Beoz

That's a much nicer response.

knockoff nige

Mate I know how voting works. It's also clear how heavily influential polls and the media are in results. If there is no protection from that level of influence, there should be. Especially when they got it so wrong. But of course the only people who would suggest this are those who have lost and those who didn't get to vote.

Alfresco

I wonder how many of these celebs will stick to their pre-election promises of leaving the US if Donald becomes president...

United States of Adios: Celebrities who vowed to move if Trump becomes president - 9news.com.au

Beoz

Of course not. They will be better off under DT. You watch the hypocrisy prevail in the next weeks / months.

Alfresco

Yes, indeed. It will be interesting.


And just maybe all the polls which had Hillary in the lead most of the time, and influenced largely by the media, backfired by motivating more people to vote for Donald.

If there were no pre-election polls, then no-one would be influenced by them.

But for me, meh.

GarryP

On the basis of the Canadian website crashing, I'm thinking it won't just be the celebs jumping ship. I think a lot of progressive, sane, types will be looking at their options to get out of dodge. Not sure how many will end up in Oz, but I'll guess there will be an uptick in those looking to get visas.

Ideal time for an Oz government to look at easier visa requirements for west coast entrepreneurs and VCs....

knockoff nige

Yes I agree. It would also mean that the candidates don't change course mid campaign due to losing ground in the polls. It would make it all more honest and rely on people doing more research. They would be more engaged as there would be less tabloid noise.

Is it right that people are voting one way because of the dirty secrets of the other side? Of course not. There should also be a vetting or qualifying process to sift out the clearly unqualified candidates such as Trump.

Amazulu

It looks like polls are worth jack-shit at the moment!

UK election, Brexit, US election - all wrong

Beoz

So who should conduct that vetting process? You? Democrates? And what qualifies someone to be President?

Kind of defeats the purpose of democracy.

The voters do the vetting. You can't change the process because you don't like the result.

Pulaski

Who sets the rules, who polices them and who arbitrates? Going in that direction is a slippery slope towards official government political parties and totalitarianism. As Winston Churchill said "Democracy is the worst possible form of government, apart from all the others that have been tried."

knockoff nige

A sitting congress and Supreme Court. Anyone should be able to run for president. But everyone who does should be tested onaptitude as well as current domestic and world events. They would also need to demonstrate how well they know the active policies by the sitting government. Trump wouldn't have made past stage 1.

GarryP

If you want to fly a plane with passengers you need to prove you have the knowledge to do so, prove you can in a simulator, get medical and psychiatric evaluation, etc.

And most of the time there is an autopilot that does most of the work.

Personally I think every politician should be able to pass at least that level of testing.

Pulaski

On the contrary Mr Trump is a much smarter man than you give him credit for. Unless you set the bar so high that only members of Mensa, and PhD's, doctors and lawyers can run for President I have no doubt that Mr Trump would pass any arbitrary test of know and experience.

It's all moot anyway as your daft idea ain't gonna happen.
And you think a billionaire businessman would struggle to pass any such test?

knockoff nige

It's daft to think someone should prove themselves capable of being president?

Sure it won't happen. Doesn't mean it shouldn't. And no, Trump isn't the genius you think he is. He is an enormous egomaniac who has just been gifted the most perfect present for an egomaniac.

Beoz

..... and who tests them?