Cont: The Trump Presidency: Part 19
- Thread starter thaiboxerken
- Start date
- Status
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Majority of seats in our house-of-commons.
For example, we do have a minority government now, but prior to that, Trudeau managed to get a Majority government (184 out of 338 seats in the house of commons) even though the Liberal government managed to only get 39.5% of the popular vote. I could envision the U.S. congress going the same way: multiple parties, but with vote splitting giving the republicans the win despite getting far less than 50% of the vote.
chrispy
Graduate Poster
I would say unbelievable, but it really isn't anymore. Al hail God-Emperor Trump
Ladewig
I lost an avatar bet.
- Joined
- Dec 4, 2001
- Messages
- 28,828
Long answer.
Wild speculation of an armchair psychologist: I think the question is somewhat meaningless. Donald Trump doesn’t think in terms of do-I-believe-this-statement-is-true or do-I-believe-this-statement-is-false. To him, it is more a matter of what words can I say to the people standing in front of me that will cause them to give me adulation, respect, or power. That’s why he gets so upset when reporters say, “but you said something completely different yesterday.” To him, what he said yesterday was meaningless. To compare what he is saying now to what he said yesterday is, from his perspective, taking it completely out of context because he had a different audience yesterday.
Short answer.
To a compulsive BSer, it really doesn’t matter.
Delphic Oracle
Philosopher
- Joined
- Sep 17, 2016
- Messages
- 6,416
Given the difference in party dynamics, it is hard to make apples-to-oranges comparisons.
Plus I think part of the calculus that enables Trudeau to do this is his elevating the Independent caucus in the Senate.
Without implying any malfeasance, my first glance as a neophyte to your politics, if I were reading this as historical research, tell me if I'm close:
He can ostensibly say he's breaking the partisan makeup of the Senate.
At the same time. He can give patronage of a sort to any party (or faction) who help him win votes without having to call it a "coalition government" to his rivals or "rewarding enemies" to his own party.
Or maybe I'm just reaching the level of cynicism for taking a break.
Sent from my SM-G970U using Tapatalk
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Hey. He didn't shoot them.
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
My response:
I can't answer that question because I have no idea which venues they choose and why. I do know Rush said while ago they do some serious number gathering at these events, which is easy because the crowd is standing in line for a long, long time. In New Jersey they interviewed 85,000 people, and I believe he said 11% had not voted in the last election and something a little over 20% of those in line were registered Democrats.[/QUOTE]Firefox has had a bug in it for a long time now. Quoting the same post in Chrome works fine.
plague311
Great minds think...
a_unique_person
Director of Hatcheries and Conditioning
Economists don't like hot economies. They cause to many problems.
You can't separate our Two Party System and First Past the Post voting system. One cannot survive without the other.
If we had 5 or 6 parties and a simple "Everyone gets one vote for one person and whoever gets the most votes wins" system still in place yeah we'd be all but guaranteed an extremists of some form every election.
But that won't happen. 3rd parties can't survive in First Past the Post voting systems, the spoiler effect (i.e the entire "Who do we run as our candidate?" debate) prevents it from being anything beyond an occasional fluke.
Look at it this way.
(G)You go into a voting booth and your options are Ted, Bill, John, and Steve. Bill and John are mainstream candidates for the two main parties, Ted and Steve are either independents, 3rd party, or weird outliers in their own major parties.
You really like Ted and fully support him, think Bill is pretty okay but a little whishy-washy on certain topics, don't like John but he's not like the end of the world or anything, and utterly hate Steve and fear him being in power. But you aren't stupid, you watch the news, and you know Bill has broader support then Ted. Who to vote for is a legit moral quandary for you and creates the scenario you describe, it people vote honestly an "extremist" (not in any judgmental sense but in a purely 'outside the broad popular opinion' sense) will be elected very often.
Now if you go into a voting booth and you can rank your choices; Ted, Bill, John, then Steve there is no moral quandary. You can vote your conscious without taking votes away an acceptable alternative.
Last edited:
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
You're right, there are a lot of factors at play.
I was of course trying to do a comparison between the Canadian system, and an American system where the system had evolved to consist of more than just 2 main parties that are contenders for seats in congress and/or the presidency. (Yes, I recognize there are also parties like the Greens and Libertarians, but they are never serious contenders.)
Not exactly sure what you are referring to here. We don't really have an 'independent caucus', and virtually all seats in the house of commons are held by members of one of the main political parties.
And the thing is, the Trudeau situation is not unique... prior to that, Harper won a majority with a similar 39.6 %. And before him, Jean Chretien won 3 majorities despite never getting more than 42% of the popular vote. In fact, in all of Canada's history, there have only been 2 elections where a party has won a majority of the popular vote.
Not really sure of the point you're trying to make here.
Our senate is different than yours. Members are appointed for life by the government of the day, but the senate is largely powerless.
I didn't want to get too deep into details about Canadian politics... I just wanted to illustrate the risk of multi-party political system by pointing out a real life example: The Canadian system, where the vote splitting can result in parties gaining power without gaining a majority.
MRC_Hans
Penultimate Amazing
- Joined
- Aug 28, 2002
- Messages
- 24,961
I think not. Too many alternatives. A Trump type only prevails in a "them or us" environment. He not only wouldn't get the voter support, but also not the support of ... well, one party. Since several people can run, they could just take their own chance.
Hans
Trump is (in my opinion, obviously history will say if I'm right or wrong) a bad example because he's much more an extremist of tone and manner and decorum then of policy.
Trump is everything that's been Republican policy (with to be fair a few out there editions) with just all the facade and politics and euphemistic double speak we've sort of come to expect gone.
Trump is "Yeah already knew that's what Republicans thought but you're not supposed to just come out and say it!" about 90% of the time.
To put it bluntly the shock is... not lessened necessarily but just different because raise your hand if you think Trump routinely says things that some mainstream Republicans aren't thinking but just know not to say it? Yeah didn't think so.
So yeah from one point of view he absolutely is an extremist, from another not so much.
Trump is everything that's been Republican policy (with to be fair a few out there editions) with just all the facade and politics and euphemistic double speak we've sort of come to expect gone.
Trump is "Yeah already knew that's what Republicans thought but you're not supposed to just come out and say it!" about 90% of the time.
To put it bluntly the shock is... not lessened necessarily but just different because raise your hand if you think Trump routinely says things that some mainstream Republicans aren't thinking but just know not to say it? Yeah didn't think so.
So yeah from one point of view he absolutely is an extremist, from another not so much.
Last edited:
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Some tough little Mexican trees close to the fence prevented total collapse
"Luckily, Mexican authorities responded quickly and were able to divert traffic from the nearby street,” said border patrol agent Carlos Pitones, according to the LA Times.
video
Looks to me that those trees on the Mexican side would make a great method of getting over the wall.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
Projecting much there, Donnie?
President Trump: "We've decided to boycott the Mexican Pole Vaulting Team in this years Olympics!:"
Aide: "First of all Sir this isn't an Olympic year and we aren't hosting the Olympics. Secondly Sir the Mexican Pole Vaulting Team made it over the wall."
President Trump: "What? How?!"
Aide: "..."
President Trump: "Right, right I realized it as soon as I said it."
Upchurch
Papa Funkosophy
Almost believable.
Stacyhs
Penultimate Amazing
I was with you until the last sentence. Trump wouldn't see it himself. It would have to be explained to him.
Segnosaur
Penultimate Amazing
Well, what exactly do you define as a 'trump type'?
Boris Johnson is often seen as the U.K. equivalent of Trump (seen as buffonish and dishonest). He got a majority even though he only got 43.6% of the vote. And here in Canada, Doug Ford got a majority in the Ontario election despite getting only 40.5% of the vote.
Granted, neither of these politicians were quite as bad as Trump, but they certainly show how a 'populist' can gain power in a multi-party system.
Lets say the U.S. election was a 3-way race between Trump, Clinton and Sanders... Ok, anti-clinton voters now have an alternative to Trump. His vote count drops. But then Anti-Trump voters also have an alternative to Clinton in Sanders.
End result: Probably a 40(Trump)-35(Clinton)-25(Sanders) split in the popular vote, and a Trump presidency.
- Status