System Is Rigged, But Not How Most Think

[Kathianne]

It's rigged because of the electorate:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-political-process-isnt-rigged-it-has-much-bigger-problems/

[aboutime]

It's rigged because of the electorate:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-political-process-isnt-rigged-it-has-much-bigger-problems/


Kathianne. Contrary to what the 538 blog tried to say. In 2016. The Primary voters INCREASED for the 'R', and dropped off for the 'D's.

Perhaps using the word RIGGED confuses people. Like Trump. I have been insisting for years. The Political process is as solidly SET IN STONE, as the Columns that hold up the Lincoln Memorial. Politicians from ALL PARTIES have the fix in.....the day they get elected to first time. And, when they are INDOCTRINATED into Congress. They are all told exactly WHO they will follow, WHEN, WHAT, WHERE, WHY, and HOW they will remain in office. THE FIX.....IS NOT RIGGED. IT JUST IS.

[Kathianne]

Another take of the problem is with 'the people.' There's no doubt that the internet and 24/7 news cycle have played into this:

http://www.the-american-interest.com/2016/08/01/the-coming-electoral-crack-up/


The Coming Electoral Crack-up?
MICHAEL BARONE
(http://www.the-american-interest.com/byline/michael-barone/)Will voter discontent shatter the partisan deadlock in U.S. politics this November?

...

So why has this presidential campaign cycle been different from all other presidential campaign cycles? And is the general-election campaign likely to be as different from other general-election campaigns as the primary contests were different from their predecessors?

One way to look at this election is as a collision of an irresistible force with an immovable object. This irresistible force is the widespread discontent with the direction of the nation today. The immoveble object is the persistent partisan divisions that have prevailed and intensified in presidential, congressional, and state elections over the past twenty years.

The sources of the irresistible force of discontent are not hard to discern. After resurgent growth and victory in the Cold War in the 1980s, and continuing economic growth in the 1990s, the 21st century brought Americans 15 years of mostly sluggish growth and a series of mostly unsuccessful, or at least inconclusive, foreign military interventions. Major legislation passed by one-party votes, notably the 2009 stimulus package and the 2010 Affordable Care Act, have proved to be far less popular than their sponsors expected. Major bipartisan legislation, frequent in Bill Clinton’s presidency and the first term of George W. Bush’s, has become rare if not extinct, with a President lacking the inclination and skill to negotiate and a Republican House majority often unwilling to trust its leadership.
...

So the irresistible force of discontent prevailed in the race for the Republican nomination and came closer to prevailing than almost anyone expected in the race for the Democratic nomination.

But how will it fare against the immovable object of persistent strong partisan attachments in the general election? The most downscale constituencies of each party have produced two nominees who are unpopular with a majority of general-election voters—how will it play out in November?

...


Moreover, there appear to be more undecided voters than in recent elections. At this stage in 2008 and 2012, fewer than 10 percent of respondents to most polls said they were not voting for either major-party candidate. In 2016 pre-convention polling that percentage has been higher, around 15 percent. When respondents are given a choice of voting for Libertarian candidate Gary Johnson and Green Party candidate Jill Stein, the number who choose neither major-party candidate rises to about 23 percent. Polls giving respondents a choice of third- and fourth-party candidates probably overstate respondents’ actual support for these candidates, which has typically decreased or evaporated when it comes time to actually vote. With sizeable majorities of voters expressing unfavorable feelings toward both Clinton and Trump, it’s plausible that larger than usual percentages are unwilling to commit to either and could change their minds during the course of the campaign.

And it’s plausible as well that many of these people will simply not vote. Voter turnout surged enormously during the Bush presidency, from 105 million in 2000 to 131 million in 2008. But contrary to popular impression, it has sagged perceptibly during the Obama presidency, in both the 2012 presidential election (from 131 million to 129 million) and the 2014 House contests (from 86 million in 2010 to 79 million). In a nation closely divided between two partisan blocs, differences in turnout can produce differences in results. Democrats hope that voters antagonized by Trump will turn out in large numbers, but there is little history in presidential elections of high turnout motivated by negative feelings toward a candidate. Trump backers hope that voters energized by Trump’s unorthodox messages will turn out in great numbers, noting that Republican primary turnout in 2016 surged far ahead of 2008 and 2012 levels while Democratic primary turnout lagged behind that of 2008. But the evidence suggests that Trump’s specific appeal was responsible for less than half the increased primary turnout.
...

The Clinton camp is likely to have difficulty matching the 2008 Obama campaign’s success in mobilizing support from young voters. The exit poll that year showed Obama leading John McCain by 66 to 32 percent among those under thirty; his popular-vote margin among that age group amounted to 7 percent of the total electorate, identical to his overall popular-vote margin. In the 2014 House election, in contrast, the Democratic margin among young voters was 54 to 43 percent and, with lower turnout, amounted to only 1.5 percent of the total electorate. Young people tend to move frequently, have few community ties, and be less interested in politics and government than older people. Clinton’s weak showing among young voters in the primaries suggests they lack enthusiasm for her despite their evident distaste for Trump.

The Trump camp is likely to have difficulty maximizing turnout as well. His strongest support in primaries came from those with low social connectedness, who are presumably hard to contact and mobilize. For all his success in the primaries, he had won just 42 percent of Republican primary and caucus voters when he clinched the nomination in the Indiana primary on May 3.

So it remains an open question how the seemingly irresistible force of public discontent will shift the seemingly immovable object of partisan deadlock. There have been many surprises in the 2016 presidential election cycle so far. There may be many more ahead. The days of party decisions may be over. But it’s not clear who will be deciding now.

[revelarts]

It's rigged because of the electorate:

http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/...gger-problems/ (http://fivethirtyeight.com/features/the-political-process-isnt-rigged-it-has-much-bigger-problems/)


Sorry , But i don't get why people in the U.S. are so skeptical of the idea that some politicians and their moneyed friends DO in FACT outright cheat.
why is it considered an either or ... seems clear to me that It's a BOTH AND. Yes, politicians campaign and much is above board, but YES they do try to fix the odds and the system in their favor by immoral and yes ILEGAL means as well.... on a regular basis.

Seems the guy makes a few good points, but he wants to make it at while trying to dismiss some real corruption and RIGGING. He's FAR to dismissive of the facts on the table in the news with the emails that show the DNC trying to suppress Bernie and his supporters in VARIOUS ways.
And the rules set up in each party that favor the favored sons and daughters of the establishment. And if not fought would prevail.
He mentions the districts being similar in make up as if it's just a happenstance but the Parties FIXED the districts themselves decades ago to make it that way... and update to taste. And i don't believe he mention the amount of money that the favored sons and daughters have access to that others do not. that is part of the rigging as well.

No ones claiming the (well maybe Trump) that the WHOLE show is rigged from TOP to Bottom but just that it is like the casino, the HOUSE wins. It's HARD for ANYone not part of the party machines and not onboard with the major players to get in the front door .... the partisanship issues not withstanding.

While minimizing unneeded partisanship is important in dealing with gridlock, it's not really "Rigging". Except in the sense that politicians PLAY into it with their words and the system rather than be honest about the all aspects of issues that should be considered when dealing with topics.

Mr' Smith Goes to Washington politics is real... except we don't have enough (any) Smiths!

[Kathianne]

Cheating occurs, but at a level that just doesn't impact in significant ways-at least normally.

It's the same logic as 'one vote doesn't matter' cause it's true-especially if your state is deep red or blue. It doesn't matter.

[revelarts]

Cheating occurs, but at a level that just doesn't impact in significant ways-at least normally.

It's the same logic as 'one vote doesn't matter' cause it's true-especially if your state is deep red or blue. It doesn't matter.

sorry i don't buy that.
How can you say with any certainty that if the DNC had been fair with Bernie that he would not have won the nomination Kathianne?
the DNC swayed the media and the local districts and the superdelegates and fed into a Clinton victories.


Many elections are won and lost by slim margins.
voter registration during BOTH W Bush runs can be shown to have been rigged enough to give him victory.
you may not want to believe it but the numbers are there and i'm not talking hanging chads i'm talking about purged voters roles.

the only way to assume cheating is not a factor is to not really look at it closely. because if you do with an objective eye. it's clear.
Cheating works. if not it wouldn't be worth it to try.

[Kathianne]

sorry i don't buy that.
How can you say with any certainty that if the DNC had been fair with Bernie that he would not have won the nomination Kathianne?
the DNC swayed the media and the local districts and the superdelegates and fed into a Clinton victories.


Many elections are won and lost by slim margins.
voter registration during BOTH W Bush runs can be shown to have been rigged enough to give him victory.
you may not want to believe it but the numbers are there and i'm not talking hanging chads i'm talking about purged voters roles.

the only way to assume cheating is not a factor is to not really look at it closely. because if you do with an objective eye. it's clear.
Cheating works. if not it wouldn't be worth it to try.

You don't have to buy it. I do not disagree that it can impact those elections that are extremely close, rare though they be.

Bottom line is the focus tends to be on the nature of the main outcomes-fair or not.

[aboutime]

Cheating occurs, but at a level that just doesn't impact in significant ways-at least normally.

It's the same logic as 'one vote doesn't matter' cause it's true-especially if your state is deep red or blue. It doesn't matter.


Kathianne. That's exactly how Obama, and the Clinton's want us...stupid people to think. Think the IRS, DNC, SCOTUS, ICE, FBI, CIA, Dept of Ed., Treasury, Energy, and Loretta Lynch aren't culpable for endorsing, and even supporting the fact that NO ID'S are required for many American to vote...MULTIPLE TIMES?

IT DOES MATTER. Check on how many DEAD Americans still get Social Security checks each month, and how many DEAD Americans are registered to VOTE in the next election.

Personally. I can't see how anyone can insist it's not a level that doesn't have a significant impact.

http://www.pbs.org/newshour/rundown/death-stop-social-security-payments/

http://www.npr.org/2012/02/14/146827471/study-1-8-million-dead-people-still-registered-to-vote

[Gunny]

You don't have to buy it. I do not disagree that it can impact those elections that are extremely close, rare though they be.

Bottom line is the focus tends to be on the nature of the main outcomes-fair or not.

If the superdelegates had voted the will of their constituencies, Hillary would have won in 08. And if not for the media, we would not have had McLame as our candidate.

The media is choosing our candidates and they choose the winners. Until THAT stops, it's going to be the SOS.

[Kathianne]

sorry i don't buy that.
How can you say with any certainty that if the DNC had been fair with Bernie that he would not have won the nomination Kathianne?
the DNC swayed the media and the local districts and the superdelegates and fed into a Clinton victories.


Many elections are won and lost by slim margins.
voter registration during BOTH W Bush runs can be shown to have been rigged enough to give him victory.
you may not want to believe it but the numbers are there and i'm not talking hanging chads i'm talking about purged voters roles.

the only way to assume cheating is not a factor is to not really look at it closely. because if you do with an objective eye. it's clear.
Cheating works. if not it wouldn't be worth it to try.

Personally I have been in favor of returning to paper ballots, getting rid of all machines. While not perfect, less mischief is available with low tech.

[Elessar]

Personally I have been in favor of returning to paper ballots, getting rid of all machines. While not perfect, less mischief is available with low tech.

In several ways, that is quite true! Remember the CHADs? What a mess!

[Gunny]

In several ways, that is quite true! Remember the CHADs? What a mess!

But the chads were a left wing grasp at air, as usual. First time I voted was in Miami. If you ain't smart enough to punch a hole in the place it says "punch here". you don't need to be here. I mean come on ... if that is too many directions for you, you shouldn't be allowed to vote.

[Kathianne]

In several ways, that is quite true! Remember the CHADs? What a mess!
That was quite 'low tech' punch machines, thus voter does have control, if they're not idiots. IF can be a massive word! LOL! I do well remember, the party wanted me to go count in FL over Thanksgiving. Had to say, 'No, I don't think so.'