take solace in the fact that at least one of the candidates that will be on the stage isnât qualified eitherâŚ
Is Drumpf realistically going to hit the 15% threshold?
Honestly, the Libertarian ticket this year (two socially-liberal Republican Governors) is more qualified than the Republican ticket.
Well at least the Libertarian and Green Party candidates will show up (if either is qualified) for the debates. Still waiting to see how Trump weasels out of attending.
We need a system like the French.
a Libertarian President whose emphasis is foreign policy
a Democratic Prime Minister whose emphasis is domestic policy
We have that. The Prime Minister is the Speaker of the House.
Except that all the agencies which pursue domestic policy are within the Executive branch.
All of the agencies that execute any policies are in the executive branch. Thatâs why itâs the executive branch.
Johnson argues that his polling numbers are depressed as a result of the pollsters first asking respondents to choose only between the Dem/GOP candidates, and then asking them to choose among all four candidates. He thinks this order of questioning reinforces a bias that his campaign is just an afterthought. Johnson believes that if the pollsters first ask for respondent opinions about all 4 candidates, a truer picture of the electorate will emerge. He may be right, but I still wonât vote Libertarian.
I would dearly, dearly love it if by the time the decision is made on the debates in September, Trump doesnât even make the 15% threshold in the polls. Then we would have Clinton debating an empty podium. âRegarding Secretary Clintonâs thoughts about foreign policy issues, your reply Mr. Trump?â [dead silence from an empty podium]. âOK, next question.â
No, this isnât like Clint Eastwood talking to an empty chair. Itâs a Presidential candidate talking to someone who isnât popular enough to to even be invited to the debates.
As the Beach Boys said, âWouldnât it be niceâŚâ
In modern democracies that use Dâhondt or Jeffersonian vote allocation, the threshold is typically 5% for a party to gain at least one representative in parliament. 15% support would be a large top-tier party. Interestingly, the ability to affect policy change seems to occur between that 5-15% band of support as well, applying to all kinds of policies such as pot legalization, detached bicycle paths and neonicotinoid bans. My sense is that 5% is a better number if you want to capture new policy directions and debate issues Also issues like access to handguns and assault rifles, âno more taxesâ or âlady junkâ policies are off the table for big parties after they have become litmus tests for loyalty.
Smaller parties are important from a policy standpoint. Greens, for example, have altered the energy discussion in Europe. Finlandâs green party, for example, only draws 13-14% support at the moment, but has had a large impact on shaping energy policy. The US, which has vastly greater research and funding possibilities, nevertheless has not kept pace with northern Europe in the shift to renewables. Even coal-burning China will go to a total of 100 GW of solar and 200 GW wind installed by 2020 (the US this year hit 30 GW solar installed and about 80 GW wind installed).
And Stein is still regularly outpolled by Harambe and Deez Nuts.
The Democratic Republic of Congo offers some great insights into what the Libertarian model looks like in practice. For large mining companies that can afford the security costs, pretty good. Little environmental regulation and easy to avoid export tariffs by bribing officials. Also you can operate your own private paramilitary groups, which should appeal to our inner Bundy. Wouldnât recommend the public education or health care, though. If you live near a mine, roads are great.
Itâs unseemly that all the attention goes to DRoC! letsâs not forget those Gaultian paradises like Somalia, places devoid of any pesky âgummintâ. These places are the Aynuses of the world. Just AWESOME!!!