|
As the 2016 election unfolds, I'm beginning to wonder if this is an idea that might have bipartisan support. The Republicans surely would see a lot of benefit. The Tea Party phenomenon alone was probably enormously frustrating to a lot of older Republicans who are less interested in actually tearing down government than in getting government to do things they want it to, and now Donald Trump has come along and turned the primary cycle into a total circus. Jeb! has wasted gigantic amounts of cash trying to stay relevant, cash that could have been more productively spent attacking Democratic candidates or supporting downticket races. The Democrats, while not as grievously savaged by insane radicals, would probably also appreciate the value of being able to exclude any upstarts who weren't even a party member prior to the election. Sanders represents a dangerous distraction to some in the Democratic party. Consider that if the most important element of selecting a candidate is electability, we don't need to have primary elections at all. There's nothing in the Constitution that requires parties to leave candidate selection up to the voters. This could be changed by state legislatures. Do we need the Very Serious People to help moderate the political discourse in this country?
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:53
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:Should we abolish
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 19:55
|
|
|
Nice try Hillary
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
guys we need Serious candidates here. have you seen the hair on some of these guys? unbelievable
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:04
|
|
|
And lose THE GREATEST SHOW ON EARTH?!
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:32
|
|
|
It would give the monied interests a complete and total strangehold over our political system, I mean they basically already do but it would make the problem even worse, so no. I bet voter turnout would go way down as well as both parties would prop up boring, soulless corporate whores.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:40
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:The Democrats, while not as grievously savaged by insane radicals, lol what
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 20:58
|
|
|
If Republicans ripping and tearing each other to shreds every four years is wrong then I don't want this country to be right.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:46
|
|
|
Hail Brothers! Coranon silaria, ozoo mahoke.
|
|
#
?
Feb 16, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
it's interesting to take the theory behind the 'jungle primary', where all candidates from both sides compete on a single ballot and the top two finishers go to a runoff election, to the presidential primary. this cycle you'd have the democratic vote split two ways and the republican vote split about six ways (or we can go with 3 and 17 ways if we look back to the start of this dumb poo poo. or some other numbers. doesn't matter), so it'd almost certainly be an all-democrat runoff election. the party with more internal discipline would have a huge advantage, which would effectively result in anti-democratic smoke-filled-room pre-primary selections im guessing that's how it works in practice in ca, wa, la, wherever else does their elections that way. i know the california republicans are in the news solely because one of their 3 serious candidates for senate dropped out, making it slightly less likely that they would allow the 2 serious democratic candidates through to the runoff. meanwhile a clown car of democrats split the vote in a majority-democrat district in california one or two elections ago and allowed for a two-republican runoff election. now another way you could play it would be to have multiple rounds of cutoffs. that would let us have the circus we've grown accustomed to, but on a national scale every time. so let's say you have everybody, from all the parties, running on one ballot, and you eliminate everyone who gets below... let's say 5% of the total vote. then three weeks later you do it again and eliminate everyone under 10%. three weeks later you eliminate people under 20%, then 30%, and so on and so forth. you don't have to step it up each round, really, you could have three 5%-cutoff elections in january, three 10%-cutoff elections in february, etc if that was more to your liking. and it all culminates, after however many rounds* in a head-to-head election *unless you say "as soon as someone gets 50%+ they win and it's all over; if you don't have it maybe it's more fun, a candidate could 'peak too early' by getting like 51% and scaring a bunch of rivals into dropping out, poo poo like that that would eliminate the silliness of everybody camping out in new hampshire diners for a month because every election would be a national one. or maybe you do have to have it regional as i'm realizing this would cost a shitload of money; you could limit it to like four or five total elections and put a month or more in between them, though, or stagger different parts of the country through a set of elections whose results add up before cutoffs are applied i mean i could go on forever but there's some fun poo poo you could do with, not no primaries, but a jungle-primary-on-steroids scenario. at least in theory it'd be more democratic oystertoadfish has issued a correction as of 05:28 on Feb 17, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:06
|
|
|
Goetta posted:Nice try Hillary
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:11
|
|
|
I don't think that you quite grasp how the Primary system works.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:25
|
|
|
There've been systems before the primary system: first the plan where Members of Congress of a party get together and select a candidate through majority vote, then the famed conventions of yore where delegations from all the states got together to yell at each other until one candidate got half (or, in the Democrats' old rules, two-thirds) of delegates. Both systems had huge problems and we ended up with this one, but it's no more permanent than either of the older systems were. Should the appropriate circumstances arise, we could and would get rid of it.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 05:43
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Bring back the smoke-filled rooms imo IMO, bring 'em back but forget the smoke this time. This is the 21st century, for crying out loud. Our elites have got to take care of their lungs.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:03
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:IMO, bring 'em back but forget the smoke this time. This is the 21st century, for crying out loud. Our elites have got to take care of their lungs. Big vape is going to take you out.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:09
|
|
|
when will the first presidential nominee be decided in a hotboxed room
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:23
|
|
|
i can't believe the stranglehold big analog has on smoke room discourse
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:37
|
|
|
zen death robot posted:Bring back the smoke-filled rooms imo agreed but only if it's non-tobacco smoke i don't care if it's weed or crack or heretics
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 06:49
|
|
|
nicotine high is the same high i got spinning around in my dad's office chair when i was 6 either do a worthwhile drug or just go be a mormon and have an actual fulfilling life
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 07:47
|
|
|
the current system is insanely dumb. at the very least iowa and nh should go gently caress themselves. some kind of regional primary system with a rotating order would probably work a lot better
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:when will the first presidential nominee be decided in a hotboxed room I'll have you know that the Choom Gang already did this in the 70's.
|
|
#
?
Feb 17, 2016 19:52
|
|
|
We should retool our democracy from a FPTP system to a proportional system. Love to see the Republicans work with the Libertarians and the Democrats work with the Socialists.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 13:30
|
|
|
I think we're 20 years away from smart-phone voting, at which point we won't need to leave our homes anyway/worry about voter suppression
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 14:57
|
|
|
EugeneJ posted:I think we're 20 years away from smart-phone voting, at which point we won't need to leave our homes anyway/worry about voter suppression just do vote-by-mail
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 16:02
|
|
|
The parties can do whatever they want, its just a matter of whether the votes follow them. I do think if we're going to stick with the FPTP presidential election, maybe each party should do some sort of weighting of the primary results per state, based on the states that can actually deliver the vote for them in November. It seems odd to me that we'd care if Bernie, or Hilary, wins North Dakota and South Carolina, since at the end of the day they never deliver the goods. Much as I hate the attention they already get, wouldn't it make more sense to weight your candidate selection toward the preferences of purple states, knowing drat well your solid states will fall into line?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
i'm pretty sure bigger states already get more delegates at the convention EDIT: oh wait you're talking about weighting based on whether they're already in the can for your party. gently caress, it's been a rough morning Farmer Crack-Ass has issued a correction as of 19:02 on Feb 18, 2016 |
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 18:59
|
|
|
right now they weight by population primarily but i know the gop at least gives extra delegates to more Republican states and it's been argued as above that they should be weighting swing states more instead while we might be seeing the first contested convention under the modern primary system soon in which case maybe it could have an effect, historically the exact delegate counts haven't mattered at all since the early states on the primary calendar tend to crown a presumptive nominee well before most delegates have been allocated
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 19:04
|
|
|
oystertoadfish posted:right now they weight by population primarily but i know the gop at least gives extra delegates to more Republican states and it's been argued as above that they should be weighting swing states more instead How would they measure swinginess though?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:10
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:How would they measure swinginess though? You could look at the last 5 elections or something for closeness, or deviation from the national average, and weight the more recent ones ahead of the older ones. I'm not even arguing this would make sense, or be the parties' benefits, historically. It seems like something that is more useful in the current where the electoral map hasn't significantly changed in 20 years. If we ever get back to an America where 49 state landslides are possible, then let South Carolina have their say.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 20:36
|
|
|
Everyone should just run in the general it would make things so much more fun.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 21:14
|
|
|
Reason posted:Everyone should just run in the general it would make things so much more fun. What about a national jungle primary?
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 22:36
|
|
|
MaxxBot posted:It would give the monied interests a complete and total strangehold over our political system, I mean they basically already do but it would make the problem even worse, so no. I bet voter turnout would go way down as well as both parties would prop up boring, soulless corporate whores. Does it though? Right now candidates rely on big donors to help them survive a long slog through a bunch of tiny states nobody cares about. It's at least as much of a "can you get rich people to give you money" test as it is a "can you get American citizens to vote for you" test. Back in the day you had prove to the party bigwigs that you could line up real support.
|
|
#
?
Feb 18, 2016 23:10
|
|
|
can we instead of 4 years or primarying between pres elections
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:39
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:The Democrats, while not as grievously savaged by insane radicals, Hahahahahaha
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 00:47
|
|
|
Farmer Crack-rear end posted:The Democrats, while not as grievously savaged by insane radicals, would probably also appreciate the value of being able to exclude any upstarts who weren't even a party member prior to the election. Sanders represents a dangerous distraction to some in the Democratic party. I really want to be part of the death squads when Bernie wins. 
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 02:23
|
|
|
Sebadoh Gigante posted:What about a national jungle primary? i discussed this idea and derivatives thereof in a gigantic boring wall of text further up the thread
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 07:09
|
|
|
I feel like if we're going to have a 'jungle' primary it should be full-blown physical combat. I don't fancy Bernie's chances in something like that but it would be worth it to see Hillary choke out Trump.
|
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 08:11
|
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:I feel like if we're going to have a 'jungle' primary it should be full-blown physical combat. I don't fancy Bernie's chances in something like that but it would be worth it to see Hillary choke out Trump. I feel that Trump would have an early advantage over Hillary due to his size and strength, but he would be undone when he failed to choke her out due to his stubby fingers
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 08:25
|
|
|
Instead of having a bunch of primaries on different days and assigning delegates, why not just have one national primary and base it on the percentage of the vote? If you have less than 50% of the total vote, you have to get other candidates to endorse you which gives their percentages to your total until you pass the threshold. So if Shillary and Bernie each got 45 and O Malley got 10 they'd either need to join forces or win over O malley to their side by offering baubles and concessions.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 08:59
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 18:39 |
|
|
Ignatius M. Meen posted:I feel like if we're going to have a 'jungle' primary it should be full-blown physical combat. I don't fancy Bernie's chances in something like that but it would be worth it to see Hillary choke out Trump. Jim Webb would un-suspend his campaign and come to rule us all
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 09:16
|
|