by the war machine. War makes jobs, stimulates the economy but it does so at the cost of the people. Considering your Constitution calls for no standing army (specifically due to the cost) and appropriate only in times of war, I find this ironic. How does one not disregard the constitution? Maintain a constant state of war. This is certainly appears as what the US has done.

So maybe you should ask, why does the system in the US not achieve as well as other 1st world countries?
The answer to that question is in the first link I gave.

[vendic]

Here is a 100 page report, including all sorts of data that shows widespread problems with the Democratic primary's.
of particular note is the exit poll data where on the same site on the same day the Republican exit polls matched the results while the Democrat exit polls did not. Consistently across the country all exit poll data showed a larger number of Sanders voters than the official tally results.
Most disturbing was a statistical anomaly where the rate of Clinton votes percentages went up with the number of people in the district. This should not happen as more sampling means better averaging so closer results between exit and official results. Because this was again consistently in Clinton's favor, it suggests counting fraud.
Plenty of other goodies in there. Documentation of forged signatures that changed people's registration etc.

Also, the voting machines were proven hackable by a University over 8 years ago yet the same machines are still being used.
That is a problem.

They did a lot better job than I can do collecting the data anyway for anyone interested or anyone that believes this was simply confused or ignorant people.
Electoral fraud report

This is not part of the proof I was going to show you geonuc. It's a 100 page report which few would have time to go through. I've only read some of it. It does show that there is certainly enough to warrant and investigation. None is coming however. Its hard to convince them to have an investigation if they are the only ones that can approve it and the only ones that stand to lose from it. Self regulation failure in action. Which is why true independent monitoring is key. They had reports from independent auditors of problems too. These were also ignored.