Things could get much much worse than the status quo.

Scott Adams continues his plausibly deniable sh*tlording with this great letter from a Trump supporter:

http://blog.dilbert.com/post/1403537...a-voter-not-me

I don't really get it either but I'm pretty dumb on anything politics related. I don't see the 'massive incentive to merge', coalitions are a thing. Would probably be pointless if you had dems vs gop1 vs gop2 but if you were to break them up more then the GOP might be able to ditch the far-right or far-left at some areas because they'll have majority without them and so on.

But no real clue how local governments or the election to them work there for example + being a federal country should make things more complex as well.

Christ, he's saying the real problem is winner take all.

i honestly and sincerely hate that i'm being forced to vote for this sack of ****

Just for clarity, the "two-party system" is an extra-Constitutional development that was not fully anticipated by the FOUNDING FATHERS (who are the revered dudes who negotiated and signed the Constitution, in which they managed such reasonable accommodations as (i) the 3/5s compromise, (ii) the intentional insulation of government from the voting polity via the idiotic electoral college, and (iii) the intentional design of the Senate as the repository of the ELITE). The two-party system is not an intentional system.

It is also a terrible way of "democratically" participating in government. Think of it as an even more effective bulwark against public participation than the electoral college. In sum, the two-party system guarantees that myriad viewpoints not only will not receive political consideration, but by two-party fiat cannot possibly receive such consideration unless party elites - read: NOT the voting polity - deign such viewpoints politically advantageous.

The development of the parties over time is quite interesting. For example, the Republican Party of today is in some ways the intellectual heir of the segregationist Southern Democratic Party of the Civil War era; the Republican Party of the approximate 1930s was socially progressive; the realignment of the Republican Party such that its most identifiable voting bloc is conservative 'Christian' white voters is a recent development; the Smith v. Allwright (1944) decision that outlawed white primaries was a decision outlawing white primaries that were a Democratic Party southern tradition dating back to at least the early 1900s. The idea that the Democratic Party is socially liberal and progressive and expansionist in spending, while the Republican Party is racist and conservative in spending is, basically, new. And weird; the roots of the Republican Party are extremely laudable, while the historical Democratic Party is kind of a ridiculous joke of a heinous organization that turned into something unrecognizable to an 1800s Democrat. To me, this is interesting to know not because it informs current policy but because it seems to demonstrate the eternal return of the elemental racism and anti-humanism that was elemental to the founding of this country and remains, unfortunately, elemental to the voting interests of swaths of the voting polity.

cliffs: the two party system is bad and stupid and doesn't even exist on purpose

He's talking about the American system and how it effectively excludes a 3rd party from having any influence. Our system is not like others around the world where 5 or 10 or more parties can have representatives elected to government. It is exceedingly rare in this country for a 3rd party candidate to win even a state wide election and unheard of on national scale for 150+ years and even that was the collapse of one party and the rise of a new member of the duopoly.

A 3rd party can occasionally be a spoiler but can never actually win anything in this country.

hot take: It would be better if no one was allowed to run as part of a party. Primaries could be held to get on the ballot (create some minimum threshold) then the election is held and whoever gets the most votes win. All candidates run as independent and will not be listed on the ballot with any affiliation and campaigns cannot be run in a way that affiliates them with parties or groups within politics.

Yeah, I am quite aware multiple parties work in other countries. It's why I specified "American system." British, German, and French elections work in a very different way from the American system.

Adanthar in 2008 made a killing leveraging (think that's the right word) various state outcomes versus the general election. These betting markets historically have not been that efficient. Trump ain't winning a brokered convention.

I think some states (Washington or Oregon maybe? I forget) just hold one primary with everyone it in and the general election is between the top two. You often end up with Democrat vs Democrat for the general election which is an interesting way to do things.

It's a purge planet morty!

I would have to think the state conventions where they select the delegates will be interesting. The litmus test for being selected a delegate for any non-Trump candidate will probably be, "anyone but Trump if it becomes brokered." If Trump is the 2nd or even 3rd choice for any delegate they aren't getting selected.

what is really the expected outcome when an activist shows up to a political event just to ask questions that will stir up trouble? I would have no patience for people like this either.

Also, she looks like she might be a superpredator, surprised the SS didn't just preemptively deal with her.

Yeah, I see how the WTA makes this an easy game theory exercise. At least in this presidential election a bunch of things need an overhaul so time for some amendments.

And I knew that the dude who freed all the slaves was ironically a republican, I owe this sweet piece of trivia to this gem:

The cool jazz playing on the Trump response stream is hot fire.

You're not man. You can vote for change.

That's fine, but you're not running for president

Is the fact **** with the horrible voice that racist governor of Maine?

And here. We. Go.

TRUMP looks younger and fresher today than he does most of the time. He is prepared for WAR.

GET EM OUT

He's just going to ignore the Romney stuff and do his planned speech maybe

I'm trying my hardest to not post in this thread but it's been a year since I quit my career in politics and it's creeping back in me like the ****ing goodfellas line.