The way we choose our Presidents (1 Viewer)

[John Bender]

TN you show up and they ask which ballot you want.  Wouldn't let me vote in both....booo.

Thanks.  I assume it's the same here in that case. 
Anyway - I know it's anectdotal but it goes to tim's original questions.
Maybe we can move VA and TN up front for next time!

 

[spreagle]

The Democrats with their super delegates have things sufficiently controlled such that the caucuses don't matter.   The Republicans obviously less so, but that will change for the 2020 or 2024 elections. 

 

[Binky The Doormat]

If anyone doesn't believe that the DNC has set this up for Hillary from the start - please call me to help start a Aloe Vera MLM home based business.

 

[NREC34]

Or better yet, have the electoral votes handed out by who wins the congressional districts with two to the top vote getter state-wide. It would much better reflect the wishes of the population rather than having big cities tip the state to the Democrat party.

If ACORN wants to stuff the ballot in Chicago for Hillary, fine. It decides all of ONE electoral vote. I

So Austin TX, Atlanta and other places can vote for Dems. Cool idea. 

 

[tri-man 47]

Should have listened to George Washington. That guy knew stuff

I'd read a book a while back that stated Washington's strength, fundamentally, was that he was a man of character.  The issue in this election, sadly, is that all the leading candidates are characters, vs. having character.

 

[renesauz]

Like is said, I'm not well versed. I thought you had to be registered with the party to vote and you could only be registered with one. 

IN many states it doesn't matter what you are registered as, but I think in every state you can only vote for ONE candidate, regardless of which party that candidate is in.

 

[renesauz]

Yeah.  Let everyone with a SS# log into a secure website and cast a vote.  Most votes win.

Can't see this as a viable method. Or, at the very least, as the only method. Millions of potential voters still don't enjoy internet access in their homes. Plus, a password setup would be needed. Like most people, I get annoyed as heck at any site that demands some password with stringent requirements (a #, capital letter, lower case letter, no common words, a symbol, etc.) that I use no more than once a month. Could you imagine one you use once a year....at BEST?

I like the idea as an alternative method of voting, but not as the primary method.

 

[TLEF316]

I'm 32 years old and have never voted in my life.  The electoral college is the main reason (quality of candidates as a close 2nd). I just dont see why i should be part of a system that marginalizes 10's of  million of votes in non-swing states. It's beyond silly.  The candidates are forced to play to a bunch of blue haired old ladies in Florida while like 75% of the country is already in the bag for one side or the other regardless of what happens. That's a major problem.

As for the candidates themselves, we've created a system of career politicians.  Men like Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, etc would never have a chance of being elected president today. It's all about being a political shill that just goes whatever way the wind blows.

So I'll just stay at home and hope that whatever doofus Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania decide on doesn't screw it up too badly. Although considering its going to be either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump (Seriously, how the #### did we get here? Hilary or Trump? REALLY!!???) I'm not holding my breath.

 

[MattFancy]

Please. Stop saying California decides nothing. California sets the agenda for an entire political party. The Democrats follow California's lead.

And, why should California have any influence in the primaries? It's not a swing state. It'll give all 55 votes to the Democratic party no matter the nominee. The Democrats could nominate Hitler's clone, the Republicans could nominate Thomas Jefferson, and Hitler2 will get California's vote. California should have minimal impact in decided either party's nominee. They'll only support the most liberal Republican who will not have the support of the national party, and whatever Democrat-it-doesnt-matter-we'll-vote-for-him-anyway.

If California wants influence, it should start by opening up its mind to perspectives other than brainwashed liberalism.

Couldn't you say all that about the South?

 

[Ted Lange as your Bartender]

Or better yet, have the electoral votes handed out by who wins the congressional districts with two to the top vote getter state-wide. It would much better reflect the wishes of the population rather than having big cities tip the state to the Democrat party.

If ACORN wants to stuff the ballot in Chicago for Hillary, fine. It decides all of ONE electoral vote. I

First eliminate gerrymandering of districts.  Then this could work.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

We need to bring back the Salem witch trials except instead of testing for sorcery, we'd test for stupidity.  Those who survive get to vote.  

On a serious note, the media is a huge issue, IMO.  They're steering the results by giving certain people more coverage than others.  Trump even went as far to say in an interview, 'I haven't had to spend much money because you people keep asking me to come on your shows'.  

It's a pretty well known fact that witches float.

 

[greenroom]

Then the most famous candidate always wins, and nobody campaigns outside of New York City and Los Angeles. That's not fair either. 

How is it not fair?  I would counter that by doing it the way we do today, the media controls so much of who gets elected.  If it was all on one day, then its more about who ran the best campaign, not who was able to negotiate the media the best. 

 

[bud29]

Then the most famous candidate always wins, and nobody campaigns outside of New York City and Los Angeles. That's not fair either. 

The presumptive nominees are Clinton and Trump. Seems like we have that problem already.

I'd be in favor of a national primary and then a general decided by popular vote. 

 

[The Commish]

OK this thread is not intended to be a partisan argument of any kind. I'm wondering if all of us, from Bernie lovers to Trump supporters to Gary Johnson fans can agree that the system of choosing our Presidents makes no sense whatsoever. Here are some of the problems I see: 

1. Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada and South Carolina, with relatively small and, with the exception of South Carolina less diverse populations exert way too much influence. Conversely, my state of California, the most populated state in the union, decides nothing. The races are over before we get to vote. 

2. Several states are caucuses. These benefit those candidates best able to game the system. 

3. Some states have delegates awarded by proportion; others are winner take all. This makes the winner take all states much more powerful. 

And so forth. There are minimum thresholds to get delegates, and all sorts of skewed rules depending on the state. The Democratic nominee is basically chosen by a small group of people mostly from states that will never vote Democrat on the general election. This whole process is messed up and I doubt it's what the Founding Fathers had in mind. Finally a 3rd party candidate has no chance being elected. 

Sugggestions for cleaning this up? 

Clean it up by getting rid of all the loopholes the establishment has created in case the guy they don't want gets popular and wins the nomination/position.  It's not complicated.  Voting can happen on the same day across the nation.  Get rid of caucuses as I don't really see how they are Constitutional.  Get rid of the electoral college.  Get rid of super delegates.  Get rid of these debate rules that prevent the various parties from sharing a stage with the Dems and GOP.  Go to, one person, one vote.

 

[timschochet]

The presumptive nominees are Clinton and Trump. Seems like we have that problem already.

I'd be in favor of a national primary and then a general decided by popular vote. 

It seems to me that a single day vote would make the media MORE powerful not less. It would end any chance of grass roots campaigns. It would end all retail campaigning. 

Perhaps we could do regions of the country at a time: this month the northeast, this week the Midwest, etc. that might work. But I'd still want to mix up the order so that one region didn't always get to go first. 

 

[TLEF316]

Super delegates seem like a fake rule that a 4 year old uses to beat their parents in a game they invented.

 

[derek245583]

eliminate the Electoral College.

What is the argument for keeping it?

I don't see many Pro's

 

[Ignoratio Elenchi]

I'm 32 years old and have never voted in my life. 

...

Seriously, how the #### did we get here?

 

[The Commish]

What is the argument for keeping it?

I don't see many Pro's

Establishment gets to still have some control over outcome.  Plenty of pros to them, none for us though.  It just reduces electorate power.

 

[Gr00vus]

What is the argument for keeping it?

I don't see many Pro's

To keep the smaller states from being completely ignored. I think it's probably swung a bit too far in the direction of the smaller states, but you can't go too far the other way either. I believe there was an attempt made from the outset to try and protect significant minority segments of the U.S. from getting completely trampled by the will of the majority, and I think that's something we do want to continue with. So a tweak is probably in order, but not a complete reversal.

 

[Gr00vus]

It seems to me that a single day vote would make the media MORE powerful not less. It would end any chance of grass roots campaigns. It would end all retail campaigning. 

Perhaps we could do regions of the country at a time: this month the northeast, this week the Midwest, etc. that might work. But I'd still want to mix up the order so that one region didn't always get to go first. 

I think a national campaign with a single day of primary voting would keep the candidates more honest. They couldn't pander week to week to the particular interests of the people in whatever state happens to be having their primary next. They'd have to put together and express platforms, policies, messages that make sense in a national context. It wouldn't mean you would necessarily have to shorten the campaign season (though I'd be in favor of that). They could still work the states - but I think you would see a dramatic (and more honest) shift in how the candidates chose to spend their time and resources in the primary campaign.

 

[roadkill1292]

Smaller states "getting ignored" is a red herring argument. People can make up their minds without a candidate stopping at a diner three counties away and pretending he's a man of the little people.

Traditions, people. They're generally not good things.

 

[Gr00vus]

Smaller states "getting ignored" is a red herring argument. People can make up their minds without a candidate stopping at a diner three counties away and pretending he's a man of the little people.

Traditions, people. They're generally not good things.

I meant getting ignored in the sense that their votes would be totally meaningless without something like the electoral college. Without something like that, the government in this country would be determined by like the 10 most populous states. It'd be too much representation in the other direction.

 

[BowieMercs]

Have all primary elections on the SAME day, 6 weeks before the general election.  A convention a week or 2 later if needed.

 

[roadkill1292]

Sorry, I'm never buying those kinds of arguments. I think they're based on faulty math.

We've long outgrown the idea of "state" representation, IMO; we just don't know it yet. 

 

[The Commish]

Smaller states "getting ignored" is a red herring argument. People can make up their minds without a candidate stopping at a diner three counties away and pretending he's a man of the little people.

Traditions, people. They're generally not good things.

I meant getting ignored in the sense that their votes would be totally meaningless without something like the electoral college. Without something like that, the government in this country would be determined by like the 10 most populous states. It'd be too much representation in the other direction.

Guess I don't get this because I don't see voting as having anything to do with the states.  It's about the voters.

 

[Yankee23Fan]

I'm 32 years old and have never voted in my life.  The electoral college is the main reason (quality of candidates as a close 2nd). I just dont see why i should be part of a system that marginalizes 10's of  million of votes in non-swing states. It's beyond silly.  The candidates are forced to play to a bunch of blue haired old ladies in Florida while like 75% of the country is already in the bag for one side or the other regardless of what happens. That's a major problem.

As for the candidates themselves, we've created a system of career politicians.  Men like Jefferson, Adams, Lincoln, etc would never have a chance of being elected president today. It's all about being a political shill that just goes whatever way the wind blows.

So I'll just stay at home and hope that whatever doofus Florida, Ohio and Pennsylvania decide on doesn't screw it up too badly. Although considering its going to be either Hilary Clinton or Donald Trump (Seriously, how the #### did we get here? Hilary or Trump? REALLY!!???) I'm not holding my breath.

When you say you never voted - do you mean in any election at all?  Because the electoral college created by the Constitution of the United States is solely for the purposes of electing the President of the United States, not Congressmen, Senators, Governors, State Assembly, State Senate, Mayor, Freeholder, Town Council, Committee, School Board or fire district.

Thomas Jefferson, John Adams and Abraham Lincoln were career politicians, by the way.  They are pretty much the very definition of career politicians.  Thomas Jefferson served in every manner of governmental position for decades.  As did John Adams, although he was oversees alot.  Abraham Lincoln was involved in politics for years before he was President.  There is nothing inherentily wrong with career politicians.  For example, many would say that Thomas Jefferson and John Adams are two of our greatest leaders.  Abraham Lincoln was our greatest President.  John Quincy Adams was one of our greatest diplomats.  Franklin Roosevelt will be honored for all time.  John Kennedy, heck Barack Obama is a career politician.

 

[GoFishTN]

The way we elect Presidents is fine. This issue only comes up when Democrats lose, or are afraid of losing.

Senators on the other hand...

 

[Christo]

IN many states it doesn't matter what you are registered as, but I think in every state you can only vote for ONE candidate, regardless of which party that candidate is in.

Yeah, I've never heard of being able to vote in both parties' primaries.

 

[Christo]

I'm 32 years old and have never voted in my life.  The electoral college is the main reason (quality of candidates as a close 2nd). I just dont see why i should be part of a system that marginalizes 10's of  million of votes in non-swing states. It's beyond silly.  The candidates are forced to play to a bunch of blue haired old ladies in Florida while like 75% of the country is already in the bag for one side or the other regardless of what happens. That's a major problem.

That's just silly. Local elections have much more impact on your life than national elections.

 

[renesauz]

Sorry, I'm never buying those kinds of arguments. I think they're based on faulty math.

We've long outgrown the idea of "state" representation, IMO; we just don't know it yet. 

This is an interesting discussion to be had...but perhaps on another day. I giggle every time I hear someone complain or even talk about states rights in this day and age.

 

[SHIZNITTTT]

eliminate super delegates.

popular vote determines winner

2nd post solved this problem

 

[Christo]

This is an interesting discussion to be had...but perhaps on another day. I giggle every time I hear someone complain or even talk about states rights in this day and age.

I giggle when I hear people talking about religion. But there it is.

 

[Quint]

Getting rid of the electoral college doesn't change that. Instead of your vote not mattering because your state has been decided, your vote doesn't matter because 55 million people are voting the other way.

Re-read Math Against Tyranny, your vote counts more in an electoral college than it would outside of it.

The "swing state" thing is a distraction anyway. An electoral college preserves minority interest in the process. 2004 was a great election to demonstrate this, because of how close 2000 was. Both Bush and Kerry were forced to take meetings with minority interest groups in order to avoid any chance of a repeat of how close FL was in 2000. Whether or not candidates supported snowmobiles in national parks became an issue because the minority interest could have swung an entire election. If you get rid of the electoral college, then 50.1% wins and all you have to do to win that is to promise to screw over the 49.9%. If you want your "voice to be heard", well, then you're in the minority because if you were in the majority your voice is heard already. So if you're part of the 49% you definitely want to have a system that protects you.

If we changed the rules, campaigns would change as well. All the campaigning would be done in the big cities. They'd promise NY, LA, and Chicago that they'd give them money out of the people's pockets in Iowa, New Hampshire, and Nebraska. Those blue-hairs in Florida would count even more, because they're more homogeneous as a bloc. You could pander to 1 and win 18 million votes out of it because that's how many of them there are down there. Carry just the big cities with an ad slogan of "F### Farmers!" and you'd win your 50.1% easily.  It's not like they'd criss-cross the country like they do now, making every whistle-stop. Under different rules the strategies would also change. Don't forget that. Don't think they'd run the same type of plan. What you get under that system, you would probably hate even more.

BTW I am not advocating for California to choose first. Let's just mix it up some. Have a lottery; make it random. Sometimes Rhode Island could go first. Sometimes Minnesota. Or Hawaii. Every 4 years it would be a different order. 

fair points.

my biggest problem with the EC, is that it maintains and solidifies the current Two Party System. by eliminating the EC, or making some drastic revisions, the door could/might be open for a viable 3rd Party Candidate to have chance in a General Election. maybe not right away, but at least it would be come somewhat viable.

to keep the EC in place is to ensure the status quo....something both Rs and Ds are quite happy to maintain.

 

[bueno]

fair points.

my biggest problem with the EC, is that it maintains and solidifies the current Two Party System. by eliminating the EC, or making some drastic revisions, the door could/might be open for a viable 3rd Party Candidate to have chance in a General Election. maybe not right away, but at least it would be come somewhat viable.

to keep the EC in place is to ensure the status quo....something both Rs and Ds are quite happy to maintain.

Note that if there is no majority winner, the House gets to elect the President. This perpetuates the two party system - anything else is unstable.

 

[timschochet]

New poll has a dead heat in California



It's happening! 

It isn't though. No matter what happens in California, Clinton will be the nominee. I admit it got closer than it usually does, but once again on both sides the outcome is still the same: our vote is meaningless. 

California should be moved up to Marxh or April. 

 

[timschochet]

This is just a fundamental misunderstanding of math and how things work

I don't think so. 

Certainly California is influential in terms of our richest citizens and corporations donating money - THEY have a say. But I don't. I vote faithfully in June and in November, and I have every 4 years since 1984. With the sole exception of the year 2000, I have known the winner of the election before I voted each and every time. And the June vote, in terms of the Presidency, has always been meaningless. 

 

[BassNBrew]

I don't think so. 

Certainly California is influential in terms of our richest citizens and corporations donating money - THEY have a say. But I don't. I vote faithfully in June and in November, and I have every 4 years since 1984. With the sole exception of the year 2000, I have known the winner of the election before I voted each and every time. And the June vote, in terms of the Presidency, has always been meaningless. 

Give your judgement, that's probably a good thing.

 

[timschochet]

Give your judgement, that's probably a good thing.

Curious how different was I than you, Bass? 

Here were my votes: 

1984 Reagan

1988 Third party (Libertarian)

1992 Clinton

1996 Clinton

2000 Bush

2004 Kerry

2008 Didn't vote for President

2012 Romney 

 

[BassNBrew]

Curious how different was I than you, Bass? 

Here were my votes: 

1984 Reagan - Reagan

1988 Third party (Libertarian) - Bush

1992 Clinton - Perot

1996 Clinton - Libertarian

2000 Bush - Bush

2004 Kerry - didn't vote

2008 Didn't vote for President - Obama

2012 Romney - Romeny

 

[timschochet]

Your lengthy analogy really doesn't contradict my argument. Californian voters would have liked to have a say in who the nominee will be in each party. We are the largest state. Once again, this was decided for us before we ever got a chance to vote. 

 

[BassNBrew]

Agree with Tim here.  What if he wanted to vote for Carson, Carly, or Webb?

Using the example above, the first two students vote for Bart.  Martin doesn't have Wall Street donors and Jimbo Jones tells everyone Martin has a small pee pee.  Martin drops out.  Doesn't Timothy Trump's vote matter?