Don't want to vote for Nader in your swing state?

[Jingus 0]

Hey, if you really wanted to affect the outcome of the primaries, just do it the old fashioned way: identity theft.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Why should a non-Republican have ANY say in who the Republicans select for their candidate?

To keep the extremes from getting too much power?

 

The party base seems to be the only ones that vote reliably in primaries, witness how most Democrats had barely heard of the challengers while DEANMANIA IS (allegedly, by the press) RUNNIN' WILD.

 

I don't mind open primaries because without it we'll always be stuck with some hippie vs some reformed Christian. Clinton did well because he was a reformed hippie Christian or something like that, and played along both lines.

[Guest GreatOne]

Gary Locke won his current ho-hum eight-year term (which will thankfully end in two months) by Democrats stuffing the ballot boxes with Ellen Braswell (who was to Washington what Bob Dole was nationally) votes. Interestingly enough Locke won with 'token competition'.

 

Also when we FINALLY adopted the current primary, Locke (a benificiary mind you) was conveniently hesitant to sign it.

 

While it wasn't exactly popular here, note the one candidate who spoke out against the 'ridiculous new primary' got his ass handed to him, I think it was the state attorney or something like that.

[Guest Cerebus]

To keep the extremes from getting too much power?

So the reason Dean didn't win the primaries is because independents and repulicans were able to vote in some primaries?

 

(Not supposed to be a sarcastic or smarmy question, its actually an honest one)

[Jobber of the Week 0]

So the reason Dean didn't win the primaries is because independents and repulicans were able to vote in some primaries?

 

(Not supposed to be a sarcastic or smarmy question, its actually an honest one)

Dean didn't win because Iowa voters didn't care for his aggressive style, and the media put his head on a stake, mid-scream, after the first primary.

 

I don't have a real strong feeling one way or the other for open primaries, I just see the logic in it but don't really have any opinion. This is unlike my feelings that the Electoral College is old and unneeded.

[Guest Cerebus]

Media, media, media. That's all I hear about why Dean failed.

 

Since this isn't a Dean thread I'll just say that good advertising can make a good product great but no amount of good advertising can make a shitty product good

[Jobber of the Week 0]

My point is that it's mostly the partisan base that votes in primaries.

 

Iowa and, at times, New Hampshire is the exception, as these states have a lot of small towns that are a lot more abuzz about having someone running for President coming through and wanting to sit down and talk to people. Dean was getting a lot of press, but people outside Iowa and New Hampshire pretty much didn't know who he was. Mainstream Democrats were mostly thinking "You mean there's someone going to run against Bush?" at the time.

 

I bet turnout in the Super Tuesday states was much more down to the party base than it was in Iowa. By the time Iowa and New Hampshire were finished, momentum was set that carried through the rest of the primaries, and by the time the Super Tuesday states came around, many mainstream voters probably thought that the election had pretty much been decided for him, and that's not completely false either.

 

This is why states like California that are so full of party die-hards are angry that the conclusion is so forgone before we have a chance to weigh in. Many here view the Iowa primary as a bunch of cracker barrel folks getting to choose the party's candidate instead of them, but the fact is that the candidates CAN'T have public luncheons with people all over California, it's just too damn big.

[Guest GreatOne]

So the reason Dean didn't win the primaries is because independents and repulicans were able to vote in some primaries?

 

(Not supposed to be a sarcastic or smarmy question, its actually an honest one)

 

 

I don't have a real strong feeling one way or the other for open primaries, I just see the logic in it but don't really have any opinion.

Dean didn't win because Iowa voters didn't care for his aggressive style, and the media put his head on a stake, mid-scream, after the first primary.

 

So we have an admission that Dean lost cause, you know, less people voted for him than Kerry (and Edwards in some states)? I thought the reason Dean lost was cause BIG MEDIA ran in and knocked him out with a chair, thus leaving him unable to compete

 

This is unlike my feelings that the Electoral College is old and unneeded.

 

That wouldn't have anything to do with Gore losing, would it?

[NoCalMike 0]

Lets face it people, the media under the current system of policy, will never let someone who isn't a cardboard cut-out of your typical politician.....out of the primaries without trying their damndest to bury said person. I am not blaming the media entirely on the collapse of Dean, but you have to admit that the media would over-cover and just emphasis some of the most NON-news worthy items, just to try to take a dig at Dean.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

That wouldn't have anything to do with Gore losing, would it?

No, because I've held the opinion long before 2000. While the root of it is held in the belief that whoever gets the most votes is the person who should win, there's a lot more it than that. This whole thing about simplifying everything into Red States and Blue States also comes from the Electoral College.

 

I understand it's purpose circa the period it was created, which was to help smaller, more rural states understand the issues. But in an era of internet, 24 hour news, syndicated newspapers, mass mailings, and phone-in supporters, it's very hard to live so remote that you can't find out what the candidates stand for anymore.

[Jingus 0]

If I've said it once, I've said it a thousand times, and I'll say it again: I'm against any electoral system that allows the candidate who gets fewer individual votes from the people to still win the election. This has happened FOUR TIMES already.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

I have a lot of reasons besides just the 2000 style "won the popular vote but didn't win the college" scenario to not like the current system:

 

A) Again, it divides the states into Republican country and Democrat territory. As such, Republicans won't bother campaigning hard in the Dem territory and Democrats won't bother campaigning too much in the Republican territory. This means that instead of informing people across the country about the issues, it actually keeps them from being informed when their state is considered a "lock."

 

B) If one candidate just barely comes out ahead in a state, all that state's votes are given to that candidate. This makes the efforts of those voting for the other candidate completely ineffectual. Again, this stifles people's will to vote in states where they're known to be far outnumbered. Democrats in Texas (they exist) might as well concede early, and the same with Republicans in New York (they exist, too.) Again, the electoral system leaves people feeling that their vote is a futile effort.

 

C) There is currently a small region in Ohio that is flooded with analysts, media hounds, pollsters, and politicians looking for a vote. This little corner of the world is one of those small towns where everybody knows your name, and both sides are fighting tooth and nail for this slice of pie while the citizens who live there are so tired of seeing these candidates that they'd wish the election were over already. Meanwhile, large amounts of people living in high-density cities who have questions cannot ask them directly. Californians are more likely to see the northern lights than they are to see a Presidential candidate.

 

I think the system was written with good intentions, but I think these days it's outdated and hurting democracy.

[Perfxion 0]

Why I hate Electoral College/ Election Day:

 

1: It is made so the people ARE NOT VOTING FOR THE PRESIDENT! It is voting for someone to vote for someone. If we didn't have a two party system, the House would be choosing the president as the Electoral College would make it impossible for a single person to win it.

 

2: Dems in TX, WY, UT, AL, and LA; Reps in CT, NY, CA, MA, and NJ are all wasting their vote because they are not picking the president.

 

3: The whole design of the Constitution is Anti-Majoritian. Meanings that the minority (Upper Class Elite) can control the majority (Lower and Middle Class) by not making them have a true voice. This is why we are a republic, not a democracy. We vote people to vote people in charge. And these people do not have to go by the popular vote of the people. Up until 1912, the only seats in Federal Government picked by the population were in the house. Now, all of congress is voted by the population. Wow, 1/3 of the government of the people is voted by the people.

 

4: If someone gets 51% of the vote in a state, they win the state (DUH), but they then get the rest of the votes. Which is stupid because someone wins by lets say 500+ votes, they shouldn’t get the multi thousands of other voters that another person won.

 

5: The popular vote means jack shit. 5 people can vote in the state of CT and it gets the majority of the states opinion on who should win.

 

6: It’s a Tuesday when it isn’t a national holiday. So, some voters CAN NOT make it to the polls. It is as, mainly senior citizens and people who work 9-5 can vote in the elections. And there isn’t a law that people must vote, so a lot do not vote. Then they make a big deal that there is low voter turn-out. If you make the day a national holiday, then the voter turn-out will grow 10 fold.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

2: Dems in TX, WY, UT, AL, and LA; Reps in CT, NY, CA, MA, and NJ are all wasting their vote because they are not picking the president.

There are other reasons -- local races, state-wide races, referendums, etc.

 

Back in '96 I knew Dole wasn't going to take PA -- did I cry and whine about it? No. I still voted. Thanks to my votes, an Attorney General and State Treasurer that I voted for ended up winning razor-thin victories (victories that the Associated Press incorrectly reported and had to do a retraction later on in the night).

 

If that's the reason a person doesn't vote -- because one candidate has no shot at winning -- then f' them...

[Perfxion 0]

I was only speaking nationally, with my post. Local is a whole different ball game. Most of Stamford's leaders are Republican. Hell most of the state is Republican. Yet, nationally we mainly vote Dem.

[kkktookmybabyaway 0]

PA is a funky state, too. We have a bunch of Dems but we have 1 1/2 Republican Senators (Santorum and Specter, who I'm counting as 1/2). Also, local elections really don't matter what political party you're affilated with -- I don't care if you're a Dem. or Rep., just fill the damn potholes.

 

EDIT: I know you were speaking nationally, but if you're not going to vote because your pick for prez won't win then you're a loser...

[Guest Cerebus]

Yes yes we all know that the Electoral System is the "Ham too big for the pan" thing.

 

Still, if its the system we have, people shouldn't be using the internet to circumvent it (see, that's what the COURTS are for).

[Guest BDC]

So what are you wanting to do instead of the electoral college? Go by district? Go by outright popular vote? Do you really hate those of us that live in rural areas that much?

[Jingus 0]

I've never understood the argument that going to a straight popular vote would hurt those in rural areas. Under such a system, every vote would be equal and identical to all the others, right? So what's the difference where you live?

 

Personally, I do think the electoral college does have some good features, and shouldn't be dropped completely. I think we should do what Maine is already doing: split the electoral votes by the percentage of popular votes either candidate receives in that state.

[Jobber of the Week 0]

Do you really hate those of us that live in rural areas that much?

Nobody hates people who live in rural areas. Your vote counts as much as someone who lives in a heavily populated area's vote.

 

The REASON for the college was to make sure candidates wouldn't stop campaigning in these rural areas. I don't know if you've noticed, but that's just about all their doing right now. There's this tiny piece of Columbus where politicians and the media circus are becoming so common that some of the people who live there want them gone.

 

I'll never get a chance to meet a candidate where I live. Since it's considered that all our votes will be going to one guy no matter what, the candidates only come here for expensive dinners with party elites to make money. The people who actually vote here are told to stick it. And if you're a Republican here, your vote on the Persidency is a lost cause (yes, locally, we have a bunch of propositions on the table.)

 

The college is causing the opposite effect of what was intended.

[Guest BDC]

Look, if you go straight population, then why bother trying to get the state as a whole? In New York, just hit NYC and you're set. Say one candidate wraps up NYC. The other candidate would have to wrap up every other vote in the rest of the state and there is NO WAY that the concerns of an urban population can even accurately reflect the nation's wants as a whole.

 

How did Bush win? He swept up the rural vote. My favorite example is the popular vote a few years ago when there was a water shortage in Cali. The urban vote won and they washed their cars and such. The rural vote saw crops fail because they had no water for irrigation.

[Guest BDC]

I've never understood the argument that going to a straight popular vote would hurt those in rural areas. Under such a system, every vote would be equal and identical to all the others, right? So what's the difference where you live?

 

Personally, I do think the electoral college does have some good features, and shouldn't be dropped completely. I think we should do what Maine is already doing: split the electoral votes by the percentage of popular votes either candidate receives in that state.

Which voter concerns would be reflected? No the rural votes, the urban ones because that's where most people live.

[Jingus 0]

So you're saying that the wishes of the few (rural voters) should be given equal if not greater attention than the wishes of the many (urban voters)? The whole idea behind the democratic system of government is that the majority rules, and whoever or whatever receives the most votes wins. The electoral college subverts that whole idea, and gives way too much power to a minority of people.

[Guest MikeSC]

So you're saying that the wishes of the few (rural voters) should be given equal if not greater attention than the wishes of the many (urban voters)? The whole idea behind the democratic system of government is that the majority rules, and whoever or whatever receives the most votes wins. The electoral college subverts that whole idea, and gives way too much power to a minority of people.

The tyranny of the majority isn't a good thing.

-=Mike

[Jingus 0]

Better than the tyranny of the few over the many.

[Rob E Dangerously 0]

In New York, just hit NYC and you're set.

 

Forgetting that NYC goes Democrat by a large margin. Same goes for almost every other big urban area in the United States.

 

Although relying on the Popular Vote would draw the Democrats more towards the suburban areas (while trying to get out the vote in the urban areas)

 

I forget if anybody's mentioned IRV yet.. but I suspect it wouldn't work. Unless Americans have moved forward in the last 80 years in their ability to pick a second choice (they weren't when this was an option in Alabama). Plus, IRV seems a bit complex.

 

The fair thing to do is put "None of the Above" on the ballot in all 50 states

[Perfxion 0]

In a pure Pop vote, states would not matter. It isn't pop of each state, that person gets the state. Its the most votes wins. Like American Idol, winner is the one with the most votes. Every vote is EQUAL.

[Guest BDC]

Think for just a moment: Whose concerns are they looking out for?

 

Popular vote means that urban concerns are taken care of and piss on the rest of us?

[Jingus 0]

If the vast majority of people live in urban areas? In a word, yes.

 

I'm not trying to sound like an asshole here, but you really do have to take care of the needs of the big group of 100 people standing over here before worrying about the needs of that 1 guy standing off by himself.

[Guest Salacious Crumb]

If the vast majority of people live in urban areas? In a word, yes.

 

I'm not trying to sound like an asshole here, but you really do have to take care of the needs of the big group of 100 people standing over here before worrying about the needs of that 1 guy standing off by himself.

Yeah so let them screw over the people growing their food. Great plan of action there.