Good read! It's been interesting reading about the US election from Australia.

Without being a voter I wouldn't have much influence from here... but we had a similar situation happen with our electorates a few years ago, Julia Gillard (Labor) and Tony Abbott (Liberal). We have a two party system like the states, parties being liberal and labor.

Julia Gillard was voted in and she became Australia's first prime minister. She got there because people wanted to see a woman in parliament house, not because of any policies or laws or proposed bills of any sort. Tony Abbott on the other hand had very strong, christian values and based his views on what the bible taught. As it turned out, neither was a good choice...

Julia Gillard got the country into HUGE debt with the vet-fee HELP system, which is up to $90k in loans for higher education, and no repayments until you earn over $50k annually. Of course with no means testing we ended up billions of dollars in debt. Once she was voted out by a landslide the following election, and Abbott was sworn into power, everything Abbott did was against the liberal crowds here, however financially speaking he started making improvements.

We didn't really have a good choice either way... it reminded me of the south park mascot episode, having to vote between a giant douche or a turd sandwich.

I wonder why we aren't allowed to vote for a third option if no one is satisfied enough with the candidates... Do you think that if people could vote for A) Trump, B) Clinton, or C) bring in a third candidate... do you really think people would have still voted for either major candidate?

I mean it's just all a bit silly. How is it that these kinds of people have any sort of influence at all? Why is someone who has been a businessman be put into power, and why should someones genitals put them in a position of power either? It's just all silly