WikiLeaks publishes searchable database of almost 20,000 emails from DNC.

[Whateverist]

Opening up the presidency to more than just two parties will force the current two to rethink their strategies and try to appeal to a broader range of voters.

I would think what is hopeful about increasing the number of political parties is to get them to risk appealing to less voters by actually standing for particular positions. If they become more specific in their platforms/speeches I don't see any one of them appealing to a broader range of voters. So I guess you mean that collectively there'll be something on offer for a broader range of voters.

[henryp]

If everybody could choose flat out who could be president between Stein/Clinton/Johsnon/Trump (no wasting votes or defacto nonsense. You magically get to pick the president) what do you think the splits would be?

I think all 4 might get over 20%.

[Thumpalumpacus]

I don't see our de facto two party system as the most problematic aspect of our governmental system.  Perhaps if we had more parties pushing a greater variety of agendas they'd have to stop avoiding all specificity.  Perhaps.  More likely the parties with the broadest backing would still obfuscate to avoid alienating supporters.  I have to doubt that our largely uneducated electorate is going to suddenly become more shrewd just because there are more options.

I don't think anyone will get smarter from having more options. But I do think that a third-party which can craft an appealing message and start sucking votes away from the majors would force the two majors to review Message with an eye towards delivering public desires. I don't think voters will become more clever, but I do think that they are fed up with the status quo. The success of both Trump and Sanders is evidence of that, as is the higher profile of the Libertarian candidate this election cycle.

A bigger problem is that power is difficult to wield in the US.  Separation of powers is supposed to provide checks and balances.  It simultaneously hinders actually accomplishing anything toward change.  As a result "Separation of powers" and "checks and balances" become code for "preservation of the status quo".

Well, I think that the separation of powers is only a problem when you have those powers wielded not by individuals with the interests of the nation at the forefront, but rather the interests of their own party. Gridlock is not a fact because of separation of powers, it's a fact because neither party wants to give an inch on their ideology in the interest of good governance. The nation has a couple of centuries' experience showing how the separation of powers can indeed work.

It just takes civic-minded people, rather than the apparatchiks we have nowadays. It's not that the separation of powers produces a sclerotic government (the forty years between 1930 and 1970 show how dynamic our government can be) -- it's the manipulation of the system by functionaries whose allegiance to party outweighs their allegiance to country.

[vorlon13]

LOL, and another thing:

lying about their handling of Bernie's bid reveals consciousness of guilt. they know what they were doing is WRONG.

If anyplace on the fucking planet should be a literal temple of (FLOABT) political correctness, a literal vacuum in regards to micro-aggression, and steeped to the gills in democratic (small d) fairplay, it otta be the fucking DNC.

I'm really aggrieved about the Jewish/atheist angle. I'm taking it as a personal affront from arrogant sons (and daughters) of bitches who feel no compulsion to clean up their self admitted and proven shitty act because they think, "Well, what is Vor going to do about it? Vote for Trump ?" Followed by laughter.

O fucking K then, I want some sincere fucking contrition here.

I realize these political hacks are loathe to atone for fuckups, but dammit, I demand better.

[Whateverist]

I know! Imagine political party operatives operating in a political manner rather than in a neutral, fair manner. Who'd a thunk it?!

[vorlon13]

Might be really interesting if most all folks who would never in a million trillion years vote for Trump nevertheless insist  they would anyhow to the DNC poobahs if those poobahs don't start fucking cleaning up their shit mill.

[Tiberius]

Tib i would love if a third party candidate won this election at this point it is a very likely thing it would happen considering how Hillary is doing now since
if we did hold a election today or even yesterday she would loose. All it takes now is for that other batch of emails she won't even have a shot at getting into the oval office.

I probably didn't explain my point well, but I don't think voting third party will mean they will win. I don't think a third party could even get a single electoral college vote at the moment. That's not the point of voting for them. The point of voting third party is to increase their popular vote share, which will get people talking about them, and allow them access to federal election funds (if any party gets 5% or more of the popular vote, they get access to federal election funding). In addition, if 5 polls before the debates give a candidate 15% or more of the vote, they are eligible to be in the debates.

Now, Gary Johnson has been polling at 13% in some polls, so he might even make the debates this year. If he doesn't though, but secures 5% of the popular vote in the election, then the Libertarians would get federal election funding, and they would be able to make their presence bigger next election, probably securing the 15% in polls to get to the debates. The Greens could do the same thing.

So my suggestion is (and it's only a suggestion, vote however you like), if you are in a state which is never going to swing (e.g. it's a highly Republican or Democrat state), vote for a third party in the election, and boost their popular vote. That's the best statement anyone in a non-swing state can make in my opinion.

[Tiberius]

DNC Leak Shows Mechanics of a Slanted Campaign

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/fea...gn-w430814

To summarize:

Donors are allowed to give the DNC $33,400 per year. They are also allowed to give $10,000 to each state committee which were part of the "Hillary Victory Fund" (32 states total). Add up the numbers and you get $353,400, the exact ticket price of the most expensive seat at the Clinton / Clooney dinner fundraiser earlier this year.

Ok, that's fine, and perfectly legal, provided the funds are distributed as above ($33,400 to the DNC, $10,000 each to the 32 state committees).

In reality, less than 1% of the $61 million raised by the Hillary Victory Fund went to the state committees, and when the money was sent to them, it was in the accounts for short amounts of time, before being deposited directly to the DNC.

This looks exactly like money laundering, is quite possibly illegal, and if not, is shady as fuck. The DNC was prepared to screw over not just Sanders, but their own state committees in order to raise money for Clinton.

[vorlon13]

And this is in their own playpen.

How do these fucks handle public monies ?

[CapnAwesome]

Tib i would love if a third party candidate won this election at this point it is a very likely thing it would happen considering how Hillary is doing now since
if we did hold a election today or even yesterday she would loose. All it takes now is for that other batch of emails she won't even have a shot at getting into the oval office.

I probably didn't explain my point well, but I don't think voting third party will mean they will win. I don't think a third party could even get a single electoral college vote at the moment. That's not the point of voting for them. The point of voting third party is to increase their popular vote share, which will get people talking about them, and allow them access to federal election funds (if any party gets 5% or more of the popular vote, they get access to federal election funding). In addition, if 5 polls before the debates give a candidate 15% or more of the vote, they are eligible to be in the debates.

Now, Gary Johnson has been polling at 13% in some polls, so he might even make the debates this year. If he doesn't though, but secures 5% of the popular vote in the election, then the Libertarians would get federal election funding, and they would be able to make their presence bigger next election, probably securing the 15% in polls to get to the debates. The Greens could do the same thing.

So my suggestion is (and it's only a suggestion, vote however you like), if you are in a state which is never going to swing (e.g. it's a highly Republican or Democrat state), vote for a third party in the election, and boost their popular vote. That's the best statement anyone in a non-swing state can make in my opinion.

Bolding is mine.

Yeah but, somehow I don't think the Libertarians are going to accept public funding from the federal government for an election.