Hillary vs Bernie

[alfred russel]

Speaking about the constitutionality of issues that aren't completely black and white, justices are people appointed by politicians. What is considered unconstitutional now isn't what was considered unconstitutional in the past, and vice versa. The difference is the attitudes of the people on the court, and those people are appointed by presidents. Which makes me think twice when someone says in a presidential election, "he couldn't do that anyway, it is unconstitutional."

[Eddie Teach]

LaCroix, do you have any evidence that Sanders is planning on introducing a wealth tax? Pointing out that current policies have greatly exacerbated the wealth gap doesn't count as such.

[Josquius]

Sanders refuses to concede defeat in Iowa due to the coin tosses.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-218643

Well that sucks if they are doing things that way. Iowans can't count?

[Admiral Yi]

Well that sucks if they are doing things that way. Iowans can't count?

Chavs don't understand the concept of people leaving before they vote?

[grumbler]

Sanders refuses to concede defeat in Iowa due to the coin tosses.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-218643

Well that sucks if they are doing things that way. Iowans can't count?

These are caucuses.  Often at peoples' homes.  In a tight race.  What is so mysterious about the idea that, in small groups, a handful of groups will have tied votes?  In that case, delegates are distributed evenly and the odd delegate (where there is an odd number assigned) determined by coin flip.  It sucks that some people don't understand the idea of tiebreaking.

[Valmy]

Sanders refuses to concede defeat in Iowa due to the coin tosses.

http://www.politico.com/story/2016/02/bernie-sanders-iowa-caucuses-218643

Maybe they can rock-paper-scissors for it.

[Martinus]

I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.

There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.

I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do.  In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.

I disagree - it's more the function of timing between elections than the system itself. There is absolutely no reason why campaign promises are "merely aspirational", if in both the presidential and congress elections one side campaigns - and wins - on the same platform.

[Martinus]

I have commented on more than one occasion about the inherent weaknesses of your system which prevent anything actually getting done. Some Americans seem to have viewed that as a virtue so YMMV.

There's no question that the system of checks and balances sometimes swings too far in favor of checks, but Turkey, Russia, Hungary, et al give evidence that the US outcome is better than one with too few checks.

FWIW, neither Turkey nor Russia are Parliamentary democracies. Both have a very strong President.

[Martinus]

I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do.  In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.

Quite true.  For good or ill.

While it is true that a Parliamentary majority can make its own decisions without further obstacles within Parliament itself, BB overstates the issue when he says there is no reason a majority shouldn't be able to implement everything they promised. As an example the Conservatives, in their 10 years in power in Canada, had a great deal of difficulty implementing all they had promised.  Public support still matters to a government with a majority.  Also, the Courts provide an important role in deciding whether legislation is constitutionally valid - and there were many instances where the Court struck down their legislation as being inconsistent with the Charter.

But then we are starting to compare apples and oranges. If you take the British system as the template of a Parliamentary system, the power of some body (such as courts, or the constitutional tribunal of sorts) to declare acts of the Parliament as inconsistent with some sort of a higher act (usually a constitution) is a departure from that system.

[The Minsky Moment]

I don't like his plan to tax Wall Street.  It's a pretty small street and these days there's a lot of Grade B space.  The yield isn't going to be that impressive.

[crazy canuck]

I'm not touching which system is "better" with a ten foot pole, but it does mean that campaign promises in US elections are almost all merely aspirational - what the candidate would like to do, not what they will do.  In a parliamentary system there's no reason why a winning party shouldn't be able to implement everything they had promised.

Quite true.  For good or ill.

While it is true that a Parliamentary majority can make its own decisions without further obstacles within Parliament itself, BB overstates the issue when he says there is no reason a majority shouldn't be able to implement everything they promised. As an example the Conservatives, in their 10 years in power in Canada, had a great deal of difficulty implementing all they had promised.  Public support still matters to a government with a majority.  Also, the Courts provide an important role in deciding whether legislation is constitutionally valid - and there were many instances where the Court struck down their legislation as being inconsistent with the Charter.

But then we are starting to compare apples and oranges. If you take the British system as the template of a Parliamentary system, the power of some body (such as courts, or the constitutional tribunal of sorts) to declare acts of the Parliament as inconsistent with some sort of a higher act (usually a constitution) is a departure from that system.

I was making the point that there are other methods of government that have checks and balances without having to resort to the extreme of the American model.

[crazy canuck]

I don't like his plan to tax Wall Street.  It's a pretty small street and these days there's a lot of Grade B space.  The yield isn't going to be that impressive.

NIMBY 

[LaCroix]

LaCroix, do you have any evidence that Sanders is planning on introducing a wealth tax? Pointing out that current policies have greatly exacerbated the wealth gap doesn't count as such.

how have current policies greatly exacerbated the wealth gap?

[Valmy]

how have current policies greatly exacerbated the wealth gap?

Tax policies favor investments and penalize wage work. Free trade transfers middle class jobs overseas and they have been replaced by jobs that can no longer support a family. Illegal immigration driving wages down for the benefit of rich exploiters. Bail outs of the rich at tax payer expense. The rich sheltering their wealth so the tax burden falls on the rest...and so forth.

You know, the stuff people have been bitching about constantly for decades. That article Tim posted about why people like Trump talks about some of this. How legitimate those complaints are is something else.

[crazy canuck]

LaCroix, do you have any evidence that Sanders is planning on introducing a wealth tax? Pointing out that current policies have greatly exacerbated the wealth gap doesn't count as such.

how have current policies greatly exacerbated the wealth gap?

I am not sure if you are being serious or not.