Are the Democrats back on track?

The point is. He is one of them educated thinkers. With a bachelors degree not in journalism, but in political science from Hofstra University. He apparently was partying when they were teaching the part about ethical reporting of a news story.

 

Plenty of Republicans voted for an imperfect candidate.

 

In todays society, we need capitalists to make the money and a strong government to ensure that the workers get a fair deal. The days of the boss wearing a Savile Row suit and driving a Mercedes, while the workers wear overalls and come to work on a push bike should be a thing of the past.

Sadly, governments in the US and Europe seem to be struggling with this simple principal.

I know of quite a few businesses where the owners work with the staff and everyone is on Christian name terms. None of them have made a fortune, but the staff are happy and quite a few of them have been with the company for 30 or 40 years.
The sad part is that they would all be a lot better off if the government stopped crippling small businesses with such high taxes.

 

Have a look at my reply above.

My question is where is the track. Governments seem to me to be a bunch of idiots splashing around in the village pond.

 

Who's a perfect candidate?

 

This about sums up the electoral college.

​

 

A more perfect candidate would support universal healthcare. It's favored by Americans 58% to 37% yet neither of the two candidates offered it. Hillary said it wasn't possible even though the vast majority of Americans support it. Why vote if your representatives don't even agree with the American people? We have an oligarchy at present time imo.

 

Here is something I posted a few years agoi-

Proportional Representation could change the political landscape in the US - it did before when it was used.

Here are extracts from - A Brief History of Proportional Representation in the United States, [by bold]

“The most extensive research to date has been produced by Kathleen Barber and several colleagues. Their study, Proportional Representation and Electoral Reform in Ohio, systematically analyzed the political effects of PR in five Ohio cities. In many cases their findings were also confirmed by results in other PR cities. For example, Barber found that choice voting produced fairer and more proportional representation of political parties. In particular, it eliminated the tendency of winner-take-all systems to exaggerate the seats given to the largest party and to underrepresent the smaller parties. In the election before the adoption of PR in Cincinnati, the Republicans won only 55% of the vote, but received 97% of the seats on the council. In the first PR election, the results were much more proportional, with the Republicans winning 33.3% of the seats based on 27.8% of the vote, and the rival Charter party winning 66.7% of the seats on 63.8% of the vote.

Similarly, in the last pre-PR election in New York City, the Democrats won 95.3% of the seats on the Board of Alderman with only 66.5% of the vote. During the use of PR, the Democrats still had a majority of the seats, but it was a much smaller one that reflected more accurately their strength in the electorate. In 1941, proportional representation gave the Democrats 65.5% of the seats on 64% of the vote. Moreover, it also produced representation for the Republicans and three smaller parties in proportion to their voting strength. Similar results occurred in the other PR cities, demonstrating that this system greatly improved the accuracy of partisan representation.

Proportional representation also encouraged fairer racial and ethnic representation. It produced the first Irish Catholics elected in Ashtabula, and the first Polish-Americans elected in Toledo. In Cincinnati, Hamilton, and Toledo, African-Americans had never been able to win city office until the coming of PR. Significantly, after these cities abandoned PR, African-Americans again found it almost impossible to get elected.”

What scuppered PR movement was money and fear - doesn’t that sound familiar in todays America.

“In Cleveland, well-financed opponents sponsored five repeal referendums in the first ten years of PR, with the final one succeeding. Similarly, PR opponents in Hamilton finally won their repeal effort after four failed referendums in 12 years.

Many Americans in the early twentieth century were hostile to political and racial minorities--the very groups aided by PR... They warned whites that PR was helping to increase black power in the city and asked them whether they wanted a "Negro mayor." Their appeal to white anxieties succeeded, with whites supporting repeal by a two to one margin..

In New York City, fear of communism proved the undoing of proportional representation. Although one or two Communists had served on the PR-elected city council since 1941, it was not until the coming of the Cold War that Democratic party leaders were able to effectively exploit this issue. As historian Robert Kolesar discovered, the Democrats made every effort in their repeal campaign to link PR with Soviet Communism, describing the single transferable vote as "the political importation from the Kremlin," "the first beachhead of Communist infiltration in this country," and "an un-American practice which has helped the cause of communism and does not belong in the American way of life."(3) This "red scare" campaign resulted in the repeal of PR by an overwhelming margin.”

As the piece concludes -

“While the repeal of proportional representation in these American cities is taken by opponents as evidence that this voting system failed, proponents argue that it is more accurate to conclude that this system was rejected because it worked too well. They note that PR worked well in throwing party bosses out of government--bosses who never relented in their attempts to regain power--and it worked well in promoting the representation of racial, ethnic, and ideological minorities that were previously shut out by the winner-take-all system”

 

"One of them educated thinkers", eh. Anti-intellectual are we? As Trump put it: "I love the poorly educated". "Yon Cassius has a lean and hungry look. He thinks too much--such men are dangerous". Can't have that!

 

Has there ever, at any point, been a doubt in your mind?
Everyone knows that the poorly educated know more about everything than the well-educated.

 

Or think they do!

 

If you read this thread what is most notable is everyone calls another kind of voter a part of the problem. But everyone who keeps voting for these 2 parties is part of the problem.

Righteous! Gotta love the Bernmeister.

 

There is a lot to love about Bernie.
If he hadn't helped Trump get elected, I would probably be less bitter about his campaign.

 

Your bitterness is misplaced.

 

Thats ridiculous. He didnt help get Trump elected, he ran an honest campaign and when he lost he conceded graciously.

To say he helped get Trump elected is to essentially say no one should have been allowed to run against Hillary, because thats the only thing he did. He ran against her.

 

Bernie Sanders voters helped Trump win and here's proof

 

Nah, I like secure borders (though I couldn't possibly disagree more with our current handling of the issue and think tougher penalties against American business owners for hiring illegals will do more to fix the issue than walls and taking children away from their parents), a strong defense, lower taxes, more personal accountability, less spending, and an overall smaller government.

 

I agree with some of that. I always said we should go after the business owners who hire illegal aliens...so they could stick it to American workers. Trump just pardoned Sholomo Rubashkin who hired 400 illegal aliens to work in his Iowa Kosher Meat plant. I think the business men should pay just like the poor migrants. Anyways, I would love to have you on the Democrat side!