6 ms·

One scary side of this is that it appears to have led ordinary people who see the system as rigged to elect an “anti establishment” president who is even more z

by zakum1 8y ago

One scary side of this is that it appears to have led ordinary people who see the system as rigged to elect an “anti establishment” president who is even more zealously rigging the system. American politics needs profound change and brave new leaders with a new vision.

kevmo 8y ago
Senator Sanders is America's best bet.
- geggam 8y ago
  No standing politician can cure our existing politics
  - Sabinus 8y ago
    Why?
  - lxmorj 8y ago
    What is asserted without evidence...
    - geggam 8y ago
      The fact they are part of the problem existing today is only logical. They are there and we have problems.
      - bigbluedots 8y ago
        Food exists and we have political problems, therefore food is part of the political problems we have today.
        Rescis 8y ago
        > Food exists and we have political problems, therefore food is part of the political problems we have today. Senators are a very integral and powerful part of our current government, and have a far larger per pound effect than food on the politcal environment. Your argument seems quite disingenuous.
      - rifung 8y ago
        It's not logical though. The system being broken doesn't mean every single part of the system doesn't work, it merely means the system as a whole is broken.
- radicalbyte 8y ago
  I have experienced living in the UK (first past the post, you vote for a local rep, gerrymandered districts and all) and The Netherlands (full proportional representation, you vote for your rep from the full list). The result is clear: politics in The Netherlands are a factor less toxic than in the UK. This is because there is actually a chance to choose the party who represent you. They don't? Small parties are still an option. In the end a coalition is created and all of the crazy ideas (muslim ban, communism) are quickly lost in the first round.. So far I've voted for VVD (Republican/Tory), D66 (Democrats/Libdems) and Green (doesn't exist in UK/US; the one party who get results on climate change). So basically full proportional representation would be the best single change you could make in the US and UK systems.
  - eru 8y ago
    It would be quite a big change in the rules. And see some of the issues with Israel's parliament for how naive proportional voting can go wrong. (The German / New Zealand mixed-member proportional representation system works reasonably well in practice, but it's somewhat complicated.) For a smaller change to the rules (but still a big impact), consider approval voting or range voting. Range voting works like judging figure skating in the Olympics: every voter can give scores between eg 0 to 100 to the candidates, the candidate with the highest average score wins the district.
    - ClayShentrup 8y ago
      Score Voting is what it's advocates call it nowadays.
  - icelancer 8y ago
    We have the Green Party here. Democrats love blaming them for losing elections.
    - Latteland 8y ago
      the reason it is compelling to blame tiny third parties for losing elections is because it can happen. if there a very liberal third party like the greens and their vote percentage is higher than the liberal (democratic) candidate lost by, then they probably kept the dem from winning. usually you don't see third party conservative alternatives. and the small third parties don't get any political power in the us system.
lovich 8y ago
Is it a logically incorrect choice for many people thought? Say you have the establishment candidate says "tough shit" and you believe them because they are reliable. Then you have the anti establishment candidate says "im going to help you" and you value that at a 0.1% chance of happening because the candidate is incredibly unreliable. Wouldn't you chose the anti establishment candidate at that point? Yea, he'll probably be just as shitty, but at least there's a chance? I'm against Trump but I'm not surprised at all that large swathes of America voted for him. You can't tell people to follow a system that garuntees their life will be worse in the future and be surprised when they lash out for any sort of improvement
- qaq 8y ago
  How one can logically come to the conclusion that a guy making billions in highly regulated industry is actually anti-establishment.
  - lovich 8y ago
    Because the other side said they won't help you. It's like a lottery ticket at this point. No one at high levels of government is helping anyone, but you might think the unreliable guy could be the broken clock whose right twice a day.
    - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
      Is this actually true? I was under the impression the establishment aka Hillary Clinton actually had a thorough report and plan of how to help America’s neediest towns most affected by the closing of blue collar work and factories.
      - icelancer 8y ago
        Plans and such don't really matter to common people when Hillary is dropping lines like "deplorable" people referring to conservatives who hold outdated social views, AKA a lot of blue collar workers. It's entirely a PR thing, which is something we talk about every day on HN. Your actual plan, while somewhat important, is dwarfed by how much people like and believe you. And the credibility of HRC regarding the welfare of people who hate the establishment was low to begin with and collapsed over the length of the election, mostly due to self-inflicted wounds, but also due to Trump being somewhat savvy in that regard. It is absurd that we have Trump as president but it's not all that surprising. People shocked by it need to visit the Southeast a bit more and drive around towns.
imleft 8y ago
Trump is doing great for the little guy. Sad to hn and the left coast, he will get re-elected.

by zakum1 8y ago

kevmo 8y ago

Senator Sanders is America's best bet.

geggam 8y ago
No standing politician can cure our existing politics
- Sabinus 8y ago
  Why?
- lxmorj 8y ago
  What is asserted without evidence...
  - geggam 8y ago
    The fact they are part of the problem existing today is only logical. They are there and we have problems.
    - bigbluedots 8y ago
      Food exists and we have political problems, therefore food is part of the political problems we have today.
      - Rescis 8y ago
        > Food exists and we have political problems, therefore food is part of the political problems we have today. Senators are a very integral and powerful part of our current government, and have a far larger per pound effect than food on the politcal environment. Your argument seems quite disingenuous.
    - rifung 8y ago
      It's not logical though. The system being broken doesn't mean every single part of the system doesn't work, it merely means the system as a whole is broken.
radicalbyte 8y ago
I have experienced living in the UK (first past the post, you vote for a local rep, gerrymandered districts and all) and The Netherlands (full proportional representation, you vote for your rep from the full list). The result is clear: politics in The Netherlands are a factor less toxic than in the UK. This is because there is actually a chance to choose the party who represent you. They don't? Small parties are still an option. In the end a coalition is created and all of the crazy ideas (muslim ban, communism) are quickly lost in the first round.. So far I've voted for VVD (Republican/Tory), D66 (Democrats/Libdems) and Green (doesn't exist in UK/US; the one party who get results on climate change). So basically full proportional representation would be the best single change you could make in the US and UK systems.
- eru 8y ago
  It would be quite a big change in the rules. And see some of the issues with Israel's parliament for how naive proportional voting can go wrong. (The German / New Zealand mixed-member proportional representation system works reasonably well in practice, but it's somewhat complicated.) For a smaller change to the rules (but still a big impact), consider approval voting or range voting. Range voting works like judging figure skating in the Olympics: every voter can give scores between eg 0 to 100 to the candidates, the candidate with the highest average score wins the district.
  - ClayShentrup 8y ago
    Score Voting is what it's advocates call it nowadays.
- icelancer 8y ago
  We have the Green Party here. Democrats love blaming them for losing elections.
  - Latteland 8y ago
    the reason it is compelling to blame tiny third parties for losing elections is because it can happen. if there a very liberal third party like the greens and their vote percentage is higher than the liberal (democratic) candidate lost by, then they probably kept the dem from winning. usually you don't see third party conservative alternatives. and the small third parties don't get any political power in the us system.

lovich 8y ago

Is it a logically incorrect choice for many people thought? Say you have the establishment candidate says "tough shit" and you believe them because they are reliable. Then you have the anti establishment candidate says "im going to help you" and you value that at a 0.1% chance of happening because the candidate is incredibly unreliable. Wouldn't you chose the anti establishment candidate at that point? Yea, he'll probably be just as shitty, but at least there's a chance? I'm against Trump but I'm not surprised at all that large swathes of America voted for him. You can't tell people to follow a system that garuntees their life will be worse in the future and be surprised when they lash out for any sort of improvement

qaq 8y ago
How one can logically come to the conclusion that a guy making billions in highly regulated industry is actually anti-establishment.
- lovich 8y ago
  Because the other side said they won't help you. It's like a lottery ticket at this point. No one at high levels of government is helping anyone, but you might think the unreliable guy could be the broken clock whose right twice a day.
  - SolaceQuantum 8y ago
    Is this actually true? I was under the impression the establishment aka Hillary Clinton actually had a thorough report and plan of how to help America’s neediest towns most affected by the closing of blue collar work and factories.
    - icelancer 8y ago
      Plans and such don't really matter to common people when Hillary is dropping lines like "deplorable" people referring to conservatives who hold outdated social views, AKA a lot of blue collar workers. It's entirely a PR thing, which is something we talk about every day on HN. Your actual plan, while somewhat important, is dwarfed by how much people like and believe you. And the credibility of HRC regarding the welfare of people who hate the establishment was low to begin with and collapsed over the length of the election, mostly due to self-inflicted wounds, but also due to Trump being somewhat savvy in that regard. It is absurd that we have Trump as president but it's not all that surprising. People shocked by it need to visit the Southeast a bit more and drive around towns.

imleft 8y ago

Trump is doing great for the little guy. Sad to hn and the left coast, he will get re-elected.