[Megathread] Bernie Sanders 2016

[Matchles]

Yeah you left out the rest of that, that it was a vote to put awesome power in the hands of George W. Bush on good faith. Maybe the people, like yourself, don't give two shits about the Iraq war anymore out of convenience to your candidate. But I'd be willing to wager there's a fair amount of people out there, both who were directly effected by it and not, who still care about it at least a little bit.

That is not what the resolution did. All it did was authorize the 1973 War Powers Resolution with regard to Iraq. It wasn't designed to allow Bush to go to war unchecked. The resolution itself says

a) AUTHORIZATION- The President is authorized to use the Armed Forces of the United States as he determines to be necessary and appropriate in order to--
(1) defend the national security of the United States against the continuing threat posed by Iraq; and
(2) enforce all relevant United Nations Security Council resolutions regarding Iraq.

- - - Updated - - -

That's contradictory, since if a 3rd party candidate won the election it would obviate the need for Congressional involvement.

3 candidates, no one is getting 270. If no one reaches 270 the 12th Amendment states Congress picks the president. The constitution is clear that this is a two party system. You want something else, change the constitution.

[Caolela]

3 candidates, no one is getting 270. If no one reaches 270 the 12th Amendment states Congress picks the president. The constitution is clear that this is a two party system. You want something else, change the constitution.

Your first post on this assumed a 3rd candidate wins, so unless I read it wrong I don't know what you're on about here.

The Constitution is not clear at all to have a two-party system. In fact, nowhere does it say that. In a plurality system, the winner would be the one with the most votes of all candidates.

The two-party system is not specified in the Constitution by name but it is a natural consequence of plurality voting, which is specified in the Constitution in several places. That is, the winner is the one who gets the most votes (a plurality).

It is a consequence of a principle called Duverger's Law: if the group with the most votes wins, then it behooves all losing parties to unify in an attempt to reach plurality. Given enough time (and it usually doesn't take long), you end up with two parties, a winner and a loser (who attempts to expand its coalition to become the winner).

Even when there are formally multiple parties, they are generally assembled into coalitions that nearly always vote together. Minority parties can persist, but they achieve little or nothing until they are wooed by one of the two majority parties in hopes of putting them over the top to achieve a plurality.

As long as the US Constitution works by plurality vote, you're going to tend toward two parties. There are other systems available, such as proportional voting, but a Constitutional amendment (or convention) would be required to implement them.

[Matchles]

Your first post on this assumed a 3rd candidate wins, so unless I read it wrong I don't know what you're on about here.

The Constitution is not clear at all to have a two-party system. In fact, nowhere does it say that. In a plurality system, the winner would be the one with the most votes of all candidates.

The two-party system is not specified in the Constitution by name but it is a natural consequence of plurality voting, which is specified in the Constitution in several places. That is, the winner is the one who gets the most votes (a plurality).

It is a consequence of a principle called Duverger's Law: if the group with the most votes wins, then it behooves all losing parties to unify in an attempt to reach plurality. Given enough time (and it usually doesn't take long), you end up with two parties, a winner and a loser (who attempts to expand its coalition to become the winner).

Even when there are formally multiple parties, they are generally assembled into coalitions that nearly always vote together. Minority parties can persist, but they achieve little or nothing until they are wooed by one of the two majority parties in hopes of putting them over the top to achieve a plurality.

As long as the US Constitution works by plurality vote, you're going to tend toward two parties. There are other systems available, such as proportional voting, but a Constitutional amendment (or convention) would be required to implement them.

That is not what viable means.

And it is clear in the 12th Amendment. It is a majority system, not a plurality.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice.

[Caolela]

That is not what viable means.

And it is clear in the 12th Amendment. It is a majority system, not a plurality.

You can attempt to erect as many hoops as you want to try to jump through, but nowhere in the 12th or any other Amendment does it specify a two-party system. No number of parties in fact.

If you don't understand what 'plurality' and 'majority' means then I can't help you.

[Matchles]

You can attempt to erect as many hoops as you want to try to jump through, but nowhere in the 12th or any other Amendment does it specify a two-party system. No number of parties in fact.

If you don't understand what 'plurality' and 'majority' means then I can't help you.

Right back at ya. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. You can stop digging. It is a majority system, clearly designed for 2 parties.

There is an amendment that states "if you don't get an absolute majority, we scrap the system and let Congress decide." How the hell can you think that is designed for three or more parties?

[Caolela]

Right back at ya. You clearly don't know what you are talking about. You can stop digging. It is a majority system, clearly designed for 2 parties.

No it is not clearly designed for two parties only, nor does it restrict more than two parties running. You cannot show that the Constitution says that anywhere because it simply does not.

With only two candidates, it would be a 'majority'.

With more than two candidates, it would be a 'plurality'.

"c : a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plurality

[Matchles]

No it is not clearly designed for two parties. You cannot show that the Constitution says that anywhere because it simply does not.

With only two candidates, it would be a 'majority'.

With more than two candidates, it would be a 'plurality'.

"c : a number of votes cast for a candidate in a contest of more than two candidates that is greater than the number cast for any other candidate but not more than half the total votes cast"

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/plurality

I know what it fucking means, you are the one struggling here. Again the 12th Amendment.

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote;

What the hell do you think that means? A MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE NUMBER OF ELECTORS == NOT A PLURALITY.

[Caolela]

I know what it fucking means, you are the one struggling here. Again the 12th Amendment.



What the hell do you think that means? A MAJORITY OF THE WHOLE NUMBER OF ELECTORS == NOT A PLURALITY.

But you forgot the part right after that, "...and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President..."

See how that works? Majority between two. Plurality - most votes between more than two.

[Matchles]

But you forgot the part right after that, "...and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President..."

See how that works? Majority between two. Plurality - most votes between more than two.

No. That means that the top three in EVs are sent to Congress to vote on.

[Caolela]

No. That means that of the list the top three are sent to Congress to vote on.

Which would not be a majority of votes between two, it would be a plurality between three, and as you admit here the Constitution does not say two parties only. So you were wrong on that.

But your whole argument is as moot as it is wrong because you already said if a 3rd-party won.

[Matchles]

Which would not be a majority of votes between two, it would be a plurality between three.

But your whole argument is as moot as it is wrong because you already said if a 3rd-party won, which would obviate the need for Congress to vote at all.

Moot because you don't know what "viable" means? For example, in the Democratic primaries a candidate needs 15% of the vote to be viable. It is the minimum threshold to receive delegates. To be viable doesn't mean you have won.

Three are sent to Congress but the vote won't belong to the voters anymore. When you have a system that says "we are taking your ability to choose a president because you can't find an absolute majority," it is designed for two candidates and by running three they are saying you fucked up.

[Caolela]

Moot because you don't know what "viable" means? For example, in the Democratic primaries a candidate needs 15% of the vote to be viable. It is the minimum threshold to receive delegates. To be viable doesn't mean you have won.

Three are sent to Congress but the vote won't belong to the voters anymore. When you have a system that says "we are taking your ability to choose a president because you can't find an absolute majority," it is designed for two candidates and by running three they are saying you fucked up.

You've already admitted that it was not designed for two parties only, not does it restrict more than two as I've said.

You're contradicting yourself in circles to try to "win", but you're obviously wrong.

[Buckeyenut88]

You two are so cute !

[Caolela]

You two are so cute !

Yeah but I'm cuter than him.

[BrerBear]

Which would not be a majority of votes between two, it would be a plurality between three.

But your whole argument is as moot as it is wrong because you already said if a 3rd-party won.

You're being extremely dense.
Having the House of Representatives pick the President, quite possibly the most disenfranchising outcome possible, would be commonplace if there were more than 2 viable parties. The "majority" requirement and the extreme outcome if majority is not met are clear evidence that 2 parties were intended.

[Vynestra]

And so it begins: http://www.motherjones.com/politics/...et-never-trump

Poor Bernie, he got barely any spotlight last night and today, and the contest between Clinton and Trump is going to pretty much squelch him out.

I also want to say that it's good she's starting now, she has to. Sanders also seemed to have stopped attacking Clinton, or at least as harshly as before. That's good.


Sanders voters in new CNN poll favor Clinton over Trump 86-10. Non-Trump GOP voters favor Trump over Clinton 70-24: http://i2.cdn.turner.com/cnn/2016/im...16.general.pdf

You guys in your echo chamber can take your "WAAAH BERNIE BROS WON'T VOTE FOR CLINTON WAAAH" and shove it where the sun don't shine because the majority of them DO support Clinton over Trump, because 86% of them have brains. If they want to get anywhere on bernie's agenda, electing Trump is not the way to do it.

That's about the same amount of 08 clinton voters who voted for McCain, and as the general gets closer more will switch.

[Caolela]

You're being extremely dense.
Having the House of Representatives pick the President, quite possibly the most disenfranchising outcome possible, would be commonplace if there were more than 2 viable parties. The "majority" requirement and the extreme outcome if majority is not met are clear evidence that 2 parties were intended.

No, as I said above two parties are what it tends toward by its nature as shown by Duverger's Law; whether it was "intended" or not is another debate. If they intended for only two parties then they would have explicitly written that in.

A "majority requirement" (51% or more) would only exist with just two parties; if more than that then a plurality wins.

How dense must you be not to understand that?

[Matchles]

You've already admitted that it was not designed for two parties only, not does it restrict more than two as I've said.

You're contradicting yourself in circles to try to "win", but you're obviously wrong.

There is a difference between allowing something and being designed for something. My recliner was designed to seat one person, that doesn't stop both of my kids from sitting in it at the same time. There are incredibly easy changes that could have allowed for multiple parties (your plurality idea for instance). But they chose not to.

- - - Updated - - -

You two are so cute !

It's the hat isn't it?

[Buckeyenut88]

You pull the hat off very well.

[BrerBear]

No, as I said above two parties are what it tends toward by its nature as shown by Duverger's Law; whether it was "intended" or not is another debate. If they intended for only two parties then they would have explicitly written that in.

If they had intended multiple parties, they would have written "plurality" instead of "majority". Or they would have required a rank system or something similar before requiring the drastic action of tossing the Presidency to Congress.