Not true. Canada and the UK both have "first past the post" voting systems and both have mulitiple parties (Canada has 5 in their Parliament) and there have been more than a few third-party runs for the US Presidency since its inception.

No, corruption has stagnated the natural flow of parties coming and going into the system. The only way to break that grip is for an outside force like TRUMP or Bernie to come in and shake it up and call out the corruption and control of the donor class.

Putting aside my visceral dislike for her because of the ease with which she lies and abuses power and people, the worst thing that could happen to Democracy in America would be a Hillary Presidency because it would result in large groups of people realizing it is all a rigged game, losing faith in the System, and deciding to express themselves in some way other than voting equivalent to the failed Arab Spring.

Consider if you are a person living near the border and seeing your safety threatened and, if you are on the low end, your wages suppressed by the flood of ILLEGAL immigrants (by the way, Bernie has always been against illegal immigration and has been for decades as he sees the flood of cheap labor hurting lower-class Americans, taxing the social safety net that he wants to expand, and taking away entry level jobs for the young ... but political-correctness has forced him to hide his balls on the issue) and then seeing the bias media and smug elites mock the only person to address that very serious problem that others are ignoring. Anger would be a natural response from anyone and that is what you are getting from large parts of the electorate on the right and left (Watch Germany carefully in months ahead as crimes by migrants like rapes are not reported and counted by State and censorship of social media increases -- an explosion of violence would almost be a natural reaction by people that want to be heard and are not by the "elites"; especially, when there is an economic downturn).

TRUMP/Bernie 2016
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN ... for the People!

And first past the post is ending in Canada because it makes zero effin sense when you have one right wing party and 3 left wing parties.

The UK has 11 or 13 parties in its parliament (depending on whether or not you count Bercow and Hermon as "parties").

5 of those (including Hermon) are Northern Ireland based as well as 1 each for Scotland and Wales, but you still have 5 or 6 parties elected in England itself.

The main difference with the US is the absence of the primary system. In the US people pursue socialism or libertarianism through the primary system of the main parties rather than support smaller parties as they might in the UK (though there is such a strategy as "entryism" into larger parties in the UK).

The FPTP system is ridiculous though, here are the parties in order of number of votes gain with the number of seats they gained.

1st (i.e. most votes) 330 seats
2nd 232 seats
3rd 1 seat
4th 8 seats
5th 56 seats
6th 1 seat
7th 8 seats

On Saturday in Slovakia's general election, parties promising no deal with the EU on migrants filled all the top 5 positions (maybe more, don't know enough about the 6th placed party). This was reported by the BBC as:

Slovakia election: Anti-migrant PM Fico loses majority

http://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-35734947

The thing I've found is that whenever anything is in the news that I have direct knowledge of, the news reporting is only partially correct (not just on controversial issues, inaccuracies abound in pretty much anything) but when it's not something I have direct knowledge of I go back to just generally believing what I read.

Obviously it's a different system to the US, but moderate libertarian parties both founded in 2009 came 2nd and 3rd and the two previous Christian conservative parties that had governed Slovakia for 10 of the 23 years since independence were kicked out of parliament altogether (there is a 5% hurdle), so that shows what's possible when people just vote how they feel. Of course it's a lot easier to persuade them to do that with a PR system.

That's a naive way of looking at it. Corruption is a system problem. Same people can be corrupt in a system that is corrupt, and honest in a system where being honest is not tantamount to being stupid. You don't solve corruption by having Mr. Smith go to Washington, that only works in the movies.

If you are interested in solving it, I don't believe voting for the most openly corrupt person to run for the position since Nixon is ever the answer.

-----
As to the above point about the bias in the media and not really appreciating it unless you have direct knowledge of a story, I can speak from experience as the subject of a story at one time and say that is completely true. Whether this is done because they are told to do so or want to push the narrative being driven by those around them, biases are real and often pernicious in what they do to the truth.

With the advent of the internet/youtube/liveleak people can see things for themselves directly and, as a result, have come to distrust the media as much as professional politicians -- for good reason.

OK, then I'll FYP for you:

^ The fixed post is not true though. Countries that have some kind of system for electing the president that prevents the "wasted vote" syndrome, such as instant run-off voting (AV) or an actual run-off (which allows the two leading candidates to debate head-to-head) elect plenty of independents and smaller party candidates. So the issue is using the first-past-the-post system to elect the president.

Back to the important topic of politics gambling

Current Betfair decimal odds (already include return of stake, so 2.00 is evens, 3.00 is 2-1 etc.).
To win in November
Clinton 1.53
Trump 5
Cruz 26
Sanders 28
Kasich 30
Rubio 36

(all are also available to lay at one 'notch' higher)

To be nominated
Clinton 1.07
Sanders 16.5
Biden 34

Trump 1.64
Cruz 6
Rubio 14.5
Kasich 12

I've made a very small value bet on Sanders at 30 myself.

It very well may not be; I'm simply pointing out the contradiction. Or removing it, by "fixing" his post.

That might be part of the issue, but it isn't the only issue.

^ I know

Has Trump won yet?

I pointed out the issue that can be fixed. US can't turn into a parliamentary democracy, that will require a complete rewrite of the constitution, and that's not going to happen without an existential crisis (and, no, despite what some people believe, we're not anywhere near that point). The voting system can be amended by the states, though, to the best of my knowledge.

Getting closer.

Yesterday, the hi-light for me was TRUMP -- in response to one of those precious snowflake "will you apologize for using language that .." questions by a reporter -- being direct and pointing out how the country is sick of political-correctness and angry because it prevents real action on problems. The working class in Michigan are hurting terribly because of the country's trade policies and open border that allows illegal immigrants to come in and suppress wages/take jobs. TRUMP and Bernie are really the only two candidates addressing that fact and, because of it, were the two that did best.

Trump isn't coming in for November, rather he's continuing to drift out in the odds. The market seems to be getting surer he can win the nomination but less sure he can win the presidency.

Here are the changes since about 30 hours ago (new prices in bold)

LOL.

In fairness Bobo, mocking the use of he F-word (by the way, I think he was feigning insult in a performance way to emphasize how he chooses to speak) is different from being against political correctness.

Political correctness is calling people that ILLEGALLY enter your country "undocumented immigrants" or "migrants" as the MSM does rather than illegal immigrants.

An illegal immigrant should be arrested, charged and deported (by the way, that's what happens in Mexico where the standard penalty for entering through its SOUTHERN border is one year in jail) whereas an "undocumented immigrant" sounds like someone was just confused and did not have the right paperwork which, of course, is a lie.

Less would care if the economy was better for the working class, but when illegal immigration works to suppress wages on the low end by bringing in a flood of low-cost alternatives for employers to take jobs and take them for less people are going to call out b.s. when they see it or stand behind someone with the stones to do it for them (especially if they are or know someone that is the victim of crime by an illegal immigrant like the one that murdered four people yesterday after being deported years earlier and then sneaking back).

People like you truely make me angry, YOU are representing, sadly so, what's wrong with this country (and other countries for that matter). Political correctness doesn't prevent real action. Do you understand that there is no space for real action in good, thoughtful politics? Of all machineries, politics is the slowest. People (like you) are impatient, ever so little understanding of things taking time, a lot of time. Time that you and the average hillbilly think they don't have, so you want to escape to real action. Real action, that truely, can only be delivered (as proven in all past) by evil.
To grasp politics you need passion, time and devotion of a lifetime. The same devotion a scientist needs to grasp the universe, yet inevitably always fails. You understand nothing about politics, nor will I ever be able to bring you close to a little understanding. All you can see is your sphere of problems and you want them gone, gone fast. You turn to scapegoating and real action. Let me assure you that there is neither a scapegoat, nor real action.
For every problem that you think trump could solve, see that he will infect you with ten new problems, each worse than the other.
You were that boy sitting in history class, thinking how the hell did hitler ever get to do what he did, well go look no further.

Hillary has already stated she wants to attack Iran which would likely lead to a world war.

Correct - it's far more ridiculous. I wasn't trying to equate them; I think it's preposterous that he would be the least bit offended over what Fox said, given all of Trump's name-calling and other foolishness.

OK, so I'm curious how you feel about something like this:

A whole lot of blustering, unsupported by fact. In actuality, I believe fact tells us exactly the opposite, but I'm not an expert on the topic. I should add I don't ask because I'm looking to label you based on your answer; I'm just wondering how you feel about the rhetoric he chooses to use, which he has defended many times since.

My concern is that many people seem to be supporting him because he "speaks the truth", but they aren't making the distinction between speaking frankly and going out of one's way to belittle and berate, either for publicity, or because that's the way he really feels. If it's the former, burning a lot of bridges to get elected doesn't seem like it's serving the American people very well. And if it's the latter, that's far worse. He gives the impression of someone that has zero respect for, or even tolerance of, people with a different point of view than his, on many issues. That seems like an extremely terrible personality deficiency for someone that wants to lead your country - and I think that's understating things. I think his toxicity far, far, far outweighs any positives he brings to the table.

And all of that aside, the great success of his campaign just makes me a little sad for where American society is heading (and I don't say that as a judgement of American society, as I see it here too, although I don't think to quite the same extent) with this whole culture of negativity, extremist positions, and lack of respect for differing opinions. Of course this is nothing new, but it really seems to have gotten worse over the last decade.

I know you believe you wrote something profound, but whatever merit your screed had was overwhelmed by smugness. To equate those that disagree with your point of view as "hillbillies" is quite telling and not uncommon from those that share your politics.

So go slow with your "solutions" while people in the US wait and experience real suffering as their world is upended because of policies that permit a flood of illegal immigrants into the country and their communities that does, in fact, result in a suppression of wages on the low-end, an absence of manual-labor jobs, and increased crime and social costs.

The only demographic group in the US that has seen its life expectancy decline in the last twenty years is lower/working-class white males. While I suspect your response is "good!" others are not so heartless to the suffering of Americans caused by policies fashioned by its so-called "elites" and agree with Einstein that if you want solutions to current problems it is best to depart from the current thinking and people that created them.

Good day.

A liberal throwing insults instead of having a civil conversation, typical. Why are liberals filled with such hate?

inb4 jamie gold has autism. i know it's not really correct to make assumptions regarding someones brain chemistry but within the first few minutes of that interview there's quite obvious tells there.

top kek. it just reminds me of the video where he is awkwardly placed with the cast of the hills in some sort of beverly hills home party. i can only imagine the how daunting of a task that was for him, and the NT trust fundees.

At least, come election day, the rest of the world will get a definitve answer to the long-existing prejudice that the majority of Americans are extremely dumb.

If you got money on Trump, you might want to start stumping for Clinton. Every week, Sanders lead vs Trump grows. Even the Wall Street Journal has him beating Trump by a whopping 18 points...

All General Election: Trump vs. Sanders Polling Data

NBC News/Wall St. Jrnl 3/3 - 3/6 1200 RV 2.8 55 37 Sanders +18
CNN/ORC 2/24 - 2/27 920 RV 3.0 55 43 Sanders +12
FOX News 2/15 - 2/17 1031 RV 3.0 53 38 Sanders +15
Quinnipiac 2/10 - 2/15 1342 RV 2.7 48 42 Sanders +6
USA Today/Suffolk 2/11 - 2/15 1000 LV 3.0 43 44 Trump +1

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/epo...ders-5565.html

^^^^^
TRUMP has not really said anything against Hillary and he has not commented on Bernie to any degree. When he does look for them to sink and slink away as JEB did shortly after the "low energy" comment.

Of course, all it will take to finish Bernie off to any degree as the Democrat candidate is for Americans to see the continuing economic and societal collapse in Europe caused by their open borders policies (that TRUMP has been most openly and vociferously against) or a couple of LiveLeak videos of pure Socialism in action in Venezuela with people lining up for hours to get a roll of toilet paper and a loaf of bread.

/That said, I still prefer an anti-Establishment TRUMP/Bernie third-party run (it would be fun and completely disrupt a corrupt system)

TRUMP/BERNIE 2016
MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN .. for the People!