The Primaries...and how they suck.
I was discussing with a friend of mine, who is on the other side of the political (fiscal) spectrum, that the way we do our presidential primaries are ridiculous. Having a couple of states (low population ones to boot), have a larger than proportional influence who gets to eventually run for President just sucks.
I propose that just like the election, all the states have their primaries at the same time and then the douchbags can slug it out at the convention...
Any thoughts?
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
That's still needlessly complicated, how about one nationwide primary. One person, one vote. Then at the General Election, one person one vote.
Isn't that what I said?
Unless you mean also take away the convention. That would be ideal, but I'm thinking baby steps. The fight to realign the primaries would be tough enough, never mind trying to take away the 2 parties party they throw in their own honor!
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I don't like how some states can have so much influence over the primaries, but imagine the money wasted on nationwide primary elections. Of course, I don't like how the current system basically allows you to buy your way into office either, so....
Originally Posted by Veldan Rath
Whats the difference here?
EDIT:
already addressed...
I think he means get rid of the convention...whom ever has the most votes at the end of Primary Night gets the nomination...no need for a convention.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
The impression I got from what D&D-boy said was that it's still a primary in every state - while what Randy thinks is that it's all nationwide, no more my Demmycrap vote not counting for shit because I live in the most Pubbie part of Georgia.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
You can still have the Convention just without the delegates being elected by primaries. If Hillary gets 4.6 mn votes and Obama 4.8mn then Obama gets elected, simples. The election is for one post, it should be one vote for it, no difference whether in Georgia, Texas or New York.
Since nobody's chimed in with opposition yet, I'd like to point out that doing it at the same time would wind up costing more money. The way it is currently, people who definitely aren't going to win find out fairly early in the process and stop soaking up money that could be more usefully spent by the other candidates in the primary, so there's a reason that the parties themselves might want to oppose such a move.
Primaries usually seem to have a much wider group of people running in them than the general elections as well, and most states still use an all-or-nothing voting system which really isn't suited to a nationwide election with lots of candidates. Any change to the time should probably come with a wider switch to proportional delegates. Even if Rand's idea were implemented, we'd still need to switch to an instant-runoff system or similar along with a move to nationwide voting.
The problem is people "find out" based on what voters on Iowa and New Hampshire feel, and those states are in no way representative of the country.
Hope is the denial of reality
How about we just toss the primaries altogehter and move all candidates directly to a general election.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
That'd be great when there are really divisive candidates and all. Of course, it would get us away from a 2-party system remarkably fast.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Parties aren't stupid. It's in their interest to unite around one candidate. Are you going to outlaw party primaries?
Hope is the denial of reality
Since I don't think the time has come for me to be queen of the world, no, party primaries stay.
With Being's plan I think McCain would be president right now.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
It would depend on whether there'd be a run off and what kind of people choose to run. Without a run off, it's conceivable that an extremist (i.e. a Palin) would have a good shot of winning as long as her side of the extreme doesn't split the vote. With run-offs, an extremist is unlikely to win, but it's quite possible that the second round would put a center-right or center-left candidate against an extremist, in which case you'd have even less choice than now.
Hope is the denial of reality
I don't, however, really have a problem with all of the primaries being on one day, then letting the parties have their conventions to mop up the mess.
We're stuck in a bloody snowglobe.
Not in the slightest. It would just make the majority party in Congress the arbiter of who sits as President, in any situation where there isn't only one reasonable candidate for one of the two parties *i.e. an incumbent* All it would do is turn the Presidency into a Congressionally-appointed position and guarantee anyone appointed got two terms.
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
I'm all for tossing parties too.Parties aren't stupid. It's in their interest to unite around one candidate. Are you going to outlaw party primaries?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Everyone does realize that the Republicans and Democrats are not entities of the government right? The government doesn't get to choose how they pick their candidates.
Yes, we realize that they are entities of special interests, not government.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
What makes a group of people a "special interest?"
In any event its all rather moot. Individual parties may want to change how they do it but its their business not the governments. The ideas discussed here don't seem to be at all feasible outside of giving the government control on how parties select their candidates.
You make it sound as though some central party body makes the decision when in fact it is done at the state level. Anyway, I'm all for outlawing parties altogether. They force people to condone things they otherwise might not support at all.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Ah liberals. You don't like people voluntarily forming political groups so you demand the government to crush this form of political free speech and assembly? Typical.
It's more the packaging of unrelated ideals that bothers me. To accept one you must accept them all.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
Uhhh, no.
Ever hear of the Log Cabin Republicans, the Blue Dog Democrats, etc?
People join the parties so they have a chance of getting elected (which is it's own special problem), but there are Pro Life Democrats and Drug Legalization Republicans.
Brevior saltare cum deformibus viris est vita
I think you're missing the bigger point there. Being wants to get rid of freedom of association and prevent individuals from forming groups he doesn't approve of.I could only imagine what he'd do if those groups met anyway.
Hope is the denial of reality
So stop supporting large "umbrella" parties. If you object that you can't do so without throwing away your vote, that's a structural problem and you should move for a proportional system rather than the current "first past the post" set-up we have for all elections. "Ban everyone" does not strike me as the logical, appropriate, or useful response to "I don't like my current options."
Last night as I lay in bed, looking up at the stars, I thought, “Where the hell is my ceiling?"
Nonsense, political parties are a "big tent" that has a wide variety of beliefs in them. Personally I'm not sure if I was an American if I'd be a Democrat or Republican - on social values I agree more with some Democrats, on economics I agree more with some Republicans; but if I joined the Dem's I'd oppose a load of Dem's economic beliefs and if I joined the GOP I'd oppose a load of GOPers social beliefs.
In the UK I am a member of the Conservative Party and joined because I disliked the existing leader of the party, then Iain Duncan Smith. I voted for the current leader, PM Cameron and am much happier with the party under his leadership.
Isn't that what I did by registering as "Decline to state"?
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
How would your individual opposition affect overall party ideology? For instance the Republicans believe they have a mandate to repeal the Affordable Healthcare Act even though many of their members don't support such a thing. Yet being in that party you do support it because that is the party line.
Faith is Hope (see Loki's sig for details)
If hindsight is 20-20, why is it so often ignored?
No that's garbage. Party members do not have "collective responsibility" in the same way that the Cabinet do. An individual party member can oppose a party line and a voter chooses between slates of options.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote