Trump is going to be reelected....

[tackattack]

I'm not catching up on 19 pages of troll baiting. To the OP,

What do you think it would take for Americans to stop choosing the lesser of 2 evils?
What do you think it would take for Americans do really decide what they want politically?

Exactly how much anarchy is the recipe for change without making the system collapse?

[Jehanne]

I'm not catching up on 19 pages of troll baiting. To the OP,

What do you think it would take for Americans to stop choosing the lesser of 2 evils?
What do you think it would take for Americans do really decide what they want politically?

Exactly how much anarchy is the recipe for change without making the system collapse?

The principle of majority rule, as envisioned by the Founders (well, at least my understanding of the Founders), is that a significant minority of the population can be truly nutty, and the hope is that "the majority" will at least keep the bus on the road.  As for #2, people, I think, largely want the status quo, but at the same time they are unhappy with it, and they want "change" but really do not know what type of "change" that they want, and they are both fearful and uncertain as to what that "change" will be like for them.  Uncertainty over #2 leads people to embrace individuals in #1 who truly speak to them, calming their fears with respect to their discontentment over the status quo while promising them "change" that will benefit their lives.

In summary, politics is a lot like consumer advertising -- people just simply like and are okay with being lied to, say, buying items that are are on sale, but in fact, are never not "on sale".  Trump is unique, politically, in that he is a pawn of the far right but that he has the charisma and marketing skills to win in the Electoral College, by convincing people that policies that do not benefit them, in fact, do benefit them:

[tackattack]

Well I believe all individual (which make up the majority and minority) desire (and require) both instability and stability. Eating PBJ for the rest of your life means you'll always be fed, but stirs longings for variety as well. I think we could temper that by doing exactly the opposite of what we've done for this current generation. I believe tons of people in a state of minimal attention spans and overchoice which seriously compromises their cognitive effectiveness. I was once a proponent of more choices in our electorate, but perhaps there is a silver lining to the lesser of 2 evils, because there's really only 2 choices. I'm wondering though how we, as a people, stop seeing it as the lesser of two evils and move to a perspective of the better of 2 choices. Open to any thoughts on this? I don't think the smattering of a trump-ian shake up is necessary (and never did) and leads to worse outcomes. I'm much more interested in using advert techniques, social psychology and genuine care and compassion to change hearts and minds, for the reasons you stated... people are okay with being lied to and sold a bill of goods. I wouldn't agree that people "like" being lied to, though.

[Jehanne]

Well I believe all individual (which make up the majority and minority) desire (and require) both instability and stability. Eating PBJ for the rest of your life means you'll always be fed, but stirs longings for variety as well. I think we could temper that by doing exactly the opposite of what we've done for this current generation. I believe tons of people in a state of minimal attention spans and overchoice which seriously compromises their cognitive effectiveness. I was once a proponent of more choices in our electorate, but perhaps there is a silver lining to the lesser of 2 evils, because there's really only 2 choices. I'm wondering though how we, as a people, stop seeing it as the lesser of two evils and move to a perspective of the better of 2 choices. Open to any thoughts on this? I don't think the smattering of a trump-ian shake up is  necessary (and never did) and leads to worse outcomes. I'm much more interested in using advert techniques, social psychology and genuine care and compassion to change hearts and minds, for the reasons you stated... people are okay with being lied to and sold a bill of goods. I wouldn't agree that people "like" being lied to, though.

American politics is, I believe, driven by extremist elements, but, in the end, is moderated by, well, the middle.  In the end, nothing significant gets done, except, over time.  It's kind of like a political natural selection vis a vis random mutations.  Things like universal healthcare show promise elsewhere, say, in Europe, Japan and pretty much the rest of the industrialized world; there's a big fight as it is introduced here, as those who are dissatisfied with the status quo try, nonetheless, to maintain it, but, in the end, more managed health care is slowly adopted because, it works, kind of like a useful mutation in Nature (better eyes, wings, etc.) survives, and as it arises in different species, it gets passed down.

[Spongebob]

I'm not catching up on 19 pages of troll baiting. To the OP,

What do you think it would take for Americans to stop choosing the lesser of 2 evils?
What do you think it would take for Americans do really decide what they want politically?

Exactly how much anarchy is the recipe for change without making the system collapse?

I think there's already a good solution to the first two questions, ranked voting.  Some states are doing this and I believe it is working well.  You get three votes, so you vote for your number 1, 2, and 3 person you would like to see.  No more "all in" votes, so the most outrageous candidate doesn't have as much of an advantage.

---

The principle of majority rule, as envisioned by the Founders (well, at least my understanding of the Founders), is that a significant minority of the population can be truly nutty, and the hope is that "the majority" will at least keep the bus on the road.  As for #2, people, I think, largely want the status quo, but at the same time they are unhappy with it, and they want "change" but really do not know what type of "change" that they want, and they are both fearful and uncertain as to what that "change" will be like for them.  Uncertainty over #2 leads people to embrace individuals in #1 who truly speak to them, calming their fears with respect to their discontentment over the status quo while promising them "change" that will benefit their lives.

In summary, politics is a lot like consumer advertising -- people just simply like and are okay with being lied to, say, buying items that are are on sale, but in fact, are never not "on sale".  Trump is unique, politically, in that he is a pawn of the far right but that he has the charisma and marketing skills to win in the Electoral College, by convincing people that policies that do not benefit them, in fact, do benefit them:

Regarding the majority rule idea, the founding fathers were also keenly wary of "the mob", which is to say they wanted enough checks and balances such that even a politically motivated majority couldn't just take over and vote in whatever they wanted.  Mob movements in Europe struck certain fears in them to warrant this.

[vulcanlogician]

I think there's already a good solution to the first two questions, ranked voting.  Some states are doing this and I believe it is working well.  You get three votes, so you vote for your number 1, 2, and 3 person you would like to see.  No more "all in" votes, so the most outrageous candidate doesn't have as much of an advantage.

That's really interesting. And a very good solution to the "crazy" problem that has infectected democracy over the last decade or so. I think the founders were a bit too wary of mob rule, personally. But, ultimately, especially taking modern politics into account... I'd have to say their fears weren't completely unfounded.

[Mister Agenda]

A lot of Liberals are overly conscientious brats with an inappropriately idealistic world view, and they don't want to get their feelings hurt, so much that they support policies that go against free speech (a huge no no for me) and take an inordinate amount of pride in trivial/mundane/stupid things, such as their sexual orientation.

I'm a sixty-year-old Air Force vet who was assigned to the NSA my last year in service who has been working for a big government contractor in South Carolina the last 25 years. Your descrtiption doesn't resemble me at all.

[polymath257]

I think there's already a good solution to the first two questions, ranked voting.  Some states are doing this and I believe it is working well.  You get three votes, so you vote for your number 1, 2, and 3 person you would like to see.  No more "all in" votes, so the most outrageous candidate doesn't have as much of an advantage.

That's really interesting. And a very good solution to the "crazy" problem that has infectected democracy over the last decade or so. I think the founders were a bit too wary of mob rule, personally. But, ultimately, especially taking modern politics into account... I'd have to say their fears weren't completely unfounded.

The big problem with having rankings is that there is NO WAY to reasonably form a collective ranking from individual rankings that satisfies certain very minimal requirements. This is a mathematical result.

https://plato.stanford.edu/entries/arrows-theorem/

[Mister Agenda]

And there all the proof we need your a troll 

You accusing me of being a troll means I must be saying something right.

Claiming you're right because someone accuses you of being a troll confirms you're a troll.

---

I'm not catching up on 19 pages of troll baiting. To the OP,

What do you think it would take for Americans to stop choosing the lesser of 2 evils?
What do you think it would take for Americans do really decide what they want politically?

Exactly how much anarchy is the recipe for change without making the system collapse?

The only alternative to choosing the lesser of two evils is to choose the greater evil. As we did in 2016. There's no such thing as a perfect candidate with no drawbacks. As a former capital L libertarian I used to mock people for choosing the lesser evil, but look what happens when you don't.

[Spongebob]

Ranked voting helps to stop that because you get multiple votes and can safety put your favorite candidate first and maybe the most popular candidate 2nd or 3rd.

Stop the corrupt formation of voting districts is another tool.  If a district is 90% Republican, the most extreme Republican will usually win.  If a district is more diverse, the candidates have to appeal to more people than just their nutball base.