|
We could have nonbinding events like the Iowa caucuses (well the way they were 2012 and before) all the time. We just shouldn't have the actual for real primary votes done until a single uniform day nationwide. Same effect on showing challengers' viability, but it makes it all simpler.
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 05:41
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Jonked posted:It's probably a dumb system that would over-emphasis large battleground states, but EH. My main issue with the program is that it essentially sidelines the vast majority of the population until the primary is virtually over. Over 50% of Americans live in nine states: Any democratic system needs to be built with this fact in mind. To my mind, a rotating regional system (each with roughly equal population levels) is the best path available - and fortunately it also has the support of the nation's State Secretaries. Kaal fucked around with this message at 05:52 on Jan 19, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 05:50
|
|
|
Kaal posted:My main issue with the program is that it essentially sidelines the vast majority of the population until the primary is virtually over. Over 50% of Americans live in nine states: Any democratic system needs to be built with this fact in mind. To my mind, a rotating regional system (each with roughly equal population levels) is the best path available - and fortunately it also has the support of the nation's State Secretaries. Yeah, the more I'm doing the math on this, the more I'm realizing it's actually a terrible idea.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 06:37
|
|
|
Jonked posted:I'm not sure that's true - under the system I suggested, California would have 242 points and would hold their primary before Colorado with 166 points, as would Texas with its 240 points. Even Michigan, the ninth largest state in the US, would go before Colorado with 168 points - pretty much every large state besides New York would be in the first half of the primary season. Which, on the other hand, undermines the whole 'competitive small states go sooner to give underdogs a chance' thing, since it seems to drastically front ends the primary season with big states that are only marginally competitive. If it was actually put in place, the first five primary states would be New Hampshire, Florida, North Carolina, Ohio, and Virginia. The smallest state among those five besides NH would be Virginia, the 12th most populous state. About 17% of the US population would have had a chance to vote, and we'd still be in the first month. I like the concept. I wish that districts were set up based on mathematical equations as well.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 06:49
|
|
|
Florida should be the first primary because it demographically represents the entire country better than loving Iowa. Goodness knows they're trying to get into that position.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 07:02
|
|
|
JT Jag posted:Florida should be the first primary because it demographically represents the entire country better than loving Iowa. As someone living in St Petersburg let me just say: DEAR GOD NO. I cannot deal with Santorum, Christie, and the assorted 2nd and 3rd-tier lunatics running around this state for an entire loving year. The only positive I can see is that everyone here might possibly be so sick of Marco Rubio by the end of it he'd lose his Senate seat in '16. Let them visit every Pizza Ranch in Iowa in the dead, lifeless winter.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 07:49
|
|
|
Women probably generally aren't as good a choice for the executive office as men are. They still don't have the capacity for as much sway as men do, at least when interacting with a lot of countries in the second and third world. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 07:56
|
|
|
That's the most ridiculous thing I've read so far in this thread.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:01
|
|
|
naysayer posted:Women probably generally aren't as good a choice for the executive office as men are. They still don't have the capacity for as much sway as men do, at least when interacting with a lot of countries in the second and third world. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:04
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:That's the most ridiculous thing I've read so far in this thread. Do you disagree that women are still treated as inferior to men in many if not all parts of the world? Moreover, how do you account for the correlation between testosterone and strong utilitarian decision making? The bottom line is that women simply aren't as well equipped for the sort of activity covered by the presidency as men are.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:06
|
|
|
naysayer posted:Do you disagree that women are still treated as inferior to men in many if not all parts of the world? Moreover, how do you account for the correlation between testosterone and strong utilitarian decision making? The bottom line is that women simply aren't as well equipped for the sort of activity covered by the presidency as men are. Yes. I disagree. And those parts of the world that can't get over it can suck it.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:16
|
|
|
naysayer posted:Do you disagree that women are still treated as inferior to men in many if not all parts of the world? Moreover, how do you account for the correlation between testosterone and strong utilitarian decision making? The bottom line is that women simply aren't as well equipped for the sort of activity covered by the presidency as men are. Don't you think having the President of the United States be a woman would go a long way towards dispelling the completely misguided notion that women are inferior to men? When the person with their finger on all the nukes is a woman, don't you think these countries would step their respect game up a little? Also, your second point is some stupid  poo poo.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:23
|
|
|
WampaLord posted:Also, your second point is some stupid Why? Because it's ostensibly sexist, or because evolution is stupid?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:29
|
|
|
One would think the number of countries that have elected female heads of government/state so far would dispel that notion. A couple in the third world even.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:30
|
|
|
watt par posted:One would think the number of countries that have elected female heads of government/state so far would dispel that notion. A couple in the third world even. Pretty sure it's just a weak troll, but yeah, plenty in the third world and in countries that he probably (or is pretending to) thinks would never take a woman politician seriously.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:34
|
|
|
ReidRansom posted:Pretty sure it's just a weak troll, but yeah, plenty in the third world and in countries that he probably (or is pretending to) thinks would never take a woman politician seriously. If anything we're way behind the times on that front. Controversial opinion I know.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:39
|
|
|
watt par posted:If anything we're way behind the times on that front. Controversial opinion I know. I almost agreed with you but my testosterone was too high for such a non-utilitarian post.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:42
|
|
|
I just railed a bunch of DHEA and now all I think about is game theoretic geopolitical strategy framed in terms of shifting trade patterns in developing economies.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:47
|
|
|
Cheekio posted:I almost agreed with you but my testosterone was too high for such a non-utilitarian post. Just you watch; we elect our first vagino-american president and the first time she has to deal with Iran Ahmadinejad will throw a few negs and a DHV spike and next thing you know she'll be handing over the nuclear launch codes to the ayatollah.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 08:53
|
|
|
I wonder if any of the Tea Party backers realized what kind of monster they were creating or if they honestly believed they were going ride it back into power. It doesn't matter how much they tweak the rules if winning the primary means shooting yourself repeatedly in the foot for the general. naysayer posted:Women probably generally aren't as good a choice for the executive office as men are. They still don't have the capacity for as much sway as men do, at least when interacting with a lot of countries in the second and third world. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 16:03
|
|
|
naysayer posted:Moreover, how do you account for the correlation between testosterone and strong utilitarian decision making? For the sake of comedy, please elaborate. 
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 16:37
|
|
|
How to solve your problems as a female president in the third world: You show up on Air Force loving One and make them kiss the ring.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 17:07
|
|
|
If only there were some sort of counter-example, like a highly regarded female Secretary of State who'd visited 112 countries while in office, more than anyone in that office before her and who was also the front-runner candidate for President in 2016 should she decide to run.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 17:13
|
|
|
Mods please embed this track in this thread: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJZRqPiGkTg
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 17:15
|
|
|
naysayer posted:Do you disagree that women are still treated as inferior to men in many if not all parts of the world? Moreover, how do you account for the correlation between testosterone and strong utilitarian decision making? The bottom line is that women simply aren't as well equipped for the sort of activity covered by the presidency as men are. Women are treated as inferior in many parts of the world, thus we should treat women as inferior by disregarding their suitability for office based on their sex. Up next: we shouldn't vote for a black person because racists exist.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 17:36
|
|
|
Joementum posted:If only there were some sort of counter-example, like a highly regarded female Secretary of State who'd visited 112 countries while in office, more than anyone in that office before her and who was also the front-runner candidate for President in 2016 should she decide to run. Are those countries in blue all the countries visited as SoS?
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 17:55
|
|
|
notthegoatseguy posted:Are those countries in blue all the countries visited as SoS? Yes.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 17:56
|
|
|
naysayer posted:Do you disagree that women are still treated as inferior to men in many if not all parts of the world? Yeah, we should pick our leaders based on other countries' preconceptions. Similarly, we should not be tolerant of homosexuality in this country because that'll just piss off the turrists and make them want to bomb us. EDIT: Eh, looks like someone already made the point in a better way.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 19:51
|
|
|
I don't think it's a huge deal for national leaders, but I'm curious if you'd send a female a commander into the depths of Afghanistan to interact with a local council? At the national level might matters. No country's going to be arrogant enough to ignore Hillary just because she's got breasts and a vagina, but when you get down to the provincial level these things actually are considerations and it's not racist, sexist or anything else to take a foreign culture into account. I know that's not what's being discussed specifically here and the guy's post reeked of a troll, but I get the impression a lot of folks just assume that projecting Western values onto the rest of the world because we're de facto correct works and, let me tell you from personal experience, it doesn't. EDIT: My point is that it feels good and righteous to thump chests and say "Our values are universal and inviolable" but depending on the situation and the level of power involved not everyone may agree.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 20:00
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:I don't think it's a huge deal for national leaders, but I'm curious if you'd send a female a commander into the depths of Afghanistan to interact with a local council? It is my understanding that some of the coalition forces with fully mixed gender militaries have done this.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 20:38
|
|
|
naysayer posted:Women probably generally aren't as good a choice for the executive office as men are. They still don't have the capacity for as much sway as men do, at least when interacting with a lot of countries in the second and third world.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 21:00
|
|
|
Guys please don't feed the trolls.
|
|
#
?
Jan 19, 2013 21:09
|
|
|
ReindeerF posted:I don't think it's a huge deal for national leaders, but I'm curious if you'd send a female a commander into the depths of Afghanistan to interact with a local council? Not quite the same, but Germany sent a openly gay foreign minister to Saudi Arabia to talk about human rights (and he didn't bring his partner): http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704554104575434993592317992.html
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 00:49
|
|
|
 Biden 2016 etc etc. If only for The Onion headlines.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 03:18
|
|
|
In other Biden news: (he's totally running in 2016 by the way) eta: Deval Patrick just said on CNN that he's going to return to the private sector, "which is something I've promised my wife and family". Joementum fucked around with this message at 03:24 on Jan 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 03:20
|
|
|
Biden vs Christie. 2000 all over again. Calling this now.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 03:44
|
|
|
Would Christie be able to summon a deluge of cash funding, or would someone like Paul Ryan get the "Romney money" in a GOP primary? I imagine there are some casino owners who could line the pockets of Christie to give him an edge.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 03:58
|
|
|
Christie would be the natural recipient of NYC area funding, which is the largest haul. That's not the only funding base. There are the Texas oilmen, the Vegas guys and the DC area military contractors. But NYC money is substantial enough to squash an unfunded insurgent under a pile of cash.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 04:06
|
|
|
Roger Ailes, the chairman of Fox News, loves Christie more then anything. (He was literally begging him to run in the primary last election.) He would probably hand Christie his rolodex of high money conservative fund raisers if Christie decided to run. Plus unless Christe did something horrible during the primary he would have the full backing of Fox News just short of them telling their viewers to vote for him Zikan fucked around with this message at 04:38 on Jan 20, 2013 |
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 04:07
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 02:43 |
|
|
Joementum posted:Christie would be the natural recipient of NYC area funding, which is the largest haul.
|
|
#
?
Jan 20, 2013 04:17
|
|