^^ I wasn't trying to be a smart ass, just wasn't sure how immersed you were in US politics. But it would likely be unconstitutional to try to regulate these state level elections for the reasons I detailed earlier. No matter how much 'common' sense it may seem, that doesn't necessary make it legal for us.
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.
What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.
What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.
Well my first suggestion would be for the parties to just nominate and vote for their leaders themselves. No need to drag the public into it, especially when the current system basically makes their votes irrelevant anyhow. My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent. Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
I totally agree with you on this. As usual, Americans are being distracted from what really matters.
You guys are too focused in pointing fingers. Yes, there is a difference between Trump inciting his supporters vs. Sanders condemning it.
But FFS, we have a huge suppression of democratic rights in this country right now, and all you can think about is "It must be HIS fault!" Get your heads out of the sand and look at what's being done to the entire democratic process. Everyone should be angry, but not at the scapegoat. The system is fucked and by contributing to the division of the people rather than uniting and demanding better from our government!
Negative. You are misunderstanding the words corrupt and suppression. Were you suppressed from voting in the general election? Do you think your vote wasn't tallied? Were you strong armed into who to vote for? Were you told that if you don't vote for X that you wouldn't have a job?
You mistakenly believe that party rules are somehow governed by the Constitution or they are part of your inalienable rights. They are not. They are created by the party, ratified by the party, according to the party rules. There was no miscarriage of justice in Nevada. There was no law to miscarry. BrianLux said what happened was 'akin to criminal'. Not even close. There were only convention rules, created by the party, for the party.
I understand that convention rules are created for the party, by the party, however are primaries not funded and run by the state-level governments (at least partially)? That being the case, doesn't the federal government have an obligation to ensure that state-level primary election policies are fair, equitable, and consistent from state to state?
That's the Democratic National committee's job (DNC) just like the Republican National committee has their job to run a primary for each state.
However, while the republican party is self-imploding w/ the GOP fully resisting having to get behind Donald Trump, the Democratic Party is self-destructing as well, w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair and former Clinton campaign chair for the 2008 election, changing rules (rolling back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists to candidates is one), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html admitting that the use of super-delegates are to prevent grassroots candidates from winning and enabling establishment candidates to win, buying & paying Superdelegates upfront before primaries, along with several other tactics used in ensuring a Clinton win.
Because the DNC is in charge, they can change rules at their discretion, even during a convention vote like in Nevada, paying no attention to the delegates' overwhelming anger towards their cheating. Not because of Sanders not because of Clinton. Because of the DNC and the election process cheating. And boy, is the DNC angry that Bernie is not stepping down.
Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
That couldn't be farther from the truth. Maybe in your dreams, maybe in my dreams, but it's so far from reality it's not funny.
Not to mention, we're not even a democracy, we are a Democratic Republic. Our elections are far far far from being Democratic. Forget about The electoral college Russell?
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.
What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.
Well my first suggestion would be for the parties to just nominate and vote for their leaders themselves. No need to drag the public into it, especially when the current system basically makes their votes irrelevant anyhow. My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent. Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.
True democracy would not involve a two-party system. It would allow Independents, A party that's growing due to despondance of the two party system, all third-party candidates and voters to participate AND BE COUNTED. The current system has closed state primaries in most states which means only Democrats and Republicans can vote. How is this fair? In New York State, you have to register and claim one of the 2 parties six months before the primary date. 6 MONTHS. This state rule excluded thousands of voters. Granted, it is the rules and I knew it about it, changing my party status in time. Many last-minute third-party supporters wanted to change theirs and couldn't. Hardly Democratic.
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.
What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.
Well my first suggestion would be for the parties to just nominate and vote for their leaders themselves. No need to drag the public into it, especially when the current system basically makes their votes irrelevant anyhow. My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent. Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.
True democracy would not involve a two-party system. It would allow Independents, A party that's growing due to despondance of the two party system, all third-party candidates and voters to participate AND BE COUNTED. The current system has closed state primaries in most states which means only Democrats and Republicans can vote. How is this fair? In New York State, you have to register and claim one of the 2 parties six months before the primary date. 6 MONTHS. This state rule excluded thousands of voters. Granted, it is the rules and I knew it about it, changing my party status in time. Many last-minute third-party supporters wanted to change theirs and couldn't. Hardly Democratic.
Yes, sorry, I didn't mean to say "both" parties as though that would be the ideal. Just going with what's happening now, pretty much. What I said would apply to as many parties that there were.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
That couldn't be farther from the truth. Maybe in your dreams, maybe in my dreams, but it's so far from reality it's not funny.
Not to mention, we're not even a democracy, we are a Democratic Republic. Our elections are far far far from being Democratic. Forget about The electoral college Russell?
Go ahead and call a Constitutional Convention to remove the Electoral College. Until then, I'll focus on the reality that we have today.
Give me a time period in American history where we had a more inclusive, full functioning democracy. Feel free to describe it in terms of general election or time period (Age of Jackson, Gilded Age, Reconstruction, post War, post-modern, etc.). Please back up your statement with some knowledge of our history.
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.
What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.
Well my first suggestion would be for the parties to just nominate and vote for their leaders themselves. No need to drag the public into it, especially when the current system basically makes their votes irrelevant anyhow. My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent. Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.
Suggestion 1: I hope this is tongue in cheek because we've had 50MM voters or so in the primaries and any accusations of malfeasance has been on the margins. If the system could only support the 'establishment', then why did Trump win when the whole establishment was against him? The same electioneers operate the Dem and GOP primary. The reality is that Trump won fair and square and so did Clinton. She won the pledged and direct vote. Sanders supporters just cannot deal with facts that they don't like.
Suggestion 2: Sorry that this process bothers you up in Canada. Again, we are essentially a collection of states. Only the parties can normalize the process. But what are the differences really? There are three differences that could be normalized A: Kill the caucuses which are inherently unfair B: Allow or disallow independents from voting and C: normalize the period allowed to register or de-register from a party. I'd be okay with all of this. Not sure how much of a difference this would have made, but maybe on the margins, certainly in some states
Suggestion 3: Say you're the GOP. They started with 16 candidates. How do you get from 16 to 2? How do the Dems go from 4 to 2 (O'Malley and Webb). Neither Sanders or Trump would have made the cut. Is this more Democratic? And if you vote at once, then you've amplified in a different way the issue that exists in the general election. All the campaigning is done in a handful of states for teh GE (OH, FL VA CO, etc.). The same phenomenon would happen but in different states under your process. All the campaigning would be in TX, FL, NY, CA,. 3/4 of the states would never see a candidate and retail politics would be dead. I don't think the state committees would ever go for this.
Suggestion 1 is how Canada does it and it works fine, and that is why I suggested it. Suggestion 2 would make it so that all Americans actually know wtf is going on. Suggestion 3, well, I don't give a shit how hard it is for the GOP (or any party) to decide on nominees - they would have to do it. But The most obvious method would be to have an internal vote. They can whip up support for each nominee any way they choose (assuming it's legal). This method would at least present nominees to the citizens that represent the party. That is really all that's required. And I meant a national nomination vote. A real one. 1 vote = 1 vote. If the nominees all focus on the states with big populations fine - they all would do that, and it would even the playing field. But FWIW, I didn't suggest any of these things under the assumption that anyone in American politics would actually go for them, lol, because none of them could be rigged in politicians' favours outside of the internal party votes. The whole idea behind my suggestions would be precisely so that retail politics would die, hahaha.
Post edited by PJ_Soul on
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I'm not even sure what point you're making in the context of what I said now, but your first sentence there highlights my point pretty well: the state-by-state primary system is really stupid and unnecessary.
What would you suggest, other than state by state primary? Keep in mind, whatever you suggest, the federal government would have absolutely zero power to implement it. It could not be done by executive order or congressional law. Only the parties could do it.
Well my first suggestion would be for the parties to just nominate and vote for their leaders themselves. No need to drag the public into it, especially when the current system basically makes their votes irrelevant anyhow. My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent. Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.
Suggestion 1: I hope this is tongue in cheek because we've had 50MM voters or so in the primaries and any accusations of malfeasance has been on the margins. If the system could only support the 'establishment', then why did Trump win when the whole establishment was against him? The same electioneers operate the Dem and GOP primary. The reality is that Trump won fair and square and so did Clinton. She won the pledged and direct vote. Sanders supporters just cannot deal with facts that they don't like.
Suggestion 2: Sorry that this process bothers you up in Canada. Again, we are essentially a collection of states. Only the parties can normalize the process. But what are the differences really? There are three differences that could be normalized A: Kill the caucuses which are inherently unfair B: Allow or disallow independents from voting and C: normalize the period allowed to register or de-register from a party. I'd be okay with all of this. Not sure how much of a difference this would have made, but maybe on the margins, certainly in some states
Suggestion 3: Say you're the GOP. They started with 16 candidates. How do you get from 16 to 2? How do the Dems go from 4 to 2 (O'Malley and Webb). Neither Sanders or Trump would have made the cut. Is this more Democratic? And if you vote at once, then you've amplified in a different way the issue that exists in the general election. All the campaigning is done in a handful of states for teh GE (OH, FL VA CO, etc.). The same phenomenon would happen but in different states under your process. All the campaigning would be in TX, FL, NY, CA,. 3/4 of the states would never see a candidate and retail politics would be dead. I don't think the state committees would ever go for this.
Feel free to rebut. This is a good conversation.
Funny, I provide credible links explaining the process, where are yours?
Suggestion 1 is how Canada does it and it works fine, and that is why I suggested it. Suggestion 2 would make it so that all Americans actually know wtf is going on. Suggestion 3, well, I don't give a shit how hard it is for the GOP (or any party) to decide on nominees - they would have to do it. But The most obvious method would be to have an internal vote. They can whip up support for each nominee any way they choose (assuming it's legal). This method would at least present nominees to the citizens that represent the party. That is really all that's required. And I meant a national nomination vote. A real one. 1 vote = 1 vote. If the nominees all focus on the states with big populations fine - they all would do that, and it would even the playing field. But FWIW, I didn't suggest any of these things under the assumption that anyone in American politics would actually go for them, lol, because none of them could be rigged in politicians' favours outside of the internal party votes. The whole idea behind my suggestions would be precisely so that retail politics would die, hahaha.
Your process in Canada would never had Bernie get out of a first ballot. Isn't that decidedly less democratic?
Suggestion 1 is how Canada does it and it works fine, and that is why I suggested it. Suggestion 2 would make it so that all Americans actually know wtf is going on. Suggestion 3, well, I don't give a shit how hard it is for the GOP (or any party) to decide on nominees - they would have to do it. But The most obvious method would be to have an internal vote. They can whip up support for each nominee any way they choose (assuming it's legal). This method would at least present nominees to the citizens that represent the party. That is really all that's required. And I meant a national nomination vote. A real one. 1 vote = 1 vote. If the nominees all focus on the states with big populations fine - they all would do that, and it would even the playing field. But FWIW, I didn't suggest any of these things under the assumption that anyone in American politics would actually go for them, lol, because none of them could be rigged in politicians' favours outside of the internal party votes. The whole idea behind my suggestions would be precisely so that retail politics would die, hahaha.
Your process in Canada would never had Bernie get out of a first ballot. Isn't that decidedly less democratic?
Bernie would be the leader of the third party in Canada.
With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I said the same thing about a VW Beetle I had years ago until it threw a rod clean through the block while doing 70 on The 280.
An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I said the same thing about a VW Beetle I had years ago until it threw a rod clean through the block while doing 70 on The 280.
An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.
Sanders is just another cog in the wheel of politician land.
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I said the same thing about a VW Beetle I had years ago until it threw a rod clean through the block while doing 70 on The 280.
An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.
Sanders is just another cog in the wheel of politician land.
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I said the same thing about a VW Beetle I had years ago until it threw a rod clean through the block while doing 70 on The 280.
An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.
Sanders is just another cog in the wheel of politician land.
How do you figure?
He is in a minor but necessary role.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
I do think it's pretty nuts that different states have different rules for a NATIONAL election. Makes sense that states would have different systems on the state government level, but I think that all states should be restricted to the same guidelines and methods when it comes to the electoral process of a federal election. Anything else makes no sense at all.
It's not a federal election. It's an election to choose delegates that represent a state at the national convention for a private party. It's not even an election to select a state official.
it's choosing the national candidate. you know that's what pjsoul means.
You don't need state primaries to choose national candidates. I think people are missing how very detailed our Constitution is on what powers are enumerated to the states, which powers are implied, etc. Primaries barely existed a hundred years ago. Before that, party bosses, insiders, elites, etc. were the ones that voted and chose candidates. Like I've said 20x here, we've never had a more fully functioning democracy than the one we have today.
I said the same thing about a VW Beetle I had years ago until it threw a rod clean through the block while doing 70 on The 280.
An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.
Sanders is just another cog in the wheel of politician land.
Yes, he is!
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.
What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.
I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.
I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.
Thanks for the answer.
0
brianlux
Moving through All Kinds of Terrain. Posts: 42,072
What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.
I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.
Thanks for the answer.
Sorry, I know... too honest.
“The fear of death follows from the fear of life. A man [or woman] who lives fully is prepared to die at any time.”
What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.
I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.
What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.
I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.
I agree w/ Brian.
Not to be a pessimist, but I think the fact that Trump is all but certain to be the Republican nominee, does put the likelihood of Clinton as President regrettably. I wonder if she's going to shout her addresses to the public at increasing volume and intensity as she reaches the ends of sentences the way she always seems to at her rallies.
'05 - TO, '06 - TO 1, '08 - NYC 1 & 2, '09 - TO, Chi 1 & 2, '10 - Buffalo, NYC 1 & 2, '11 - TO 1 & 2, Hamilton, '13 - Buffalo, Brooklyn 1 & 2, '15 - Global Citizen, '16 - TO 1 & 2, Chi 2
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1
What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.
She could do what Obama did with her, and give him a good position in her cabinet, but I doubt that will happen either. Obama is a much kinder competitor.
What happens if Bernie becomes the VP pick of Hillary? Would that sway some of you guys to vote for Hillary? I don't think it will happen....just a hypothetical.
I can't imagine Bernie agreeing to go along with that. If he did, I would still not vote for Clinton. That would definitely compel me to go with Jill Stein. I simply cannot vote for Hillary Rodham Clinton- period.
Comments
My second suggestion, if everyone is completely married to the idea that you have to drag a fucking nomination through the citizenry for a year or more (ugh!), at least have each state doing so in the same way so that the nomination process is clear and transparent.
Third (more creative) suggestion is to just have one big election for nominees, all on the same day. Say all citizens could vote for their choice for leader for BOTH parties (two choices per ballot, ballot choices determined internally by parties), and let the whole country decide who the party nominee winners for the federal election will be, without all this bullshit political wrangling caused by this superdelegate crap. THAT would be true democracy.
https://votesmart.org/education/presidential-primary#.Vz49YPT3bCQ
However, while the republican party is self-imploding w/ the GOP fully resisting having to get behind Donald Trump, the Democratic Party is self-destructing as well, w/ Debbie Wasserman Schultz, the DNC chair and former Clinton campaign chair for the 2008 election, changing rules (rolling back Obama ban on contributions from federal lobbyists to candidates is one), https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/dnc-allowing-donations-from-federal-lobbyists-and-pacs/2016/02/12/22b1c38c-d196-11e5-88cd-753e80cd29ad_story.html admitting that the use of super-delegates are to prevent grassroots candidates from winning and enabling establishment candidates to win, buying & paying Superdelegates upfront before primaries, along with several other tactics used in ensuring a Clinton win.
Because the DNC is in charge, they can change rules at their discretion, even during a convention vote like in Nevada, paying no attention to the delegates' overwhelming anger towards their cheating. Not because of Sanders not because of Clinton. Because of the DNC and the election process cheating. And boy, is the DNC angry that Bernie is not stepping down.
That couldn't be farther from the truth. Maybe in your dreams, maybe in my dreams, but it's so far from reality it's not funny.
Not to mention, we're not even a democracy, we are a Democratic Republic. Our elections are far far far from being Democratic. Forget about The electoral college Russell?
Let's look back at past elections. How did George W. Bush win?
https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index?qid=20121016055104AAWLK0A
Give me a time period in American history where we had a more inclusive, full functioning democracy. Feel free to describe it in terms of general election or time period (Age of Jackson, Gilded Age, Reconstruction, post War, post-modern, etc.). Please back up your statement with some knowledge of our history.
Suggestion 2: Sorry that this process bothers you up in Canada. Again, we are essentially a collection of states. Only the parties can normalize the process. But what are the differences really? There are three differences that could be normalized A: Kill the caucuses which are inherently unfair B: Allow or disallow independents from voting and C: normalize the period allowed to register or de-register from a party. I'd be okay with all of this. Not sure how much of a difference this would have made, but maybe on the margins, certainly in some states
Suggestion 3: Say you're the GOP. They started with 16 candidates. How do you get from 16 to 2? How do the Dems go from 4 to 2 (O'Malley and Webb). Neither Sanders or Trump would have made the cut. Is this more Democratic? And if you vote at once, then you've amplified in a different way the issue that exists in the general election. All the campaigning is done in a handful of states for teh GE (OH, FL VA CO, etc.). The same phenomenon would happen but in different states under your process. All the campaigning would be in TX, FL, NY, CA,. 3/4 of the states would never see a candidate and retail politics would be dead. I don't think the state committees would ever go for this.
Feel free to rebut. This is a good conversation.
Suggestion 2 would make it so that all Americans actually know wtf is going on.
Suggestion 3, well, I don't give a shit how hard it is for the GOP (or any party) to decide on nominees - they would have to do it. But The most obvious method would be to have an internal vote. They can whip up support for each nominee any way they choose (assuming it's legal). This method would at least present nominees to the citizens that represent the party. That is really all that's required. And I meant a national nomination vote. A real one. 1 vote = 1 vote. If the nominees all focus on the states with big populations fine - they all would do that, and it would even the playing field.
But FWIW, I didn't suggest any of these things under the assumption that anyone in American politics would actually go for them, lol, because none of them could be rigged in politicians' favours outside of the internal party votes.
Funny, I provide credible links explaining the process, where are yours?
An apt comparison. Our so-called democracy is out of oil, the clutch is burnt to a crisp, breaks are down to metal and the radio is stuck on one channel that just keeps replaying the same mind numbing bullshit AM to PM.
http://www.cnn.com/2016/05/19/politics/hillary-clinton-bernie-sanders-vice-president/index.html
EV
Toronto Film Festival 9/11/2007, '08 - Toronto 1 & 2, '09 - Albany 1, '11 - Chicago 1