Bernie and the Demexit

I actively supported Bernie Sanders in 2016 and am passively supporting him in 2020. Passively because I think Bernie's time was 2016 when he had the votes. Bernie was drafted to give people a choice from Hillary Clinton in the 2016 Election. Sanders was popular then, but I think the coalition that would have made him the candidate in 2016 isn't present in this election.

The Demexit was where Sanders supporters left the Democratic Party. I made the Demexit early on: after when AP called the California Primary for Clinton. The 2016 Philadelphia Democratic National Convention firmed up my resolve that my being a Democrat was pointless: even if that meant that was the only way I could vote in a primary.

But the Primaries are acts of attrition to make sure that the candidate with the largest bankroll can make it to the end. Clinton had the big money while Sanders had the popular support in 2016. The fact that the Dems chose the most unpopular candidate was a sickener to me.

But Clinton wouldn't have won the 2016 primary if she had any competition, which is why the DNC rigged the game for her. But Hillary Clinton literally couldn't organise a piss up in a brewery and didn't count on the Electoral College making her plan backfire.

You would think the Democrats would have learned their lesson in 2000, but Russiagate was an example of Democratic ignorance.

Hillary Clinton is a symptom, not the disease. It took Sanders' run to make me see how much the Democratic Party is obsolete.

Anyway, The Green Party was far more appealing to me in how it explicitly addressed election reform and the environment. Hillary Clinton was openly hostile to environmentalists (this too). While some candidates make lip service about the environment, you have establishment democrats doing a Hillary.

So, while the Duopoly Parties like to talk about "Big Tents", you can't have a party with no real agenda. Parties that can include George Wallace and George McGovern aren't going to work. Especially if they are going to run unpopular candidates.

See also:
Democratic Autopsy: the Party in Crisis
The AP's call for Hillary Clinton ruined California's election party--and here’s why that matters
Elizabeth Warren agrees Democratic race 'rigged' for Clinton
Elizabeth Warren and Donna Brazile agree the 2016 primary was Rigged
Inside Hillary Clinton’s Secret Takeover of the DNC
Was the Democratic primary rigged?
Dear Democratic party: it's time to stop rigging the primaries

Stop talking Russians--Start listening to the dissatisfied voting public

I am not a fan of Libertarian Politics, but I find myself siding with Gary Johnson in seeing a need to change the current us political landscape.

Maybe the debates aren't the best place to start, but the radical overhaul of the US system of elections has to start some place. Getting other voices back into the debates is needed.

Climate change was hardly mentioned in the 2016 presidential debates. which is something that needs to be addressed.

Anyway, please watch these if you are dissatisfied with the result 2016 election and start looking at the independent voter groups to change the system.

Marinus van der Lubbe is long dead.

It had to happen.

I have to point out there are things on my blog like:

Green Parties World Wide: Hey, it's nice to finally know what I am politically!

Sorry, but it wasn't the Russians that influenced my vote: look at the Duopoly for the real culprits.

Not to mention the Electoral College. Or is it true what they say about Catherine the Great?

More of the Russiagate Scam

The Russian Mastermind behind Trump's "Win"

The Russians spent just 0.05 percent as much on Facebook ads as Hillary Clinton and Donald Trump’s campaigns combined in the run-up to the 2016 U.S. presidential election, yet still reached a massive audience.

The Russians got a good return on their money if they actually influenced the election.

https://techcrunch.com/2017/11/01/russian-facebook-ad-spend/ 

Personally, I think the Republicans should be pointing out what really led to Hillary Clinton "losing" the election: the electoral college and how screwed up the US system of elections happens to be.

The problem with that is that it also blows back on the Republicans.

Anyway, don't expect too much serious discussion of what happened in this last election since the duopoly is happy with their lock on the political process.

See also:

• Trump’s victory another example of how Electoral College wins are bigger than popular vote ones
• Who needs the Russians anyway? Donna Brazile spills the beans on the Clinton/DNC connection.
• Don’t blame the election on fake news. Blame it on the media.

The US is neither a republic nor a democracy

If free and fair elections on a secret ballot are one of the criteria for both systems.

Likewise, five million votes separated Barack Obama and Mitt Romney in the popular vote during the 2012 election. It would be a stretch to call the 2012 presidential election a particularly close one with a margin that large. But because of the peculiarities of the Electoral College, a shift in just three hundred thousand votes in four states would have made Romney, rather than Obama, the president. Similarly John Kerry would have defeated George Bush in the Electoral College with a shift of fewer than a hundred thousand votes in Ohio.

I want to post these results since there are people who claim to be "constitutional conservatives" who like the electoral college. I wonder how they can tolerate it when results like the one above are the norm in this system?

The only real reason it continues to exist is that it allows the duopoly ("Republicans" and "Democrats") to control the system. In fact, most electoral reforms would cut into the duopoly's system of control, which is why election reform and voting rights aren't high on the agenda.

So, when you think that the electoral college is somehow "good", just remember how much it distorts the vote.  It works both ways.  In fact, this distortion is more disturbing to me than the 2016 result was, but notice that no one talks about how the distortion of presidential election results is common in US politics.

Even among the "constitutional conservatives" who defend this bullshit.

I should also add that sham elections which are elections that are without any purpose or significance and meant purely for show are a feature of dictatorships. These elections may have choices, but they are meaningless choices which do not truly express popular opinion.  These type of elections are meant to try and establish a sense of legitimacy for an illegitimate government.

Given the results of the electoral college in distorting the popular vote, or totally negating it, one truly has to wonder why people try to establish a false distinction between republics and democracies other than many republics (e.g., USSR, German Democratic Republic, The Democratic People's Republic of Korea, or Democratic Republic of Congo) are totalitarian states.

In fact, tolerating sham elections and a false democracy/republic ends up creating an oligarchy.

And you can't have either a democracy or a republic without free and fair elections on a secret ballot.

Addendum to Why I left the Democratic Party and went back to being independent.

I added this to the end of that Post:

It was also influential that the Clinton camp (and pretty much everybody) was pointing out that Trump would never win.  I can remember at least three predictions of a Clinton landslide.  Well, Clinton did get more popular votes, but the prediction of her winning was premature. I can say that most of the factors in my deciding to bolt from the Democratic party was due to their actions, not "Russian interference" of any sort. I think that goes for most people who voted for Third Parties.

Or just plain didn't vote.

Any real discussion of the election should try to address the real issues that led to Trump being President. Which would also include Clintonite overconfidence they would win (which they did as far as the popular vote goes, but the Electoral College needs to go).