|
|
winterfate
Supreme Hero
Water-marked Champion!
|
posted February 08, 2008 12:40 AM |
|
|
Great discussion guys!
I enjoy reading up on what's happening over there (seeing as my only connection to the US presidential elections is Real Time with Bill Maher, which I watch every week).
Quote:
All the Democratic candidates are air-heads, and all the Republican candidates are greedy bastards.
Generalization much, Miru? 
You may be right, but all it takes is one candidate who isn't a greedy bastard or an air-head to prove you wrong. 
Then again, I feel that way about most of my politicians as well.
As for George W. Bush Jr., I did promise Omega (OD) that I wasn't going to badmouth him...but, the temptation's returning.
Let's just say I can't stand Bush...at all.
And leave it at that.
____________
If you supposedly care about someone, then don't push them out of your life. Acting like you're not doing it doesn't exempt you from what I just said. - Winterfate
|
|
The_Gootch
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Kneel Before Me Sons of HC!!
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 12:58 AM |
|
|
|
Don't feed the teenagers. They're too young to be cynical and too dumb to have any substantive arguments.
|
|
winterfate
Supreme Hero
Water-marked Champion!
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 01:03 AM |
|
|
I see.
Thanks for the advice.
(Well, I'm still a teenager until the 23rd of this month; then I turn 20 )
____________
If you supposedly care about someone, then don't push them out of your life. Acting like you're not doing it doesn't exempt you from what I just said. - Winterfate
|
|
OD
Known Hero
or Grizzly Bear?
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 01:38 AM |
|
|
Quote:
Don't feed the teenagers. They're too young to be cynical and too dumb to have any substantive arguments.
Amen to that.
____________
"There is no such thing as a plea of innocence in my court. A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 02:38 AM |
|
|
|
Consis
Honorable
Legendary Hero
Of Ruby
|
posted February 08, 2008 05:07 AM |
|
|
Minion,
They are not elected.
____________
Roses Are Red And So Am I
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 06:39 AM |
|
|
I have mixed feelings about how the party chooses it's candidate. I guess in a way I feel like the party can choose it's candidate any way it wants. If the party members don't like it they can try to effect change.
Having said that, even though I feel there is an argument for the party choosing it's own method, it doesn't mean I have to like it. In this case I think it sucks. If the party is going to pretend that the members elect their candidate, then let their vote actually count.
One thing I think, but definitely see the argument against my view, is that I don't like the idea of open primaries. I feel like Democrats should choose their own candidate and Republicans should choose theirs. Why should a non-Republican vote for the Republican candidate? Or a non-Democrat vote in the Democratic primary/caucus? If an independent supports a specific candidate, why not just register for that party? Then next time around if they support someone from the opposite party, they can simply re-register with that party.
I was living in California when it became an open primary state. People were downright militant because they felt they were not being allowed to vote because they didn't have a party affiliation. The Republican primary is for REPUBLICANS, and the Democratic primary is for DEMOCRATS.
How is that taking away a persons right to vote? How is that any different than telling a person they can't cross the river and vote in the next district? The next district is for people from THAT district. What's the difference?
____________
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 01:07 PM |
|
|
Quote:
They are not elected.
Well most of them are... Superdelegates are current elected officeholders and current party officials as well as former elected officeholders and former party officials.
However that was not the point... I find it funny that somehow this messed up system is Hillary's fault. Just LOL.
|
|
OD
Known Hero
or Grizzly Bear?
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 01:45 PM |
|
|
Quote:
One thing I think, but definitely see the argument against my view, is that I don't like the idea of open primaries. I feel like Democrats should choose their own candidate and Republicans should choose theirs. Why should a non-Republican vote for the Republican candidate? Or a non-Democrat vote in the Democratic primary/caucus? If an independent supports a specific candidate, why not just register for that party? Then next time around if they support someone from the opposite party, they can simply re-register with that party.
That's why I didn't vote in the primaries in Michigan. I don't identify with a party anymore so I didn't feel it was appropriate for me to vote for which candidate a party chooses. Not that it was really much of a choice in Michigan seeing as how the Democrats decided to punish the state by not counting their delegates.
____________
"There is no such thing as a plea of innocence in my court. A plea of innocence is guilty of wasting my time. Guilty."
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 02:03 PM |
|
|
I disagree completely, Binabik. I think it's time to democratize the primaries. Force every state to have a blanket primary, have all primaries on the same day, and abolish caucuses. Then we'd see more moderation and less partisanship.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Peacemaker
Honorable
Supreme Hero
Peacemaker = double entendre
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 06:45 PM |
|
|
Hi binabik --
I understand and respect your position. But let me give you some food for thought.
The two-party system exists primarily to provide consolidated platforms for the various philosophies in the constituency to be fairly represented in the sausage-making machine of Congress. Ideally, each district votes the majority candidate into the House based on those particular philosophies, achieving the most accurate possible representation of the majority in that district. Same thing for the states: each state votes its senators in based on the majority votes. The popular voices of both parties are thus represented as fairly as possible.
However, when it comes to the presidency, perhaps a different analysis should apply, since there is only one President of the United States, not a President of the Democratic Party and a President of the Republican Party. This one individual presumably is charged to lead and represent ALL the people, not just those from his or her party.
First, binding voters to their registered party in the primaries is misleading because voters may not feel ANY of the candidates from their own party are fit to be president, but cannot vote for the one they DO feel is the best candidate in the primaries. This leads to a skewed, misleading, misrepresentative result which does not account for individuals in either party who wish to vote for a candidate from the opposite party.
Further, many people find both parties distasteful enough not to want to register with either party, or agree with aspects of both parties. Either way, for their own reasons they prefer to remain independent of partisan politics. Prohibiting individuals from voting in the primaries who are registered voters, but are not affiliated with either party because of philosophical reasons, deprives these people of their voice being heard.
The worst of it is that the unaffiliated constituency tends to be the most moderate, least polarized portion of the constituency. Thus, disenfranchising unaffiliated voters deprives the entire primary voting process of the least-polarized, least-partisanized populace, and perpetuates the increasing hyper-partisanism we are currently experiencing in the U.S.
A different analysis already applies in the general election; this is the reason that the general election is open. The idea is that the majority of the populace (presumably represented by the Electorate) chooses the President. Voting for the candidate of your choice in the general election despite party affiliation is no more "crossing the river to vote in somebody else's district" than voting for the candidate of your choice in the primaries would be.
All this is why many of us feel that all primaries should be "open." If one is bound only to the candidates in one's affiliated party, then one may be barred from voting for the individual perceived to be the best candidate for President despite that candidate's party affiliation.
I repeat what I said above. There has perhaps never been a better example of why primaries should be open than Campaign 2008. If all the primaries had been open on Super Tuesday, Obama would have taken the country by storm because the unaffiliated's and a slew of Republicans judge him to be the best candidate for President of the United States, but couldn't vote for him in the primaries.
On the other hand, the people who voted for Hillary Clinton will probably remain pretty much consistent into the general election since her constituency are pretty much party-line hard-core Democrat loyalists who want to "fight" and "beat" the Republicans, who want paybacks, who want to grind them into the ground like they've been doing us. Hence, if she takes the Democratic nomination, all those voices from the moderates (unaffiliated's) and Republicans who wanted to vote for Obama will never be heard, the general election ballot will not be representative of the overall populace's two top choices, and the Democratic nominee will likely be the one who will only further entrench the hyper-partisanship in Congress.
On re-registering in order to vote for the candidate of your choice: This too is a good point -- in theory. However, in reality the re-registration process as it was in Colorado became terribly bogged down because of the amount of time it takes to have your re-registration processed. I had to educate my own family members (all college graduates) on when and how to re-register in time to be considered a "Democrat" by Super Tuesday. If it hadn't been for me it would not have happened for them. And the only reason I knew is because I was working on the campaign.
For most, it was a matter of simply being confused as to the rules, which are different in every state. In a typical election in the U.S. cross-over voting isn't such a big issue, so nobody's up on the process because they've never had to be. For others, it was a matter of having too little time to take care of the matter (so I did the footwork for them).
Meanwhile, the Secretary of State received so many re-registration forms that it became bogged down and many of the party changes did not even appear in their database for several weeks or even months. Even as I have canvassed and campaigned I have come across hundreds of people, Unaffiliateds and Republicans alike -- at least a dozen in my own neighborhood -- who were terribly disappointed that they had not become re-registered in time to vote for Obama in the caucus. As amazing as a two-thirds landslide for Obama in Colorado was, imagine what the numbers would have been if our caucus process had been open instead of closed. All those people now feel even more disenfranchised; many of them are working on the campaign now to try and make up for the fact that they didn't get to vote.
For once we have a candidate with a truly phenomenal cross-over support base, which of all times in American history we need most right now. His base is the least partisanized I can recall at any time except perhaps the days of JFK and Bobby Kennedy. This is the reason he is best positioned to de-polarize Congress -- people LIKE him, they are willing to WORK with him. He is a statesman who can persuade the worst of enemies to come together in their common purposes and leave hyper-partisanism behind. I've watched him do it time and again. Finally, we have a chance to break the Congressional deadlock that has paralyzed this country for over a decade now. But because of closed primaries we may not get to take that chance.
In the end, the whole re-registration process seemed to me to be form over substance for really no good reason at all as far as I can figure, and terribly unfair. There was no such rush on the county clerks' offices by registrants wishing to vote for Clinton. But none of that will ever be counted in the final vote, and those cross-over voices -- perhaps the most amazing phenomenon of the Obama campaign -- will never be heard.
And most likely, because of all this we will end up with a President of the Democratic Party, or worse yet, a President of the Republican Party like we have right now, instead of a President of the United States.
So now I ask you, binabik, when you say why not make people re-register, I say --
What For?
____________
I have menopause and a handgun. Any questions?
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 09:18 PM |
|
Edited by Binabik at 21:21, 08 Feb 2008.
|
I've been accused before of playing devil's advocate. It's not that so much as I like to see both sides presented. The problem with the Electoral College and the closed primaries both is that "on the surface" they both seem terrible and unfair. But there is actually a reason for both systems.
In the case of the Electoral College, I feel the arguments for it far outweigh the arguments against it. In the case of closed primaries, I think it's debatable. The point I really wanted to make is that, yes, there ARE reasons for it.
PM, you are painting a nice picture of an ideal system of how it would work. But can you imagine the future of primary politics if all states had open primaries with bound delegates? Just as an example, what would be the best campaign strategy for the Republicans this primary season? A lot of Republicans would argue that the best candidate for the Reps to campaign for would be Hillary. If I didn't think it was so cheesy, I might vote for her myself because that's the best chance for the Republicans to win.
Even forgetting about the campaign itself, but only considering the decision making process of the voters themselves, what kind of thinking would they do? Some people will only vote for their ideal. Very often they are accused of throwing away their vote. Heck, my first presidential election I voted third party as a vote against the two party monopoly. But many/most people vote to win. And their numbers increase when elections become close races (or when they are fired up about something like now).
I don't know how likely it is to happen in reality, but I see the "potential" for cross-over campaign politics becoming real ugly. If the numbers showed some likelihood of success, can you imagine behind-the-scenes big money funding a candidate from the opposite party? In completely open primaries with bound delegates, the best winning strategy would be some combination of playing both sides. The best strategy would be finding the best match-up.....candidate A against candidate B....with the money and effort going to pairing those two against each other, with both sides having equal importance.
OK, yea, I'm somewhat playing devil's advocate and I agree with most of what you say. But there are valid arguments for both sides. Yes, there could be laws enacted to lessen some of the things I mentioned. But that's a lot like any other campaign reform laws....the fox guarding the chicken coop. And whomever is in power at the time would certainly tweak the laws to their own best advantage.
*interruption - I think two people wanted to save my soul, but the door was closed before they got 5 words out, so I guess I'll never know for sure *
Bottom line is that I think the entire primary process is pretty messed up. PM, you mentioned the idea of the system being against "middle America". I consider the entire caucus process to have somewhat the same effect. Basically it requires a lot more effort on the part of the voters. Which means mostly hard core party members and Middle Americans with strong feelings or an axe to grind will show up.
I could argue that a true open primary would be a single national election with the top X-number of candidates, regardless of party, moving on to the final election. *thinking to myself* So how would this work in practice? Would the primary only be an alternative to the current two party primary, with the Independent, Green or Socialist parties getting an automatic slot on the ballot? Or would all the third parties be eliminated entirely?
To my knowledge, none of the third parties hold primaries. They simply present their candidate, and I have no idea how they are chosen. So why is it so terrible for the "big two" to choose their candidate using whatever means they see fit?
I'm just rambling, so I'll quit.
Again, there's a little devil's advocate in all this, but the points are valid and should be addressed in any discussion of this nature.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 09:39 PM |
|
|
The electoral college violates the rule of "one person, one vote". Why should the voter in a sparsely populated swing state be more important than a voter in California?
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 09:57 PM |
|
|
The "rule" of one person one vote isn't necessarily fair. As a matter of fact I will state outright that it's NOT fair.
There is no such thing as a completely fair method. I've argued this more than once around here, so I'll give the short version. With a pure national election with a simple majority wins, huge portions of the country will have virtually no say in the election.
Consider Wyoming, Montana, North Dakota, South Dakota, etc. What the electoral college does is give them some say in the process. It forces the candidates to at least consider those states in their strategy. It forces them to actually go to those states and meet the people and campaign. Even with the electoral college, those states don't have much say, but they have more say tham they would in a pure popular vote.
With a popular vote, there is no reason for candidates to put out any effort except in a handfull of heavily populated states and some select cities. Part of this is purly financial, it's a heck of a lot more efficient to advertize and campaign in highly populated areas.
The electoral college not only considers numbers of people, but also gives a "very small" weight to geographic location, lifestyle, culture, etc. An example is that it gives farmers and ranchers just a little more say, because without the electoral college, they wouldn't have any say at all.
I could go into a state's rights rant, but I won't for now.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 08, 2008 11:32 PM |
|
|
Exactly. Why should Wyoming and the others have any say? They're overrepresented. Why should the candidates have to consider a relatively small amount of people in their strategy at the cost of ignoring others. When's the last time a Republican cared about California? When's the last time a Democrat cared about Texas?
States shouldn't have rights. People have rights.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Binabik
Responsible
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2008 12:04 AM |
|
|
Mvass, your problem is that half the time you argue just for the sake of arguing. I'm not going to play that game. You lost your credibility a long time ago and have done nothing since then to change that.
Telling people in Wyoming that they don't count, is this like your advocacy of eugenics? That anyone who doesn't meet your criteria doesn't count? After all, survival of the fittest and mob rule have a lot in common.
____________
|
|
mvassilev
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2008 02:35 AM |
|
|
Binabik, I won't deny that I like to debate. But in this case I truly feel this way.
I don't and never have advocated eugenics. I'm sorry that you misunderstood my arguments in that thread that way. The distinction I made in that thread is, for the most part, philosophical, and has extremely little influence on my actions either here on HC or in RL.
As for the subject at hand, the voters of Wyoming do matter. But they should only matter as much as any other voters. And right now, a lot more people than the population of Wyoming doesn't matter. All of the Republicans of California and New York don't matter under the current system, as well as all the Democrats of the South.
And please never accuse me of advocating eugenics. I am Russian, and many Russians were the victims of eugenics. Your accusations truly offend me.
____________
Eccentric Opinion
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 09, 2008 08:09 AM |
|
|
Anybody have any of the results yet? Or is it way too early? Want to see how good my predictions were.
Prediction one already passed. Knew it would be a Hillary/Obama show down.
Prediction 2 on target. Bill can't keep out of it, or his trap shut.
Guess he doesn't realize that HE isn't running for president.
Prediction 3 is still up in the air. That Obama will win more votes, and more states, but Hillary will get the nomination.
Prediction 4 is Hillary is too divisive. Looses election, and this shot for something different (regardless how minor) is wasted.
Prediction 5 New president (and it doesn't matter which) gets blamed for economy, ect when it was just inherited by them.
Prediction 6 Politics as usual. No change, and America continues to slide down the cess pool.
Also I would like to know who ever said that "Somehow this messed up system is Hillary's fault."
____________
Message received.
|
|
Minion
Legendary Hero
|
|
posted February 09, 2008 01:37 PM |
|
|
Quote:
Also I would like to know who ever said that "Somehow this messed up system is Hillary's fault."
It was a reply to Consis. And the superdelegate issue is he reason he had to change his vote to Obama - apparently because Hillary has more superdelegates. The reasoning here baffles me yet again, as I was baffled by your decision to vote for any republican against Clinton
|
|
Mytical
Responsible
Undefeatable Hero
Chaos seeking Harmony
|
|
posted February 09, 2008 02:52 PM |
|
|
Well there are two strikes already against Clinton. One is named Bill, the other is that even though female she is still part of the 'old boys' network. White, middle aged, rich. The third strike imo is because she is too polarizing. Now this is just personal opinon, but I want somebody a bit different this time. Heck even Huckabee would have been a nice change of pace. Even though he is still middle aged, white, and rich.
Now as for the Bill part of it. I just got tired of Bill when he was in office. Don't really care for him. Maybe (and this is a big maybe) if he had stayed out of the election it would have been different for me.
Basically I am what most people consider Hillary's target audience. White and female (though not rich by any stretch of the imagination). If she has a hard time convincing me to vote for her, then how can she win?
First, I am not convinced the 'tears' she shed were real. They may very well be, but I seriously don't think so. She is a cagey politition, could have all been a show. Just because she is a woman, doesn't mean I am going to vote for her when she mists up. In fact, in a way it makes me want not to vote for her. Everybody immediately does the 'awww poor Clinton' bit, just because she is a female and mists up.
Second, her record with voting. Especially for the war, and the patriot act. Yeah this was Bush's mess, but she had a hand in it. Just like every other official who voted for it did.
On the positive side, she would probably do more for womens right then I could possibly imagine. The glass ceiling would not only break, it would shatter.
So, all she has to do is convince me. She's failed so far.
|
| |
|
|
This thread is pages long: 
