OT: We the people?

Page 8 of 8  


No. I am suggesting that the primaries used to whittle the number of candidates down for the general election should not be partisan.
--
FF

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

But that's what the primaries ARE - they're the way the political parties choose their candidates from among those who would like to be their party's candidate. The only way for a primary to be something other than partisan would be to let people who are not Democrats choose the Democrat candidate (same for Repubs). So it sounds to me like you just said "yes" and "no" to my final question in a single sentence.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

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

Wrong. I'm talking about leaving to the Democrats, Republicans, Greens, Libertarians, etc to decide whom and how many candidates they run for any particular office, and making them all compete with each other for a slot in the general election on an equal basis.

The alternative is a runoff-elimination system. Throw all candidates who make the cut based on petitions in together in the primary and eliminate them from the bottom up, using the same method used in the Iowa caucuses.
--
FF


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

But each party already runs who they want in the general election. How is that different from the way things already work?
It would be foolish in the extreme for the Repubs, for example, to field three candidates in ths same general election; the Repub votes would be split among the three, and if the Demos fielded a single candidate the Demos would win every time.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

NO.
Assuming the electorate is split almost evenly between Republicans and Democrats and the Republicans are almost evenly split among the three Republican candidates then:
In the first round one Republican loses. In the second round, another Republican loses. That leaves one republican running against one Democrat in the General election.
If there were many more Republicans then Democrats in the elecotrate, you could have Two Repubicans running against each other in the General election.
--
FF

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

So if there were ten candidates, you'd have to conduct nine elections. Please explain how your proposed system is less of a problem than the one we have.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

No, but to understand why not requires further explanation.
The actual rule is that if a candidate wins more votes than all of those who finish below him/her COMBINED, then all of those below him/her are eliminated. Thus fringe candidtes are emiinated on the first ballot, and anytime a candidate wins more than 50% of the vote, that ends the process. Also note that if the majority of the voters are evenly divided between Democrats and Republicans, and if we assume that they mostly vote for candidates within their parties the election will usually come down to a contest between one Democrat and a Republican even if one party only runs one candidate and the other runs several. The two party _political_ system is preserved, but without violating the equal protection of non affiliated voters and candidates, which partisan primaries do by imposing different rules for ballot access for non affiliated candidates.
As I explained earlier, I'm describing a system that was and maybe still is, used in OK. They seldom had more than two elections, never more than three, and sometimes only one. So the system is proven to be practical in actual use.
The actual elimination process can and usually does eliminate more than just the last place candidate, though it ALWAYS eliminates the last place.
--
FF

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

That's silly.

How about have it done the way it is done in the general election? Why should Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire get to decide who runs for president? Why should I have to move to Iowa in order to have a voice in this election?
"We the people..." Not "We, Iowa, Wyoming and New Hampshire..."

No. They shouldn't have TIME to drop out before I have a chance to cast my VOTE.

Does the name Al Gore mean anything to you?

No. I think everyone "We" should have a chance to vote for their candidate. Not just Iowa et al.

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

What your suggesting is simply a national primary.....the looming "Super Tuesday" with 21or 22 states voting should at least make you halfway happy<G>..... Nonetheless no typical slate of Presidential aspirants could afford a out of the gate national campaign of the scope or breadth to truly inform the national public....realistic on the ground parameters including fundraising, candidate organizations and general support all point strongly to the need of a few states providing the "proving ground" of the wannabe's....If anointed king<G> I'd keep the traditional early contests(tradition) and have a lottery (for each Presidential election) allocating the order for the remaining states......regional votes spread out over the primary season might prove most effective as well.

So you would rather have any vote instead of a informed vote that the traditional rigor of the primary process allows.

The subject or context was primary elections.

I suppose I understand your frustration but it bears noting that a primary election is less about voters choice, but rather simply whom the party will present for the voters choice (a fundamental difference in scope and practice)......realistically if one truly desires a early voice or impact it requires early voluntary involvement in party logistics and politics. Rod
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload
Rod & Betty Jo wrote:

In that case it looks like there's a good chance that it's going to happen this year.

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

Remember the old system where the states sent delegates to the convention to tout their "favorite sons" for the first few ballots? Things weren't predetermined to the extent they are now. Makes me wonder why the wasted time and money on conventions. The Delegates are committed, let them now meet as electors and simply certify themselves, collect their souvenir pens and go home.
Garage guy apparently had a favorite son in mind. I've got a HS classmate in the race, so I jumped and voted for him.
Add pictures here
<% if( /^image/.test(type) ){ %>
<% } %>
<%-name%>
Add image file
Upload

Groupies.
--
FF


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

Site Timeline

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.