"Currants Bw..."

[Letters]

How so?

Because you have someone as president who gained fewer votes than the person who lost.
Our systems gives similarly unrepresentative results and the same could happen here although I don't know if it ever has.

[Niall_Quinn]

Because you have someone as president who gained fewer votes than the person who lost.
Our systems gives similarly unrepresentative results and the same could happen here although I don't know if it ever has.

So you think it would be a better system if the people of California and New York chose the president and the rest of the states were ignored?

[Letters]

I think it would be a better system if it was more representative of the way people voted, as would our system.
In the last election, for example, about 1 in 8 people voted for UKIP across the board and they only ended up with 1 MP out of 650.
Whatever you think of UKIP it's a pretty crummy system which yields those sorts of results.

[Kano]

I think it would be a better system if it was more representative of the way people voted, as would our system.
In the last election, for example, about 1 in 8 people voted for UKIP across the board and they only ended up with 1 MP out of 650.
Whatever you think of UKIP it's a pretty crummy system which yields those sorts of results.

But there's been little more than a grumble about challenging and changing the systems in place. Typically it always comes up when there is a result a particular section of society find hard to accept. Which is really double standards because if people or those actively participating in political circles want to seriously discuss changing it, then it has to happen way before an election is looming. But that will never happen because I don't think there is any real desire to change the way elections are decided, particular from the powers that be, because either way, this current method keeps the realistic 'democratic' choice down to two parties only. One gets in, the other waits its turn, safe in the knowledge they'll have another shot in 4-8 years. If it was truly democratic and there were real options for people to vote for, a lot of these guys would have a very brief careers and the corporations that leave an imprint on so many peoples lives would quickly lose their control.

[Letters]

It won't change, obviously. We had our chance with the AV vote. It wouldn't have been perfect but it gives demonstrably more representative results, it would have been a step in the right direction.
Cameron knew he could offer that to Clegg, safe in the knowledge that a combination of "I don't like change" and it being a bit complicated would see it rejected and on we go.
That was our chance and we collectively blew it.
Meh.

[Herbert_Chapman's_Zombie]

So you think it would be a better system if the people of California and New York chose the president and the rest of the states were ignored?

Well unless you have an evenly divided amount of people in proportion to land size that's always kind of going to happen. A lot of countries are divided in terms of value systems in terms of urban and rural take government out of the equation and that's still the case.

That said the electoral system is what it is, and people should wait to see what this guy actually does before deciding they are going to protest it.

[Power n Glory]

What I have been saying all along is I'm relieved that witch Clinton didn't get into the Whitehouse. Not just because she's a long term criminal but because we were on course for more of the same dangerous shite if she got in and held the door open for the crowd of neoliberal loons that have infected American politics since the late 90s (not 2001 because 2001 was their other shoe dropping, their golden ticket). The fact she didn't get in is a big win for America and a big win for the rest of us. None of this has anything to do with Trump beyond the fact he's not Clinton and he's not in bed with these crackpot warmongers. I'm not sure who he's in bed with but one of his partners is the US military who don't want any of this warmongering shit either. The neoliberal crazies know the game is up for the American debt economy and their solution is the same one every tinpot tyrant (and the more notable tyrants too) have turned to when the economic Ponzi scheme has run out of steam - war.

With war now off the table, sure, there will be other problems but war is off the table and that "trumped" every other consideration by a wide margin. Well it's off the table for the time being because the American economy still has to collapse and when that happens there will be huge uncertainty and nasty consequences. We'll have to see, but at least we won't be actively pursuing a war path. That said, the degenerate Obama doesn't leave until January and he has nothing to lose now he's been exposed as just the latest charlatan. These will be a dangerous few months.

As I said with Brexit, Leave or Remain - NOTHING WILL CHANGE. And that's exactly what we have seen. The Tories have shuffled themselves around and have done precisely zero to execute the will of the people. The same will be true on a domestic level with Trump. He'll make a lot of noise but he won't touch any of the major levers that could rescue the American economy. He can't, he doesn't have access to them. That money printing machine the Federal Reserve is privately owned and unless he wants to send troops in there to shut it down (and crash the global economy in the process) the fuckers there will continue to dictate fiscal policy. The big pharma boys control healthcare so Trump might change the name from Obamacare to Trumpcare but the net result will remain people getting screwed when they are unfortunate enough to fall ill. He might be able to mortgage off the last few square yards of America to the banksters in return for funny money so he can embark on a public program of renewal. Well we all know what that means - the public will renew and the private interests will come in and steal it when the profits are ready for plucking. Maggie and Ronnie were the masters of that game, we could see it all again.

So Trump/ Clinton, Clinton/ Trump will make no difference domestically but Clinton being disconnected from the process also disconnects the crazies who want to blow the shit out of everything and start again as last man standing. Trump will buy the military more toys to keep them onside. America will limp on for a few years more and Trump will consider it a successful presidency if the whole thing doesn't come crashing down on his watch.

As for Mexicans and Muslims and boy/ girls and immigrants and all the other hot button leftist nonsense issues, nothing will happen. The collapse would happen faster if America rid itself of its slave labour and I'm sure Trump (having spent a life in construction) knows that all too well. People are shitting their pants not because Trump is a racist and a white supremacist but because the desperate Dems convinced them that was the reality.

There are ways to fix all this but they are far too sane to ever be considered and the few would suffer while the majority gained, so real solutions are a non-starter.

So how is this a revolution for the voters? How is this the end or push back to the Globalist bullshit if we’re getting more of the same? No more warmongering? Didn’t the last President promise that? It’s the American machine, not leadership that’s the problem. Trump has said he’s going to put an end to ISIS. How? Will he try negotiation or more military action? You know the answer. There is no way that will be solved peacefully and the people behind in the military won’t advise that route. I’m sure they’ll be itching to play with the latest toys Trump hands them.

Also, Trumps already declared he’ll recognise Jerusalem as the capital of Israel. He’s said Israel needs protecting. Doesn’t that alliance alone set alarms bells off for a new conflict?

But again, the win for Trump doesn’t represent people standing up against war mongering. It’s been about the economy and everyday people being squeezed to breaking point. You may be pleased with the result and think people are waking up and it’s a vote against the establishment but I disagree. It’s a step backwards when people can be played with the same card so easily and it’s poor vs poor again. Heck, the fraction opens wider and things get worse, I wouldn’t be surprised if they find a new enemy other seas just to get those flags waving again. It’s a shitty system and I’m not saying Hilary would have fixed it. It’s Capitalism that’s the problem. It doesn’t work and it makes sense that people want something new. I get that. But I find it funny how people have run into the arms of Donald Trump as if he’s a saviour! He represents the very system that has been fucking these people over for years.

[Power n Glory]

It makes us honest because democracy is just wallpaper. Sure, you can protest and complain and do all that stuff. And you can even do it for a worthwhile cause, unlike these losers who are objecting because their criminal didn't get the nod. But try taking action and see what you get. Tangible action that would put genuine pressure on the state is always viewed in the same way. Terrorism. Out come the paramilitaries who are pretending to be police and heads get cracked. The clueless majority in front of their TV screens shake their heads and conclude it's the only way to keep their two tier law/ lawlessness and order/ chaos system ticking along. Poor saps. They are always so keen to support the warden when a few inmates get rowdy.

What was the last public action in the UK to provoke real change? You have to go way back to the poll tax "riots". The establishment was genuinely scared and limited concessions were made. This is how all change comes about. People stand up and punch the establishment in the face. We sanctify our grand democracy that goes back centuries but do you think King John would have negotiated if the other side wasn't holding swords and severed heads?

So yes, we need real protest and we need that protest to lead to real action. But what we don't need is a bunch of turds running around protesting that the system isn't even more crooked and rigged, which is effectively what they are doing.

You can apply that logic to all protests. You can apply that to the poll tax riots as well.

[Niall_Quinn]

I think it would be a better system if it was more representative of the way people voted, as would our system.
In the last election, for example, about 1 in 8 people voted for UKIP across the board and they only ended up with 1 MP out of 650.
Whatever you think of UKIP it's a pretty crummy system which yields those sorts of results.

I wasn't discussing the UK. The UK and US electoral systems are entirely different. The US has 50 very diverse states and some 350 million citizens, many cultures, lifestyles, traditions. The fact is they shouldn't have a president at all because there's no way he can represent the diversity across those 50 states. But seeing as they do then the only way to hold the Union together is to consider the views of the smaller states, sometimes oversampling those views but not to the extent they can hijack an election.

Here in the UK we have London and the South East and that's it. There's not even a passing pretence at representation. Everyone knows the score. So yes, we could do with a different system over here but the yanks already have things about as close as they can get to representation given the nature and constitution of their Republic. No similarities at all.

[Niall_Quinn]

Well unless you have an evenly divided amount of people in proportion to land size that's always kind of going to happen. A lot of countries are divided in terms of value systems in terms of urban and rural take government out of the equation and that's still the case.

That said the electoral system is what it is, and people should wait to see what this guy actually does before deciding they are going to protest it.

But that's the point. It doesn't happen, or at least is tempered, in the States because the smaller states have a proportionally greater representation without that advantage being so significant it can skew a result. Best of a bad deal. If they had some advanced form of proportional representation you could end up with some Bible thumping nutter speaking for New York or a girly man liberal speaking for Texas.