Oh No, The New Awesome Primary Thread

Curiously I agree on this.More to the point I think that we could use the electoral college to better effect if we made it illegal to release the state ballot results until it is done in the electoral college. This would take away the media circus election night and give reason for western states - especially Hawaii - people to vote, AND it would give states a chance to fix election fiascos (think Florida in 2000) by re-running their election ... and we could require a revote whenever the margin between the top two candidates was less than the number of other votes (either discarded\damaged or for a third party).Enjoy

Curiously the constitution (as currently amended) only requires that :

quote:

---

Article 2 - The Executive Branch
Section 1 - The President

​

Each State shall appoint, in such Manner as the Legislature thereof may direct, a Number of Electors, equal to the whole Number of Senators and Representatives to which the State may be entitled in the Congress: but no Senator or Representative, or Person holding an Office of Trust or Profit under the United States, shall be appointed an Elector.

​

^(*) The Electors shall meet in their respective states, and vote by ballot for President and Vice-President, one of whom, at least, shall not be an inhabitant of the same state with themselves; they shall name in their ballots the person voted for as President, and in distinct ballots the person voted for as Vice-President, and they shall make distinct lists of all persons voted for as President, and of all persons voted for as Vice-President and of the number of votes for each, which lists they shall sign and certify, and transmit sealed to the seat of the government of the United States, directed to the President of the Senate;

---

Note that this part of the process takes place within each state, and what they provide is a list of the votes for all the candidates with the numbers of votes for each candidate -- ie first choice, second choice, third choice, etc. for the state as a whole.This does not require a media circus, nor does it require that the results be released at that time. It is at this point that any problems with the voting -- as occurred in Florida -- would become evidence.Also at this time it should become apparent whether or not there is a clear and unambiguous count of votes, where the margins between the top three candidates are greater than the number of bad ballots.There is no need for announcing any votes from any state at this time, just whether or not a clean and unambiguous vote had been tallied, and IF not, then there is time to have a run-off election between the top three candidates (see below - "... the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for ... ").Note that this withholding of results from the media is already done for absentee votes and for early votes (where those are allowed).You also have time to validate all votes, a process that should (imho) include a means for the people to validate that their votes have been properly counted, and corrections made where they aren't properly counted.Then you can proceed to the "electoral college" as required by the constitution^(*):

quote:

---

The President of the Senate shall, in the presence of the Senate and House of Representatives, open all the certificates and the votes shall then be counted;

​

The person having the greatest Number of votes for President, shall be the President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed; and if no person have such majority, then from the persons having the highest numbers not exceeding three on the list of those voted for as President, the House of Representatives shall choose immediately, by ballot, the President. But in choosing the President, the votes shall be taken by states, the representation from each state having one vote; a quorum for this purpose shall consist of a member or members from two-thirds of the states, and a majority of all the states shall be necessary to a choice. And if the House of Representatives shall not choose a President whenever the right of choice shall devolve upon them, before the fourth day of March next following, then the Vice-President shall act as President, as in the case of the death or other constitutional disability of the President.

​

The person having the greatest number of votes as Vice-President, shall be the Vice-President, if such number be a majority of the whole number of Electors appointed, and if no person have a majority, then from the two highest numbers on the list, the Senate shall choose the Vice-President; a quorum for the purpose shall consist of two-thirds of the whole number of Senators, and a majority of the whole number shall be necessary to a choice. But no person constitutionally ineligible to the office of President shall be eligible to that of Vice-President of the United States.

---

Note that at this point onward the presence of electors is not required, just the votes they have tallied, and that this could be interpreted to mean, or at least to allows, that the lists of votes are all counted as popular votes.Note also that there does not need to be a >50% majority in any state, just in the final tally of the "electoral college" joint session. The "electoral college" is not actually a thing required or established by the constitution. What is required is that the electors compile lists of votes and forward those to the president of the Senate, and that the votes are then opened and counted in a joint session of the House and Senate, and if all the votes tallied on the lists provided by the electors are counted then you have de facto a popular vote tally ... with no need for a constitutional amendment. This joint session would be the media circus event, not the all night circus we currently have. And if you start by counting the smallest states first, you can make as much drama out of this as you want.This can also be implemented state by state without affecting the outcome.What this does is utilize the existing constitutional provisions to provide a buffer period to properly count and validate votes, time within which a second election can be held if the first one is problematic, and it provides a path for all popular votes to be counted in the final tally.Now I also think that ALL ballots should be paper ballots, the same ballots that are used for absentee voting and early voting and the period of voting should be the same as for absentee and early voting (ie -- everyone votes by absentee ballot).And I would like to see ballots with first choice and second choice voting, including a "non-of-the-above" option. This too can be implemented state by state without affecting the outcome.Finally, as this is the "Awesome Primary Thread" I think that all primaries should be done with instant run-off ballots (ie - you vote for the order of the list of candidates by your preferences from best to worst).This too can be implemented state by state.By focusing on steps that can be taken state by state then we don't have to depend on congress fixing itself. These steps can also be promoted by voter initiatives in each state, bringing the process to the people.Enjoy
______
* -- per Amendment 12 from this point to end of quotes.

a fair counting of the popular vote and the inclusion of all voters in the process and reduction of voting machine fraud.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : .

There are plenty of people that would like to see third parties be viable on both ends of the spectrum, and developing a way to break the two party system would seem popular. This is where voter initiatives can be employed: take the vote to the people and let them decide, rather than the interested parties. Progress is worth fighting for, especially when it means revising a broken system.From the Occupy Movement/s to the independent voters to the Tea Party Birchers people across the political spectrum do not like the two party system.And the only way to change the system is to change the system. Either by evolution to "form a better union" or by revolution to destroy the current one ...Enjoy

Indeed. Single person single vote is incapable of providing information on second and third choices etc, and when the field is packed with a number of candidates of varying quality it is possible to end up with a bad choice if several good choices split the other votes.Preferential voting - Wikipedia

quote:

---

Preferential voting may refer to:

​

• Ranked voting systems, all election methods that involve ranking candidates in order of preference
• Instant-runoff voting, referred to as "preferential voting" in Australia, is one type of ranked voting system.
• Range voting, in which voters assign points to each candidate
• Open list, sometimes known as "preferential voting" in Europe and nations such as Sri Lanka
• Bucklin voting, which was sometimes known as "preferential voting" when used in the United States

---

Of these I like "instant runoff" voting best - especially for primaries when there can be lots of candidates of many different levels of quality and a mix of positions. Much more like getting a consensus of who would satisfy the most people than our current system that not only ensconces the two party system, but also tends to pick extreme candidates in each of the parties.Enjoy

See The Brand New Birther Thread ... Only if he gets elected ...Enjoy

What was that? oh never mind.

you mean like ...

Curiously I find the current plethora of GOP candidates to be prime examples of the The Dunning—Kruger effect

quote:

---

​

The Dunning—Kruger effect is a cognitive bias in which an unskilled person makes poor decisions and arrives at erroneous conclusions, but their incompetence denies them the metacognitive ability to realize their mistakes. The unskilled therefore suffer from illusory superiority, rating their own ability as above average, much higher than it actually is, while the highly skilled underrate their abilities, suffering from illusory inferiority. This leads to the perverse situation in which less competent people rate their own ability higher than more competent people. It also explains why actual competence may weaken self-confidence: because competent individuals falsely assume that others have an equivalent understanding. Thus, the miscalibration of the incompetent stems from an error about the self, whereas the miscalibration of the highly competent stems from an error about others.

---

Of course that can be said for all politicians to some degree. It just seems to me that the GOP candidates are more incompetent in judging their own judgment than the average cow.Enjoy

Well he could play water polo too ...

we should all register as republicans to vote for Donald in the primaries.

No.Business is the wrong model for government. Government is not there to make a profit or to benefit ceos and big corporations, and you can't fire people from being citizens.This is one of the big lies of the republican party, and why they ultimately are so bad at government.The purpose of government is to serve the people, to provide the most benefit to the most people -- that's in the preamble to the constitution -- tell me one business that operates that way.Enjoy

In the days of Eisenhower the top tax bracket was 90% and it was the time of the greatest prosperity in the US.Other nations have higher tax brackets AND higher social benefits and the average income of the citizens outranks the US Please provide sources for your numbers. Hopefully they are better vetted than your Jade Helm 15 source.Those who benefit most from the system should pay the most to keep it solvent. And should have been higher when you include all the money sequestered off-shore and not counted by loopholes. If we take a really good closer look we see that the "income" reported is a minor fraction of real income.Then there is corporate taxes and corporate "entitlements" that give back more to companies as "incentives to succeed" than they pay in taxes -- is that good business? Then stop spending money on wars and military. The US spends more than the top ten other countries on military expenditures.And stop giving money to big corporations. That's where the spending problem is, not with programs like Social Security that are paid for by the people outside the budget.Return the tax schedule to what it was under Eisenhower, and cut the loopholes for corporations, eliminate corporate entitlement programs, make taxes on stocks the same as other income, tax stock transactions.Enjoy

Do you think it should provide the most benefit to the smallest number of people?Indeed (as Dr A noted), the preamble of the Constitution (which I referenced) reads:

quote:

---

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

---

Of the people by the people for the people, ergo government should provide the most benefit possible to the most people. For all to "to prosper, to live comfortably, to seek and find happiness" -- you will please note -- requires that you will need to provide the most benefit to the most people. You need to follow your thoughts to their logical conclusion. Taking the counter process -- providing the most benefit to those who need it least and restricting it to a small select elite does nothing for the general welfare but rather significantly impoverishes it.We KNOW that the trickle down myth is a failed concept, that not only is it wrong it is entirely backwards. The economy is made up of the movement of money, not by people having amounts of money in storage. The more money is in movement the better the economy. Give a poor person $100 and it is spent by the end of the week, all of it locally, but give a rich person $100 and half of it may be spent by the end of the year, maybe in the US, maybe somewhere else.We KNOW that the bank failure collapse happened because trickle-down did not happen -- for over 3 decades the people did not get the "promised raises" for decades, and instead had real wages fall, and could not afford to keep up their mortgages. IF trickle-down worked there would not have been the failure. When the failure happened it took just a couple of weeks ... because the economy trickles UP. You don't grow a large tree with small roots.The fact that GOP candidates still talk about trickle-down and tax breaks for the rich shows that they are either delusional or outright lying. You sound like a Fauxaholic.Do you mean the last 7 years where Obama spent a fraction of what Schrubbia spent? The 7 years where Obama brought the deficit down from the record height created by Scrubbia? In spite of dogged obstructionism at every step by the republicans? Those 7 years?I have to wonder what drugs you are on: please provide example of what Obama has done that was worse than Scrubbia. But it isn't the politics that is the problem these days, it is the corruption of politics to pander to the rich and corporate interests over the interests of the people. You want someone who will stand up to that corruption, and somehow I don't see anyone connected to business doing that. The hole we are in was caused by Schrubbia, who inherited a surplus from Clinton and then proceeded to give it away and go play war games. Any move in the direction of Scrubbia's disastrous policies will be worse than anything that has happened in the last 7 years.If you are truly concerned about the dept and the deficit then you need to look at WHO is causing WHAT effect on it -- not blame the last guy in office. Do some real research\investigation on what the sources are and what policies are responsible.Certainly don't expect the sources that gave you Jade Helm 15 information to provide you with accurate information on other matters. And be skeptical.Government is for the people, all the people ... with no prejudice and no favoritism -- and that is how you provide the most benefit to the most people.EnjoyEdited by RAZD, : code

see Message 5