jmacomber68w Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 of all the things wrong with the world, this isnt too big of a deal, but it is annoying for sure, im 19 and I will vote in the RI primary in march, but can anyone explain why the hell all the primaries are not on the same day, what if i wanted to support romney (not that i am) by march, its likely he would have pulled out? does each state decide or does the party, just curious really Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Griddles Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 each party in each state decides when their primary/ caucus is, but the national party decides things like what date the process can start on, and when it has to be over. For example Florida's democratic party moved their primary up to January before the national party said they could, so Florida lost all of their delegates to the national convention. As for all the primaries on the same day; the reasons are many imo, some would say that there should be a national primary. I disagree. Individual states, big or small provide candidates with a chance to fine tune their message, and fix what is not working. Also the candidates try and visit all the staes, this causes them to lose their voice, and spend, in some cases, meager resource. By spreading the process out all the candidates can use previous results to get teh money needed for the next round. if it was just one shot only the richest candidates would be around. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I do have a problem with the delegate system though. Especially in the winner take all places. Why is it still like this? I never understood the reasoning behing delegate system. Cant people agree that talling all votes equally is better and more fair? Who ever has the most votes at the end wins. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmacomber68w Posted February 7, 2008 Author Share Posted February 7, 2008 I do have a problem with the delegate system though. Especially in the winner take all places. Why is it still like this? I never understood the reasoning behing delegate system. Cant people agree that talling all votes equally is better and more fair? Who ever has the most votes at the end wins. I do know that this party system is not what the founding fathers had in mind lol, i wish there were a few more serious partys to choose from Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bobbob1313 Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I do know that this party system is not what the founding fathers had in mind lol, i wish there were a few more serious partys to choose from Diehard Republicans and Democrats (capital letters) will have none of that, apparently. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Duck-Billed Catechist Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Diehard Republicans and Democrats (capital letters) will have none of that, apparently.Sure, the two parties do a lot to keep a choke hold on power, but the winner-take-all style of American representation means that two parties + occasional spoiler parties is kind of the equillibrium. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Griddles Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 I do have a problem with the delegate system though. Especially in the winner take all places. Why is it still like this? I never understood the reasoning behing delegate system. Cant people agree that talling all votes equally is better and more fair? Who ever has the most votes at the end wins. Isn't this a contradiction? You do not like winner takes all, but want the person who has the most votes to win? The delegate system allows minorities to have a say in the process rather than blindly allowing the majority to do whatever it wants. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ZenLunatic Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 Isn't this a contradiction? You do not like winner takes all, but want the person who has the most votes to win? The delegate system allows minorities to have a say in the process rather than blindly allowing the majority to do whatever it wants. All votes should count equally. Forget delegates system, every americans vote is the same. Just keep a running tally as you go along from state to state so every vote counts towards the canidates equally. No thresholds of votes to earn delegates or winner take all. I want the person with the most votes from a tally of all votes in all states to win. Not earn the most of a state and then get all delegates for that state. This is just a vote to see who is better. The majority votes wins. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Griddles Posted February 7, 2008 Share Posted February 7, 2008 There is no way under the current system for this to work. There is no total vote count at a caucus, the truest form of democracy in the entire process. Also just because a candidate wins the most vote in a state does not mean they get all the delegate, though it varies from state to state. In Nevada for example, Clinton won more total votes, but Obama got 13 delegates, while Clinton only got 12. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Mr. Kinsley Posted February 8, 2008 Share Posted February 8, 2008 I think they should make it like a playoff - start with NH and Iowa about a month apart, then onto South Carolina and Nevada. After that split the rest of the country up into 2 groups with each "super" primary about 1.5 months apart. States could be chosen at random or on a rotating basis as to who gets to go in the early group. And yes, it should all be proportional. As for other parties, maybe this whole conservatives vs. McCain rift will tear them apart and create a new Conservative Party and the Repubs will move to the center and become the moderate party. The Dems have sort of already moved into that territory (sort of) so who knows how they'll eventually shake out. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmacomber68w Posted February 9, 2008 Author Share Posted February 9, 2008 I think they should make it like a playoff - start with NH and Iowa about a month apart, then onto South Carolina and Nevada. After that split the rest of the country up into 2 groups with each "super" primary about 1.5 months apart. States could be chosen at random or on a rotating basis as to who gets to go in the early group. And yes, it should all be proportional. As for other parties, maybe this whole conservatives vs. McCain rift will tear them apart and create a new Conservative Party and the Repubs will move to the center and become the moderate party. The Dems have sort of already moved into that territory (sort of) so who knows how they'll eventually shake out. yeah, a lot of my friends hate on republicans and conservatives but they are two different thing now, myself im a moderate and i wish there was some form of a moderate party Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 yeah, a lot of my friends hate on republicans and conservatives but they are two different thing now, myself im a moderate and i wish there was some form of a moderate partyThere is....its called the Democratic (or Democrat) Party.... LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Yeah, everyone thinks their own beliefs are moderate and everyone else is an extremist. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
jmacomber68w Posted February 9, 2008 Author Share Posted February 9, 2008 There is....its called the Democratic (or Democrat) Party.... LouieB no, both parties have fallen off the deep end on their respected sides, in my opinion, anyways "everyone thinks their own beliefs are moderate and everyone else is an extremist" is the best way to describe politics ever well said Quote Link to post Share on other sites
OOO Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 I think LouieB is probably referencing the fact that if you compare either of our parties to some in europe, they both come off as relatively conservative. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Maybe Europe is ultra leftwing, and we're more moderate. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted February 9, 2008 Share Posted February 9, 2008 Yeah, everyone thinks their own beliefs are moderate and everyone else is an extremist. ...and did Lou even call himself a Democrat? Knowing him personally, I would guess he is left of the mainstream Democratic base on most issues, like myself. Therefore, likely to him, and to myself, most Democrats seem pretty moderate. I know I am not a moderate. However, I am also not a leftist extremist either. I swear, most conservatives wouldn't know a leftist extremist if it bit them in the arse. They think Nanci Pelosi is far left.....give me a break. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 And lots of Democrats/liberals think Bush is an extreme conservative. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Reni Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 I would put him significantly on the right - but fairly moderate on some issues. Cheney on the other hand, is pretty far right in my opinion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
mountain bed Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 Cheney on the other hand, is pretty far right in my opinion.I think it's safe to say that is not an opinion. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
LouieB Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 ...and did Lou even call himself a Democrat? Knowing him personally, I would guess he is left of the mainstream Democratic base on most issues, like myself. Therefore, likely to him, and to myself, most Democrats seem pretty moderate. I know I am not a moderate. However, I am also not a leftist extremist either. I swear, most conservatives wouldn't know a leftist extremist if it bit them in the arse. They think Nanci Pelosi is far left.....give me a break. first off...You can't talk to ikol about this stuff... Listen to Democracy Now on your local left of the dial station or the internet. The other morning the folks on there were decrying the fact that Obama was not taking a strong enough stand on any number of issues, particularly the war in Iraq and health care. Go figure. The right wing (such as ikol) thinks he is a raving Commie, whereas those in the progressive wing of the Democratic party think he is a moderate. Oh and me personally.....I figure I am a Democrat....I am willing to vote for Obama (I did already) or will be more than happy to vote for Hillary, even if the nomination is somehow handed to her by Howard Dean and the party insiders (it may well happen...). After a youth of hanging out with further leftists, I know moderate from far left. The Democrats are solidly in the middle of the ideological stream. Hang out with a Spart, an RCP or even an IS sometime and you WILL know the difference. Or more easily just turn on any of the alternative news reports or listen to one of the leftish talk shows and you will know it too. Obama is clearly marketing change, but he isn't necessarily embracing the far left...not even close. What he does represent if plenty good enough for me at the moment after nearly 8 years of Bush and Cheney's facism. LouieB Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 first off...You can't talk to ikol about this stuff... Sure you can. Maybe you should try it sometime. Listen to Democracy Now on your local left of the dial station or the internet. The other morning the folks on there were decrying the fact that Obama was not taking a strong enough stand on any number of issues, particularly the war in Iraq and health care. Go figure. The right wing (such as ikol) thinks he is a raving Commie, whereas those in the progressive wing of the Democratic party think he is a moderate. I don't think he's a commie, but I also don't think he's a moderate. Between him and Hillary, I'd rather have him. He's at least a good person, but he's still pretty far left of center. This just illustrates my point, though. It's all about your perspective. From my side, Obama is leftwing. For someone further left than him, he's a moderate. What he does represent if plenty good enough for me at the moment after nearly 8 years of Bush and Cheney's facism. LouieB But fascism doesn't equal conservatism. Conservatives are for less government. Bush/Cheney are for more government with less taxes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
bjorn_skurj Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 But fascism doesn't equal conservatism. Conservatives are for less government. Bush/Cheney are for more government with less taxes.They might be FOR that, but is that what we really got? Quote Link to post Share on other sites
ikol Posted February 10, 2008 Share Posted February 10, 2008 They might be FOR that, but is that what we really got? I would say we got more government with less taxes. Quote Link to post Share on other sites
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.