|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: The Awesome Republican Primary Thread | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
I obviously understand why it's done, I just find that a very unfortunate reality. I would be very interested in conducting an experiment where there is essentially a media blackout for one control group, and the other group it's business as usual and search for noticeable anomalies or disparities between the two. I'd be much more interested in changing the system to something that doesn;t force me to suppress my moral outrage at the political activities of a monster to prevent a worse monster from taking office. Seriously, I feel like Japan, voting for Godzilla to destroy half of Tokyo so that (insert monster here) doesn't destroy it all. What I'd like would be, at a minimum, to start voting Senators and Representatives from third parties into power. It's smaller scale, more local, far less money involved, especially for Representatives, and so the person we want can actually have a chance to win. If a single third party can build up structure and supporters through more local victories, they can scale up to the national level over time, and we can finally have a choice other than the Republicrats or the Demoblicans for the Presidency. What I'd like even more than that, real change to the underlying system of how we elect our government officials, would unfortunately require Constitutional amendments and possibly a genie with more than three wishes available.The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
Seriously, I feel like Japan, voting for Godzilla to destroy half of Tokyo so that (insert monster here) doesn't destroy it all. Well said, sir "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Rahvin writes:
I have to wonder how realistic this expectation is. Right now, we have a 2 party system and nothing is getting done... at all. Imagine a 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, etc. party system and for anything to get done there'd need to be 60% vote supporting it.
What I'd like even more than that, real change to the underlying system of how we elect our government officials, would unfortunately require Constitutional amendments and possibly a genie with more than three wishes available.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taz Member (Idle past 3318 days) Posts: 5069 From: Zerus Joined: |
Hyro writes:
It's not speculative. What, you think all those green party voters would have gone out and voted republican had there been no green party candidate? It's all speculative assuming no polls were reported, which is fundamentally what I'm referring to. There is no doubt that those green party sons of bitches gave us Bush for 8 years.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3264 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined:
|
I should have clarified. What I mean is that these polls tend to create self-fulfilling prophecies. It leads the horse to water. Those who liked Paul or Santorum may all of a sudden shift their views in favor of Romney or Gingrich, simply because they're "winning in the polls." So the burgeoning question would be how people would vote if there was a total media blackout. I agree that this is an issue. It's why someone can "build momentum" through the primaries. However, there are still two issues at work here. 1) If it shows someone winning because most people like them, then, assuming your goal is to get the best possible candidate in, it makes sense to switch to the candidate that has a chance of winning and is closest to your views. Otherwise, while you're being true to your first choice, your last choice might win a majority. 2) It depends on what your motivation for voting is. People should vote for the person they think will do the best job. However, a lot of people are actually voting against a person they dislike, regrdless of how the person they're voting for will govern. For example, in America, a lot of people (mostly Republicans, but by no means all of them are) are using this election as a referendum on Obama. So, if Obama is doing a bad job, vote against him. This doesn't do anything to ensure that the other person won't do a worse job.
I, for one, would love to see a controlled study on that very thing. So would I. It might give me more faith in the Republicans in this country. There can't actually be that many people who like Gingrich, can there?
Yeah, but if both candidates have similar tendencies, then it really doesn't matter. I would not like that on my conscience. Look at the debacle with Obama. He simply expanded Bush's policies when he was voted to stop them. That's why I ended with the line about, if they're both bat-shit crazy, then vote for who you want. As for Obama, the way he acts after election has no bearing on how he campaigned, as mcuh as we might wish it would. Still, for every thing he's done that I disagree with, there has been a lot of stuff he's done that I agree with. I sincerely believe that he is better than McCain would have been, and I sincerely believe he will be better than Romney would be. If I could pick the person to be President out of all possible people (with the caveat that I can't just pick myself), he's not even in my top 10 list. Number one for me would be Feingold.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3264 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
I'd be much more interested in changing the system to something that doesn;t force me to suppress my moral outrage at the political activities of a monster to prevent a worse monster from taking office. A good start would be the ability to rank candidates, rather than simply picking one. That way, you could vote for your number one guy in first place (say a full vote), but put Obama at number 2 (say a .5 vote), and Romney at 3 (a zero vote). With this system, third party candidates would have a better chance at getting "one" votes because people wouldn't feel like they were throwing their vote away (or worse, as you pointed out above), and at the worst, they would get a "half" vote because presumably people would rather have them then the other "major" party's candidate. I'd love to see what kind of change a vote like this would make.
What I'd like even more than that, real change to the underlying system of how we elect our government officials, would unfortunately require Constitutional amendments and possibly a genie with more than three wishes available. The biggest obstacle is that getting this change would require the people for whom the current system obviously works (they got elected) to change the system to one that could very well mean they would lose. It's the old fox guarding the henhouse problem.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Perdition Member (Idle past 3264 days) Posts: 1593 From: Wisconsin Joined: |
It's not speculative. What, you think all those green party voters would have gone out and voted republican had there been no green party candidate? It's possible they would not have voted at all. Which would have been a wash. While part of me feels anger at them for voting for someone who had no chance of winning, it's essentially the same as if they hadn't bothered to vote at all.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Dr Adequate Member (Idle past 311 days) Posts: 16113 Joined: |
So, Romney won the Nevada caucus, for the first time getting over 50%. (To be precise, 50.1%.)
Apparently no-one cares, even me and I live in Nevada. Let apathy ring throughout the land! It has led to people calling for the caucus system in Nevada to be replaced by a primary. 'Cos only 34,000 people bothered to turn up out of a population of ~2.7 million. Apparently even Nevadans don't care very much about how they vote.
We're for democracy, we're just not very interested in it. Edited by Dr Adequate, : No reason given.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Rahvin Member Posts: 4042 Joined: Member Rating: 7.7 |
While part of me feels anger at them for voting for someone who had no chance of winning, it's essentially the same as if they hadn't bothered to vote at all. The effect is the same. But these were people who actually overcame the major hurdle - they defeated voter apathy and voted. If they had been more aware of their fellow voters through polling, they may have taken a very slightly differnte course of action. Were I in their place, preferring Green but also preferring Gore to Bush and knowing that Florida was a swing state, I would have voted for damage control rather than idealism and cast my vote for Gore. You know how polls talk about "likely voters?" They're the ones who count. And you don't get much more "likely" than "actually voted," even if they essencially threw those votes away. I consider them to be slighly more at fault than those who simply didn't vote at all - we know with near certainty that the Green voters would have preferred Gore to Bush. The human understanding when it has once adopted an opinion (either as being the received opinion or as being agreeable to itself) draws all things else to support and agree with it. - Francis Bacon "There are two novels that can change a bookish fourteen-year old's life: The Lord of the Rings and Atlas Shrugged. One is a childish fantasy that often engenders a lifelong obsession with its unbelievable heroes, leading to an emotionally stunted, socially crippled adulthood, unable to deal with the real world. The other, of course, involves orcs." - John Rogers
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Did you vote?
How is it decided who can and cannot vote in Republican nominations elections? Could a bunch of Democrats have signed up to vote in this caucas in order to make a different Republican candidate win and thus throw the cat amongst the pigeons? If a mass of secret Democrats signed up could they have all voted for Hermain Caine and had him win this vote. How does it work? Yours - A confused Brit.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
How is it decided who can and cannot vote in Republican nominations elections? It varies from state to state. In states with "closed" primaries, you have to register as a member of the party and can only vote in that primary. In "open" primaries, anyone can vote in any primary they please. There are also states with a mixture of these models.
If a mass of secret Democrats signed up could they have all voted for Hermain Caine and had him win this vote. They could. All it requires is to fill out a form saying you are a Republican. However, you may not be able to vote in the Democratic primary which does include local nominations for state legislatures.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Straggler Member (Idle past 92 days) Posts: 10333 From: London England Joined: |
Mod PMed me and sent me to Message 531 which is frankly an invaluable guide to this shit.
But I still have a question - Why is there not a Democratic equivalent going on? Is Obama, as the President, automatically the Demo candidate? Or is there a whole irrelevant Democratic "race" going on that I am blissfully unaware of?
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
subbie Member (Idle past 1281 days) Posts: 3509 Joined: |
It's highly unusual for a sitting President to get a serious challenge in the primary from another candidate of the same party, but it does happen. This year, there is nobody that I am aware that is running any kind of challenge to Obama as the Dimwitcrat nominee. Thus, while technically there are Dimwitcrat primary elections running concurrently with the Repugnantcans, they are one horse races and entirely unimportant.
Ridicule is the only weapon which can be used against unintelligible propositions. -- Thomas Jefferson We see monsters where science shows us windmills. -- Phat It has always struck me as odd that fundies devote so much time and effort into trying to find a naturalistic explanation for their mythical flood, while looking for magical explanations for things that actually happened. -- Dr. Adequate ...creationists have a great way to detect fraud and it doesn't take 8 or 40 years or even a scientific degree to spot the fraud--'if it disagrees with the bible then it is wrong'.... -- archaeologist
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
Thus, while technically there are Dimwitcrat primary elections running concurrently with the Repugnantcans, they are one horse races and entirely unimportant.
They are not unimportant for local elections. Many states also have their state legislators running for nominations alongside the presidential nominations. I happen to live in a state dominated by Republicans. Often, the only "true" election is the Republican primary. Candidates often win in the general because they have an (R) next to their name. It could also be argued that state and local governments have just as large of an impact on your life as the federal government. Unimportant as it relates to the Presidential nomination? Yes, I will agree with that. But unimportant in general just because Obama is not being challenged? Not so.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Taq Member Posts: 10073 Joined: Member Rating: 5.2 |
But I still have a question - Why is there not a Democratic equivalent going on? There is a Democratic equivalent, but Obama is not being challenged. It is a one horse race so it isn't that interesting from a news perspective. If there was a legitimate challenge, and that challenger was getting a substantial portion of the vote, then you would definitely hear more about it.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024