OT: We the people?

Page 7 of 8  
Garage_Woodworks wrote:

So you think the system is broken because the person you wanted to vote for no longer wanted to BE voted for? Take that up with your quitter candidate, not the electoral system.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Not here, NC doesn't put a write in line on the ballot. No Independents allowed either, gotta be either a Rep. or a Dem.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I live in Pennsylvania now. We're about dead last in the primary system. I haven't voted for a candidate I wanted since I left Manhattan. The last primary that mattered was '92 when I voted for Moonbeam over Slick Willie. Hey - Moonbeam boned Linda Ronstadt back when that meant something...
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That would still mean something today. I'm not sure what, but I think the shine is off that one.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Hey, I boned Linda Ronstadt! Back when she was playing the Palomino Club in North Hollywood.
-Zz
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I can still see her laid out in a red teddy on the bed in the piece Rolling Stone did about her. OUCH! - Dave in Houston
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

I don't know what you're talking about......
http://www.ronstadt-linda.com/rs78-2.jpg
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
. Hey - Moonbeam boned Linda Ronstadt back

That means something very different downunder. In aboriginal folklore the witchdoctor equivilant would point a bone at someone present or absent and they would just get sick and die. They had been boned.
Mekon
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

So you desire 300 million candidates right on up to Nov. so everybody can vote for their candidate of choice? Or do you desire all 50 states to be first in the primary race? Or you just don't think losing candidates should be allowed to drop out?
It may be antiquated (is that a bad thing?) but broken? When was the last time that the most popular candidate did not come out on top? Obviously winning does not always guarantee job competence<G>.
Are you sure the sour grapes isn't just the fruit of "your guy" not making the cut? Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

2000. And from the looks of things it may be shaping up that way in the Democratic primaries as well.
Note, I voted for Bush, so don't accuse me of "sour grapes".

--
--
--John
  Click to see the full signature.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

The context and intent was primaries and the primary process......Speaking of 2000 though, I never expected in my lifetime to see a "electoral college" victory...a nifty example of state rights trumping a federal monolith. I never expected to have a volcano blow (MT St. Helen) 50 miles away either...life has such cool surprises<G>....Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
It blew on my 30th B'day, start of an interesting decade. I don't think any of us living in the area expected it to actually happen. I decided to hike on my B'day weekend. Was thinking about the area north of St Helens, but decided to go to the enchanted valley on the west side of the Olympics. One of the best choices I've ever made in life. Far as the primaries go, as long as the current party system controls how the elected legislaters vote it won't work as orignianlly planned. The parties in this state have turned our primary into a waste of funding.
Mike M
On Thu, 31 Jan 2008 10:33:56 -0800, "Rod & Betty Jo"

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
J. Clarke wrote:

No, the original system was fine; this idea that independents and/or cross-over voters (depending upon the state) have the ability to help decide the parties' candidate is troubling. What is especially troubling is that this lassaiz faire attitude toward who gets to vote in primaries is predominant in early primary states and has the ability to skew the results and candidates for the rest of the country. Look at who voted for McCain in the various primaries that allowed either independents or cross-overs to vote. Same issue could apply to the dems as well; this serves to weaken the parties' platforms and their ability to maintain a cohesive message.
... snip

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Primary elections were not part of the original Presidential election system. They still aren't, in some states.

_A_ problem is that primaries are partisan in the first place.
One alternative is impose a reasonable high bar, in the form of the number of signatures on a petition to get on the ballot, so as to limit the candidates to a dozen or so. Then hold a series of elections to eliminate the candidates from the bottom up, similar to how they are eliminated in the Iowa Caucases, until one gets more than 50% of the vote. This was done for state and local elections in OK (maybe still is) and there were seldom more than two elections needed to arrive at a winner.
There is no Constitutional requirement that states have Presidential primaries or even Presidential elections.
So think hard before you suggest amending the Constitution, else you have better be especially tough.
--
FF



Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

The original presidential election system was to have the voting citizens (usually limited to land-owners and taxpayers -- a concept that would do us a world of good today by the way) vote for electors who then voted for the president. Are you recommending returning to that system?

No, if one has a two-party system, doesn't matter what one calls the parties, that has an essential dichotomy of view toward the role of government, then it darn well does matter that the primaries are partisan.

That is certainly one way to approach things; but that is just it, it is *a* way that has may have some benefits but will also carry some detriments as well.

OK. But they do, and that is the system under discussion. Some of the states, particularly the early voting states allow both cross-over voting and undeclared voters to vote in party primaries. The issue here is that this tends to be detrimental to both parties (with the biggest detriment to the Republicans in this election cycle) as it weakens the fundamental message of each of those parties regarding their stand on the role of government and tends to winnow out those candidates with strong messages early in the process due to the influence of those outside the party.

Where on earth in my postings did I ever mention anything remotely resembling amending the Constitution?

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

That proposal never made it out of the Constitutional Convention. It is not possible to 'return' to a system that was never used.

We do NOT have a two party system. We have a system that preserves the freedom of association that permits the formation of parties, and an election system that tends to make more than two parties unviable.
I don' t have any problem with parties choosing and supporting candidates. My objection is to different rules for ballot access for candidates of the two largest parties vs everyone else.

_That_ is the problem, the reduction of so many issues to a false dichotomy. Grouping those dichotomies into only two sets compounds that problem.

Yep. Any system will have pros and cons. If it is a political system, the politicians will no doubt provide most of the cons, in more way than one.

Yes. It is a state issue.

And not allowing them disenfranchises people who refuse to join either party, violating THEIR freedom of (non) association as well as their equal protection.
It ALSO makes no sense to have anyone but a patry member choose candidates for that party.
One way to address those two problems is to eliminate partisan primaries per se (the parties can still hold internal elections if they wish--that's their business just leave the government out of the loop) and use a runoff-elimination system. IF there are two strong parties then the final election will come down to a contest between one candidate from each no matter how many of each start off at the bottom tier. And registered voter gets to vote at every stage.

SOMEBODY suggested a national primary. THAT would require a constitutional amendment taking from the individual states the authority to determine thier won ways to choose electors.
--
FF


Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:
... snip

... and right now and for most of the country's history, there has effectively been a two-party system. Whigs & Tory's, Republicans and Democrats, this has been the historical context in which things have shaken out for this country. Someday a viable third party may come into existence, that is not the reality of the here and now.

Why? Each of the parties should be able to define the rules for how its members select candidates. Why should someone who is not a member and thus not bound by either affection or common vision be allowed to dictate terms to something to which they are not a party? If someone feels that strongly about something, then they should have the fortitude to be willing to make a declaration and actually join one of the parties.

A third party that bounds the problems differently is certainly welcome to joint the band. After all, only *one* person achieves office and people better know what the fundamental views of that person are. It used to mean that people in the Democrat party were tied to a platform and philosophy that viewed government as the solution to problems, advocated increased government involvement in all aspects of life, with the attendant increased regulations on business and individuals. The Republican party by contrast, viewed government as the problem and pushed for more action at the state level and a less powerful federal government. To say that these lines have become blurred is an understatement.

That is a ludicrous statement. Why in the world should anyone who doesn't have the willingess to join a certain party be allowed by that party to participate in the decisions of that party? That is akin to me walking into a meeting of the Elks or a Moose Lodge and demanding that they change their policies to allow me to select members and who they choose as their leaders.
There is no reason why a political party should expect that its policies and positions should be dictated by those unwilling to join or support it.

It further makes no sense to have anyone but party members choose who is the candidate for that party.
.. snip

--
If you're going to be dumb, you better be tough

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Mark & Juanita wrote:

That may be the case, but it's not the way the system was set up, it's the way the people apparently want it. The people can vote for any of a dozen parties, the majority simply vote for one of the big two.
Personally, I can't think of a way that a third party could differentiate itself from the big two enough to make it worthwhile to have a "big three". Any differences seem to be small matters of policy, not major platform issues.
--
Blog Me! http://BitchSpot.JadeDragonOnline.com

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
On Feb 4, 8:37 am, Brian Henderson

The differences between one dempublican and another are small matters of policy compared to the difference between them and the third parties--Greens, Socialists, Libertarians etc.
I think that was your point, right?
--
FF

Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Fred the Red Shirt wrote:

candidate for an office. Primaries are the way the party decides which one will be its candidate. Why is that a problem? Are you suggesting a party should not be entitled to choose its candidate?
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Related Threads

    HomeOwnersHub.com is a website for homeowners and building and maintenance pros. It is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.