The Electoral Process

[the captain]

I ... grew up half in NJ

Left or right? Top or bottom?  

The splitting of the country being somewhat far-fetched in the near future, what about more likely near-term improvements? Anyone have thoughts there?

By the way, Emily, a friend of mine is an incessant backer of the switch to a parliamentary system. It certainly makes sense at least to give smaller entities a bigger voice as being essential to coalitions. Yet we'd need an amendment to get it done. While certain candidates have tossed around proposed amendments as campaign promises (balanced budget amendments, definition of marriage amendments, etc.), that's obviously easier said than done.

[SMiLE Brian]

The wolves would be number one team in basketball in this new nation!

[the captain]

We'd have to go to an international, Euroleague-style system to keep basketball going. I admit I hadn't thought of that. The Pistons, Bucks, Bulls, Wolves, and maybe Pacers certainly isn't a particularly fulfilling league, especially for 82 games!

[SMiLE Brian]

Maybe keep the sports leagues intact then!

[Emily]

I ... grew up half in NJ

Left or right? Top or bottom?  

The splitting of the country being somewhat far-fetched in the near future, what about more likely near-term improvements? Anyone have thoughts there?

By the way, Emily, a friend of mine is an incessant backer of the switch to a parliamentary system. It certainly makes sense at least to give smaller entities a bigger voice as being essential to coalitions. Yet we'd need an amendment to get it done. While certain candidates have tossed around proposed amendments as campaign promises (balanced budget amendments, definition of marriage amendments, etc.), that's obviously easier said than done.

I know. I only suggested radical pipe dreams. Sigh.
Ummm ... Other than that, all I've got is finance reform. Very low limits, cut the corporations and PACs. Maybe a better educated population? <<sigh>>
Not very imaginative, I'm afraid.

[Emily]

Maybe keep the sports leagues intact then!

Aren't there some sports (baseball and hockey maybe?) in which Canadian teams are participants? I think sports leagues don't have to be changed.
The olympics would be more interesting.

[SMiLE Brian]

Alabama or a general southern Olympic team would be amazing.

[Emily]

I've read nine and 11. What are the seven?

Southwest (including SoCal), west coast (not including SoCal), interior west, Midwest, southeast, New England including eastern NY but not NYC, mid-Atlantic/Great Lakes.
But I'm not married to this delineation. I can be flexible.

Separate NY from NYC? OMG. Why?

Separate West Coast from SoCal?  OMG.  Really, why?

Really - I thought it was a joke and would/should have integrated those areas with those they are associate with.  

That would destroy the regional integrity and unique identity of each state.  

Nah - NYC is more culturally, economically and historically connected to New Jersey than to upstate. Eastern upstate is much more culturally New England and Western upstate is very much oriented to the lakes. Buffalo has way more in common culturally, historically and economically with Pittsburgh and Cleveland that with NYC.
Similarly, Southern California has much stronger Southwest ties than Northern California ties. Northern and Southern California have a very frustrating partnership.

How would you sell it?

If it happens it will be because it sold itself.
*it sold itself to me. I won't pretend the idea's original.
Here's one (kind of lightweight) book on the subject that I read when it came out. The more polarized we become, the more I think it makes sense:
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Nine_Nations_of_North_America

Oh wow. I just saw that this was published in 1981, so I can't have read it when it came out. I think I read it in the late 80s or early 90s. Weirdly the first person I heard propose this idea was George Kennan.

[?]

Alabama or a general southern Olympic team would be amazing.

Is Meth an Olympic sport now?

[the captain]

What about getting better candidates to run? I don't think anyone believes the country's best and brightest tend to run for public office. Should they? And if so, what should be done in your perfect world to promote that goal?

[filledeplage]

What about getting better candidates to run? I don't think anyone believes the country's best and brightest tend to run for public office. Should they? And if so, what should be done in your perfect world to promote that goal?

Political candidates' lives are held up to more scrutiny than reality TV stars.  Few, want to expose themselves and their families to all that digging for skeletons in your closet, with the potential of spinning every bit of information they data-mine for.  It takes a ton of money, an organization and the ability to land-on-your-feet while fielding all sorts of trick questions crafted to defeat your candidacy. 

Carly Fiorina was excluded from the ABC debate, which I found unjust because she had more support than some who remained.  I found her a refreshing change from the usual practiced career politicians.  She was more articulate than many on both sides.  The media wants perfect specimens.  They don't exist.   And it is mostly a game of name-recognition.  Often it is the person who comes back running for some office, year-after-year, even if they lose because they have built up name-recognition and when people go into the voting booth they pull the lever for a name that they recognize rather than one unknown to them.   

[Emily]

It's absolutely NOT the best the US can do. It's what the system we've allowed to evolve leaves us. (Quick plug for the unused electoral process thread, where I'd hoped we could discuss not THIS election, but our whole system and process.)

Who runs for major office? A unique person with a massive ego, sufficient funding, willingness to be compromised on a regular basis by a party, willingness to be compromised regularly by funders, and who accepts--even chases, for certain things--the ludicrous paradox that is 24/7 media hype (incessant gossip mongering that somehow avoids actual content most of the time). All this to be part of an institution that is at best impotent and at worst corrupt and destructive. Oh, and all this for relatively low pay, when compared to professions into which the most talented people go.

Should we be surprised that the best and brightest don't sign up?

You keep plugging this thread! It's a good thread, but I think the problem is it's more than anyone can easily chew. The kinds of change required to significantly impact the process involve changing the constitution, if not of the federal government, at least those of a majority of states. It's a tall order and sacrilegious to a lot of Americans. A lot for a message board thread. Tweaks won't do it. Overthrowing Citizens United would be a small step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. Our system has always resulted in idiot nominees and often in idiot presidents but, and I know this sounds   but I also think it's true, social media/internet news has dumbed it down to the point that it's not savable.
Stupidly, I'm going to contradict myself in a single post - and I'm going to disagree with almost everyone in the country right here - I think a major problem with the presidential nomination process is the opposite of what most people complain about. It should be less democratic. The election should be democratic, not the nomination. Having whoever's most popular and able to rile the most people on social media be the candidate is pretty stupid.

[filledeplage]

It's absolutely NOT the best the US can do. It's what the system we've allowed to evolve leaves us. (Quick plug for the unused electoral process thread, where I'd hoped we could discuss not THIS election, but our whole system and process.)

Who runs for major office? A unique person with a massive ego, sufficient funding, willingness to be compromised on a regular basis by a party, willingness to be compromised regularly by funders, and who accepts--even chases, for certain things--the ludicrous paradox that is 24/7 media hype (incessant gossip mongering that somehow avoids actual content most of the time). All this to be part of an institution that is at best impotent and at worst corrupt and destructive. Oh, and all this for relatively low pay, when compared to professions into which the most talented people go.

Should we be surprised that the best and brightest don't sign up?

You keep plugging this thread! It's a good thread, but I think the problem is it's more than anyone can easily chew. The kinds of change required to significantly impact the process involve changing the constitution, if not of the federal government, at least those of a majority of states. It's a tall order and sacrilegious to a lot of Americans. A lot for a message board thread. Tweaks won't do it. Overthrowing Citizens United would be a small step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. Our system has always resulted in idiot nominees and often in idiot presidents but, and I know this sounds   but I also think it's true, social media/internet news has dumbed it down to the point that it's not savable.
Stupidly, I'm going to contradict myself in a single post - and I'm going to disagree with almost everyone in the country right here - I think a major problem with the presidential nomination process is the opposite of what most people complain about. It should be less democratic. The election should be democratic, not the nomination. Having whoever's most popular and able to rile the most people on social media be the candidate is pretty stupid.

Emily - the elephant in the room is that it is a pay-to-play system and now we have all these opaque PACs and lobbying factions which cloud the process, further. 

The nomination process needs to come from the people.  They need to filter what issues are important to them.  Our Constitution is fine. We have a process where legislatively we can "amend" as needed and we have done that, over time.   

We don't need party hacks, on all sides, who have greased-the-skids to "substitute their judgment" for us. That is the reality of the situation - it is pay-to-play.   

[Douchepool]

Stupidly, I'm going to contradict myself in a single post - and I'm going to disagree with almost everyone in the country right here - I think a major problem with the presidential nomination process is the opposite of what most people complain about. It should be less democratic. The election should be democratic, not the nomination. Having whoever's most popular and able to rile the most people on social media be the candidate is pretty stupid.

Democracy would work if the majority of people were not uninformed or poorly informed. Democracy also gives a role in decision making to those who have no business assuming said role; depending upon who you ask, the people who fit that criteria would vary wildly. As of now the only requirements to vote are being over the age of eighteen and having a body temperature somewhere in the upper nineties. This clearly allows too many undesirables to vote. When many people exist solely to be parasites and/or force their morality upon others (this includes people from both major parties and many of the third parties) they will use the state accordingly. Without the state, big corporations (unions included) and big banks would be in the same boat as people who abuse the welfare system or expect the state to enforce morals. But then again, they're both two sides of the same coin and it's ironic that they seem to loathe each other. They exist only to have the state benefit them at the expense of others.

[Emily]

It's absolutely NOT the best the US can do. It's what the system we've allowed to evolve leaves us. (Quick plug for the unused electoral process thread, where I'd hoped we could discuss not THIS election, but our whole system and process.)

Who runs for major office? A unique person with a massive ego, sufficient funding, willingness to be compromised on a regular basis by a party, willingness to be compromised regularly by funders, and who accepts--even chases, for certain things--the ludicrous paradox that is 24/7 media hype (incessant gossip mongering that somehow avoids actual content most of the time). All this to be part of an institution that is at best impotent and at worst corrupt and destructive. Oh, and all this for relatively low pay, when compared to professions into which the most talented people go.

Should we be surprised that the best and brightest don't sign up?

You keep plugging this thread! It's a good thread, but I think the problem is it's more than anyone can easily chew. The kinds of change required to significantly impact the process involve changing the constitution, if not of the federal government, at least those of a majority of states. It's a tall order and sacrilegious to a lot of Americans. A lot for a message board thread. Tweaks won't do it. Overthrowing Citizens United would be a small step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. Our system has always resulted in idiot nominees and often in idiot presidents but, and I know this sounds   but I also think it's true, social media/internet news has dumbed it down to the point that it's not savable.
Stupidly, I'm going to contradict myself in a single post - and I'm going to disagree with almost everyone in the country right here - I think a major problem with the presidential nomination process is the opposite of what most people complain about. It should be less democratic. The election should be democratic, not the nomination. Having whoever's most popular and able to rile the most people on social media be the candidate is pretty stupid.

Emily - the elephant in the room is that it is a pay-to-play system and now we have all these opaque PACs and lobbying factions which cloud the process, further.  

The nomination process needs to come from the people.  They need to filter what issues are important to them.  Our Constitution is fine. We have a process where legislatively we can "amend" as needed and we have done that, over time.  

We don't need party hacks, on all sides, who have greased-the-skids to "substitute their judgment" for us. That is the reality of the situation - it is pay-to-play.  

I'm aware that a method of changing the Constitution is by Amendments; that would be fine. The people in the parties are 'people.' Implying that there are some people who are 'the people' and other people who are not is a way to distract from the fact that everyone is reacting as people will to the same system. If the two-party system were broken, as I've suggested, 'the people' would be free to form parties and nominate as they wish, and to impose democracy on that process is to ensure that the monied and powerful continue to control it, because they would be able to overrun any party. If we had parties who got to control their own processes, as they do in most parliamentary democracies, we wouldn't have such a political oligarchy. The rich and powerful would have their parties and others would have their own and would be allowed to protect their interests. In the US 'democracy' is a euphemism for 'controlled by the people who can afford a ton of media.'

[filledeplage]

It's absolutely NOT the best the US can do. It's what the system we've allowed to evolve leaves us. (Quick plug for the unused electoral process thread, where I'd hoped we could discuss not THIS election, but our whole system and process.)

Who runs for major office? A unique person with a massive ego, sufficient funding, willingness to be compromised on a regular basis by a party, willingness to be compromised regularly by funders, and who accepts--even chases, for certain things--the ludicrous paradox that is 24/7 media hype (incessant gossip mongering that somehow avoids actual content most of the time). All this to be part of an institution that is at best impotent and at worst corrupt and destructive. Oh, and all this for relatively low pay, when compared to professions into which the most talented people go.

Should we be surprised that the best and brightest don't sign up?

You keep plugging this thread! It's a good thread, but I think the problem is it's more than anyone can easily chew. The kinds of change required to significantly impact the process involve changing the constitution, if not of the federal government, at least those of a majority of states. It's a tall order and sacrilegious to a lot of Americans. A lot for a message board thread. Tweaks won't do it. Overthrowing Citizens United would be a small step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. Our system has always resulted in idiot nominees and often in idiot presidents but, and I know this sounds   but I also think it's true, social media/internet news has dumbed it down to the point that it's not savable.
Stupidly, I'm going to contradict myself in a single post - and I'm going to disagree with almost everyone in the country right here - I think a major problem with the presidential nomination process is the opposite of what most people complain about. It should be less democratic. The election should be democratic, not the nomination. Having whoever's most popular and able to rile the most people on social media be the candidate is pretty stupid.

Emily - the elephant in the room is that it is a pay-to-play system and now we have all these opaque PACs and lobbying factions which cloud the process, further.  

The nomination process needs to come from the people.  They need to filter what issues are important to them.  Our Constitution is fine. We have a process where legislatively we can "amend" as needed and we have done that, over time.  

We don't need party hacks, on all sides, who have greased-the-skids to "substitute their judgment" for us. That is the reality of the situation - it is pay-to-play.  

I'm aware that a method of changing the Constitution is by Amendments; that would be fine. The people in the parties are 'people.' Implying that there are some people who are 'the people' and other people who are not is a way to distract from the fact that everyone is reacting as people will to the same system. If the two-party system were broken, as I've suggested, 'the people' would be free to form parties and nominate as they wish, and to impose democracy on that process is to ensure that the monied and powerful continue to control it, because they would be able to overrun any party. If we had parties who got to control their own processes, as they do in most parliamentary democracies, we wouldn't have such a political oligarchy. The rich and powerful would have their parties and others would have their own and would be allowed to protect their interests. In the US 'democracy' is a euphemism for 'controlled by the people who can afford a ton of media.'

Emily - Direct election is the fairest process and eliminate a "middle man" which would be created with another layer of it's own bureaucracy which would be subject to manipulation, special interests with more lobbyists and the necessity to learn the backgrounds of those individuals. 

The two-party systems' philosophical lines have been blurred in the last several decades. 

There is also always continuous questioning of "Framers' Intent" when we look at the Constitution.  It was meant to provide the core framework, doing the main work, and the amendments doing the ancillary tweaking of our government, as needed.  There has been too much lobbying influence over Congress which needs to become more transparent.  And there have been too many Executive Orders in this administration which have not had little more than "stopgap action," "humanitarian emergency aid,"or "ceremonial impact" but policy impact that has usurped and undermined the other branches.  The three branches are out of balance and need to be brought back to alignment.  It is one reason that this election cycle is so contested. 

There is an almost universal lack of confidence with this administration. And the reason that Sanders and Trump are doing so well. It is a clean-house mindset this year.      

[the captain]

Emily: I know, sorry about the thread-plugging. (I don't want to be a thread-scold!) In my mind it just makes sense to talk ABOUT politics separate from the immediacy of a heated campaign. Plus it might sometimes even prove more fruitful as conversation. But obviously I know these are big issues. We don't have to solve anything, we can simply chat.

I share the concerns about true democracy (which are as old as democracy itself). The reality is, it's an inherently optimistic idea, and I'm not so optimistic. I think most people can look around themselves and shudder at the thought of those people around them having an equal say in issues as themselves. Everyone else is an idiot. But of course, everyone thinks this, and not everyone can be correct. I suspect most people want (in their hearts if not on their tongues) some criteria for voters. But who is willing to let someone outside his own tribe choose the criteria?

That we've increasingly preached democratic principles over our history even as we've grown the state's reach is interesting. Not necessarily a contradiction, but ... An awkward marriage?

[Emily]

Emily: I know, sorry about the thread-plugging. (I don't want to be a thread-scold!) In my mind it just makes sense to talk ABOUT politics separate from the immediacy of a heated campaign. Plus it might sometimes even prove more fruitful as conversation. But obviously I know these are big issues. We don't have to solve anything, we can simply chat.

I share the concerns about true democracy (which are as old as democracy itself). The reality is, it's an inherently optimistic idea, and I'm not so optimistic. I think most people can look around themselves and shudder at the thought of those people around them having an equal say in issues as themselves. Everyone else is an idiot. But of course, everyone thinks this, and not everyone can be correct. I suspect most people want (in their hearts if not on their tongues) some criteria for voters. But who is willing to let someone outside his own tribe choose the criteria?

That we've increasingly preached democratic principles over our history even as we've grown the state's reach is interesting. Not necessarily a contradiction, but ... An awkward marriage?

I'm not against democracy at all. I think the idea that the nominating process should be democratic is just a thing in the US because the parties are so entrenched, big and quasi-official. When you have an election for class presidency, do you hold a vote first to determine the nominees, then a vote to determine the president? No. Do you do it for congressional candidates? No. When Perot or Anderson or Nader ran, were they democratically nominated? No. Do you have to be nominated by a party to run for president at all? No. You just have to have 'x' signatures. The two-party nominating process is not an official part of the process at all and it's not a necessary or even normal part of democracy. Parties are normally NGOs that follow their own internal processes. US Americans have just gotten confused. They think the parties are public bodies.

And I was joshing about the thread-plugging. You're quite right.

[Emily]

It's absolutely NOT the best the US can do. It's what the system we've allowed to evolve leaves us. (Quick plug for the unused electoral process thread, where I'd hoped we could discuss not THIS election, but our whole system and process.)

Who runs for major office? A unique person with a massive ego, sufficient funding, willingness to be compromised on a regular basis by a party, willingness to be compromised regularly by funders, and who accepts--even chases, for certain things--the ludicrous paradox that is 24/7 media hype (incessant gossip mongering that somehow avoids actual content most of the time). All this to be part of an institution that is at best impotent and at worst corrupt and destructive. Oh, and all this for relatively low pay, when compared to professions into which the most talented people go.

Should we be surprised that the best and brightest don't sign up?

You keep plugging this thread! It's a good thread, but I think the problem is it's more than anyone can easily chew. The kinds of change required to significantly impact the process involve changing the constitution, if not of the federal government, at least those of a majority of states. It's a tall order and sacrilegious to a lot of Americans. A lot for a message board thread. Tweaks won't do it. Overthrowing Citizens United would be a small step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. Our system has always resulted in idiot nominees and often in idiot presidents but, and I know this sounds   but I also think it's true, social media/internet news has dumbed it down to the point that it's not savable.
Stupidly, I'm going to contradict myself in a single post - and I'm going to disagree with almost everyone in the country right here - I think a major problem with the presidential nomination process is the opposite of what most people complain about. It should be less democratic. The election should be democratic, not the nomination. Having whoever's most popular and able to rile the most people on social media be the candidate is pretty stupid.

Emily - the elephant in the room is that it is a pay-to-play system and now we have all these opaque PACs and lobbying factions which cloud the process, further.  

The nomination process needs to come from the people.  They need to filter what issues are important to them.  Our Constitution is fine. We have a process where legislatively we can "amend" as needed and we have done that, over time.  

We don't need party hacks, on all sides, who have greased-the-skids to "substitute their judgment" for us. That is the reality of the situation - it is pay-to-play.  

I'm aware that a method of changing the Constitution is by Amendments; that would be fine. The people in the parties are 'people.' Implying that there are some people who are 'the people' and other people who are not is a way to distract from the fact that everyone is reacting as people will to the same system. If the two-party system were broken, as I've suggested, 'the people' would be free to form parties and nominate as they wish, and to impose democracy on that process is to ensure that the monied and powerful continue to control it, because they would be able to overrun any party. If we had parties who got to control their own processes, as they do in most parliamentary democracies, we wouldn't have such a political oligarchy. The rich and powerful would have their parties and others would have their own and would be allowed to protect their interests. In the US 'democracy' is a euphemism for 'controlled by the people who can afford a ton of media.'

Emily - Direct election is the fairest process and eliminate a "middle man" which would be created with another layer of it's own bureaucracy which would be subject to manipulation, special interests with more lobbyists and the necessity to learn the backgrounds of those individuals. 

The two-party systems' philosophical lines have been blurred in the last several decades. 

There is also always continuous questioning of "Framers' Intent" when we look at the Constitution.  It was meant to provide the core framework, doing the main work, and the amendments doing the ancillary tweaking of our government, as needed.  There has been too much lobbying influence over Congress which needs to become more transparent.  And there have been too many Executive Orders in this administration which have not had little more than "stopgap action," "humanitarian emergency aid,"or "ceremonial impact" but policy impact that has usurped and undermined the other branches.  The three branches are out of balance and need to be brought back to alignment.  It is one reason that this election cycle is so contested. 

There is an almost universal lack of confidence with this administration. And the reason that Sanders and Trump are doing so well. It is a clean-house mindset this year.      

I have not criticized direct elections in the least. Certainly you don't oppose people's right to assemble?
The two parties have always, by definition, had blurred philosophical lines. It is not new or more than usual. And is irrelevant to the immediate unrest.
Once again, you assert that this administration has used Executive Orders more than usual. This is false.
I disagree with your conclusions. The lack of confidence is the new normal and I think would be greater under Sanders and through-the-roof with Trump. Neither of them will do any house cleaning. They simply reflect the dissatisfaction of voters with what we're talking about: the failure of the process. Obama, Trump and Sanders are all just symbols. As soon as anyone is elected, that person will be the new symbol in Obama's stead. With Trump, the difference would be that the public's alarm would be warranted, not just over the process, but also over the reckless man they mistakenly voted for in protest against the process.

[filledeplage]

It's absolutely NOT the best the US can do. It's what the system we've allowed to evolve leaves us. (Quick plug for the unused electoral process thread, where I'd hoped we could discuss not THIS election, but our whole system and process.)

Who runs for major office? A unique person with a massive ego, sufficient funding, willingness to be compromised on a regular basis by a party, willingness to be compromised regularly by funders, and who accepts--even chases, for certain things--the ludicrous paradox that is 24/7 media hype (incessant gossip mongering that somehow avoids actual content most of the time). All this to be part of an institution that is at best impotent and at worst corrupt and destructive. Oh, and all this for relatively low pay, when compared to professions into which the most talented people go.

Should we be surprised that the best and brightest don't sign up?

You keep plugging this thread! It's a good thread, but I think the problem is it's more than anyone can easily chew. The kinds of change required to significantly impact the process involve changing the constitution, if not of the federal government, at least those of a majority of states. It's a tall order and sacrilegious to a lot of Americans. A lot for a message board thread. Tweaks won't do it. Overthrowing Citizens United would be a small step in the right direction, but not nearly enough. Our system has always resulted in idiot nominees and often in idiot presidents but, and I know this sounds   but I also think it's true, social media/internet news has dumbed it down to the point that it's not savable.
Stupidly, I'm going to contradict myself in a single post - and I'm going to disagree with almost everyone in the country right here - I think a major problem with the presidential nomination process is the opposite of what most people complain about. It should be less democratic. The election should be democratic, not the nomination. Having whoever's most popular and able to rile the most people on social media be the candidate is pretty stupid.

Emily - the elephant in the room is that it is a pay-to-play system and now we have all these opaque PACs and lobbying factions which cloud the process, further.  

The nomination process needs to come from the people.  They need to filter what issues are important to them.  Our Constitution is fine. We have a process where legislatively we can "amend" as needed and we have done that, over time.  

We don't need party hacks, on all sides, who have greased-the-skids to "substitute their judgment" for us. That is the reality of the situation - it is pay-to-play.  

I'm aware that a method of changing the Constitution is by Amendments; that would be fine. The people in the parties are 'people.' Implying that there are some people who are 'the people' and other people who are not is a way to distract from the fact that everyone is reacting as people will to the same system. If the two-party system were broken, as I've suggested, 'the people' would be free to form parties and nominate as they wish, and to impose democracy on that process is to ensure that the monied and powerful continue to control it, because they would be able to overrun any party. If we had parties who got to control their own processes, as they do in most parliamentary democracies, we wouldn't have such a political oligarchy. The rich and powerful would have their parties and others would have their own and would be allowed to protect their interests. In the US 'democracy' is a euphemism for 'controlled by the people who can afford a ton of media.'

Emily - Direct election is the fairest process and eliminate a "middle man" which would be created with another layer of it's own bureaucracy which would be subject to manipulation, special interests with more lobbyists and the necessity to learn the backgrounds of those individuals. 

The two-party systems' philosophical lines have been blurred in the last several decades. 

There is also always continuous questioning of "Framers' Intent" when we look at the Constitution.  It was meant to provide the core framework, doing the main work, and the amendments doing the ancillary tweaking of our government, as needed.  There has been too much lobbying influence over Congress which needs to become more transparent.  And there have been too many Executive Orders in this administration which have not had little more than "stopgap action," "humanitarian emergency aid,"or "ceremonial impact" but policy impact that has usurped and undermined the other branches.  The three branches are out of balance and need to be brought back to alignment.  It is one reason that this election cycle is so contested. 

There is an almost universal lack of confidence with this administration. And the reason that Sanders and Trump are doing so well. It is a clean-house mindset this year.      

I have not criticized direct elections in the least. Certainly you don't oppose people's right to assemble?
The two parties have always, by definition, had blurred philosophical lines. It is not new or more than usual. And is irrelevant to the immediate unrest.
Once again, you assert that this administration has used Executive Orders more than usual. This is false.
I disagree with your conclusions. The lack of confidence is the new normal and I think would be greater under Sanders and through-the-roof with Trump. Neither of them will do any house cleaning. They simply reflect the dissatisfaction of voters with what we're talking about: the failure of the process. Obama, Trump and Sanders are all just symbols. As soon as anyone is elected, that person will be the new symbol in Obama's stead. With Trump, the difference would be that the public's alarm would be warranted, not just over the process, but also over the reckless man they mistakenly voted for in protest against the process.

Emily - I am absolutely not against the right to assemble, but they are regulated by reasonable "time, place and manner" regulatory standards.  And, I do assert that the Executive Order has been abused, and not in "number," but in terms of "impact."  And working around Congress for matters he knows won't be passed by the lawful representatives of the voters. 

Hillary has troubling ties to private prison lobbyists while she denounces over-incarceration.  Geo Group is cited as well as Corrections Corporation of America, are working as fundraisers which conflicts with the recent anti-law enforcement position she has taken.  Most of the immigrant detention centers are connected to these groups. She can't have it both ways. 

http://thinkprogress.org/politics/2015/10/23/3715544/clinton-private-prisons/ There are many articles online concerning this and other issues such as the Clinton Foundation.

The lack of confidence in the current policies and the recurrent scandals involving truthfulness have raised the lack-of-confidence meter.  Lack of confidence and a strong activism response is a good thing.  Voter dissatisfaction opens all sorts of dialogue.  Trump and Sanders are symbols of the kind of rage at the bailouts for banking and auto industry, but not for the thousands who have lost their homes as a result of predatory lenders. And for the policies of off-shoring work, which is one of the reasons Verizon is on strike right now. 

Trump is making the kind of errors that a person who is new to the political arena makes. He does not have the benefit of having run for office before to learn the pitfalls these seasoned vets  have learned from.

Donald is not in the political elite where a public relations person is at the candidate's elbow, as almost an appendage, doing damage control or keeping the candidate on script. 

Trump is largely not reading from a prepared issue list.  And he is articulating (as is Sanders) concerns that voters and citizens have across-the-board.  And, he is what the establishment fears most.  He is self-funding because he can.  The rest are beholden to their contributors and sponsors.   

JMHO, of course.  We can agree to disagree.   

[Emily]

Regarding assemblage, I'm not encouraging parties to riot. 
Regarding executive orders, I think that's a matter of one person's executive order is another person's abuse and vice versa.  I tend to think of Bush's as more abusive, but I suppose that our interpretations are to do with our policy preferences. At least keep in mind that what you are saying about this is subjective, please.
Regarding Clinton, yeah, just like every other candidate. You can't blame one candidate for systemic problems.
The lack of confidence is not to do with truthfulness; that's a red herring. It's what people are focused on, but if it was the real problem the same focus would have been applied to all the other untruthful candidates or presidents of the past (all). People who benefit from the current system (all of the candidates and their main backers)  are manipulating a dissatisfied public with these red herrings to distract them from the real issues.
And - lol at innocent naive Trump. You don't think he has an in-house PR? You don't think he's had PR at his elbow since the 80s?
Trumps errors are those of a bigot or, more likely, someone who is comfortable using other people's bigotry to manipulate them. His errors are also those of someone who has thought very little about public policy outside of his business agenda; and those of someone who is cynically using the political system to raise his public profile.

[filledeplage]

Regarding assemblage, I'm not encouraging parties to riot. 
Regarding executive orders, I think that's a matter of one person's executive order is another person's abuse and vice versa.  I tend to think of Bush's as more abusive, but I suppose that our interpretations are to do with our policy preferences. At least keep in mind that what you are saying about this is subjective, please.
Regarding Clinton, yeah, just like every other candidate. You can't blame one candidate for systemic problems.
The lack of confidence is not to do with truthfulness; that's a red herring. It's what people are focused on, but if it was the real problem the same focus would have been applied to all the other untruthful candidates or presidents of the past (all). People who benefit from the current system (all of the candidates and their main backers)  are manipulating a dissatisfied public with these red herrings to distract them from the real issues.
And - lol at innocent naive Trump. You don't think he has an in-house PR? You don't think he's had PR at his elbow since the 80s?
Trumps errors are those of a bigot or, more likely, someone who is comfortable using other people's bigotry to manipulate them. His errors are also those of someone who has thought very little about public policy outside of his business agenda; and those of someone who is cynically using the political system to raise his public profile.

Emily - Bush was no bargain.  We aren't talking about him or his siblings or ancestors. Lack of confidence has everything to do with credibility and Hillary has little. She is not helped by her husband and every time he appears, there is a firestorm that needs to be cleaned up.  And women do not support her across-the-board.  Bernie has a lot of support from women, and especially young ones.

Hillary had less baggage in 2008 than she has now. I think she missed her window and it is all on the DNC for that. I could have supported her then. She had a higher profile as a post 9-11 NY Senator. 

And I did not say Trump was innocent or even naive but that he is making errors consistent with a candidate's first election run. He operates without a script.  Of course he has PR.  Do you think he does every thing they tell him? He is not as "measured" as are most of the candidates or as polished who practice their speeches in front of a coach and a video camera.   

Even if Trump had run for state rep or state senator, he would have learned-the-ropes of what an election is all about.  He would have a "filter" that he is developing gradually. 

The party designees are vested into the pay-to-play-system in both parties.  And that is the image that the old-time "pols" (politicians) have to lose, in order to win. 

[the captain]

Emily - re the amount of democracy and my comments, I hope you didn't think I was saying you're opposed to democracy. I was rather just tying together your previous comment that with respect to the nomination process, and then TRBB's comments about the voting public in general, and then top it off with some observations on my end. There was in all three posts a sentiment that "more democracy all the time in all things," which is how people usually speak (more out of habit than thought, I think, and possibly with an eye toward the dreaded political correctness? THE HORROR!), was something we were all in different ways challenging. But I didn't mean to say you were opposed to democracy in all things.

I do agree with your comments about parties being conflated with the American system of government, as well as their (in my opinion) outsized influence/dominance.

[SMiLE Brian]

I honestly think Trump is trolling the Republican Party so his good friend of the Clinton family is back in the White House and the Republican Party in ruins.

[Emily]

Emily - re the amount of democracy and my comments, I hope you didn't think I was saying you're opposed to democracy. I was rather just tying together your previous comment that with respect to the nomination process, and then TRBB's comments about the voting public in general, and then top it off with some observations on my end. There was in all three posts a sentiment that "more democracy all the time in all things," which is how people usually speak (more out of habit than thought, I think, and possibly with an eye toward the dreaded political correctness? THE HORROR!), was something we were all in different ways challenging. But I didn't mean to say you were opposed to democracy in all things.

I do agree with your comments about parties being conflated with the American system of government, as well as their (in my opinion) outsized influence/dominance.

Got it. Thanks for clarifying.