nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6753|New Haven, CT
It is a joke.

Truthfully, is a joke.

What the U.S. needs is a entire national primary in May, tabulated solely by the overall number of votes a candidate receives. I find it stupid that individual states receive so much more significance in a primary than others. What makes them better? Absolutely nothing. All the Democratic and Republican voters here in Oregon rarely ever get a chance to decide anything in a primary, but are they less of Democrats or Republicans? I think the answer is no.

By using a system relying solely on a popular vote, we will be able to assess the views of the entire nation over a candidacy, which would makes sense considering the office is a national office. There will be no disparity in significance, no moronic political posturing, no convoluted methods of assessing supports, and no pathetic media frenzy. While I know tradition will never allow this, it would be truly what is best for our nation.
{M5}Sniper3
Typical white person.
+389|7189|San Antonio, Texas
I agree the primary system is a bit whack, I think if every state voted on the same week, and all the results are withheld until every vote is counted, it would turn out better. But I would disagree on a system run fully by popular vote. This about sums it up:

Bagel_Bites wrote:

Many of us try to stay informed on the issues and make educated decisions on who we vote for. However, this is not the case for the overwhelming majority of Americans.

Take the South Carolina Democratic primary as an example. CNN, MSNBC, FOX News, and pretty much every other mainstream media outlet turned this primary into a Gender vs. Race issue. Their biggest concern was whether or not black women would gravitate towards the female candidate, or the black candidate. It wasn't about the issues. It wasn't even about character. It was simply about demographics.

Now we've got news outlets such as CNN blowing the whole "Obama snubs Clinton during State of the Union" fiasco out of proportion. These are not issues. Voters should not be choosing their candidate based on this. Unfortunately, this is not the case. Remember, Bush got elected because people wanted to have a beer with him...they didn't care or even know if he was capable of running a country. History will repeat itself.

My point is that even though we are informed, it really is a futile effort because the next President might as well be chosen based on his or her favorite color.

This is why the Electoral College exists.

"The best argument against democracy is a five-minute conversation with the average voter."

- Sir Winston Churchill
SenorToenails
Veritas et Scientia
+444|6559|North Tonawanda, NY
If the founding fathers didn't trust the populace to elect the president, so why would the political parties trust the public to select the candidates?

Granted, it doesn't make any sense and it ought to be revised.

Edit:  Read Federalist Number 68.

Last edited by SenorToenails (2008-02-10 00:52:39)

nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6753|New Haven, CT

SenorToenails wrote:

If the founding fathers didn't trust the populace to elect the president, so why would the political parties trust the public to select the candidates?

Granted, it doesn't make any sense and it ought to be revised.

Edit:  Read Federalist Number 68.
Link?

And I would like to point out, that since the populace does (in essence) elect the president, that ship has sailed. The selection of candidates should mirror that of the executive.

Last edited by nukchebi0 (2008-02-10 01:06:15)

{M5}Sniper3
Typical white person.
+389|7189|San Antonio, Texas

nukchebi0 wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

If the founding fathers didn't trust the populace to elect the president, so why would the political parties trust the public to select the candidates?

Granted, it doesn't make any sense and it ought to be revised.

Edit:  Read Federalist Number 68.
Link?
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm
nukchebi0
Пушкин, наше всё
+387|6753|New Haven, CT

{M5}Sniper3 wrote:

nukchebi0 wrote:

SenorToenails wrote:

If the founding fathers didn't trust the populace to elect the president, so why would the political parties trust the public to select the candidates?

Granted, it doesn't make any sense and it ought to be revised.

Edit:  Read Federalist Number 68.
Link?
http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa68.htm
Thanks.

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard