|
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
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Unironically, absolutely, and immediately: yes. Ditch first-past-the-post and implement any other voting system. Approval voting, preferential voting, anything, and "splitting the vote" becomes impossible, and primaries become irrelevant. Sanders AND Clinton AND O'Malley AND Trump and Scott Walker and Rick Scott and Rick Perry and Rick Snyder can all just run for president in November. Parties can still do whatever winnowing they like, however they like, and voters can vote for hopeless third parties without wasting their votes. To me, this is THE MOST important political change that the US needs to make, more important than (also incredibly important) campaign finance reform or de-gerrymandering, and it has the easiest clearest solution as well.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 14:37
|
|
|
Ralp posted:Unironically, absolutely, and immediately: yes. Ditch first-past-the-post and implement any other voting system. god bless
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
AKA Pseudonym posted: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. They rely on big donors but they can also rely on small donors and self-funding as well, as we have seen this cycle. Mainly I dislike the idea of parties deciding because they demand strict ideological conformity from their candidates and the state of the party platforms in both parties means that many political positions just wouldn't be represented by the candidates from either political party. Both parties are generally pretty pro-war, pro-Israel, pro-wall street, pro-free trade, pro-"tough on crime", and pro-surveillance. If you oppose any of that stuff you're basically SOL as far as presidential candidates go if outsiders like Trump and Sanders can be shut out by the party bosses.
|
|
#
?
Feb 19, 2016 20:46
|
|
|
Lol America would never be cotton to installing a parliament. Maybe if we convince people it's based of the Knesset instead
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 00:49
|
|
|
It took Tammany Hall to get people to support STV and then almost as soon as it was implemented the reformists who campaigned on it in the first place turned against it because those rotten blacks and commies started getting seats too. Short of a serious die-off or sea change in American psychology FPTP isn't actually going anywhere. I'd still vote in favor of that or really anything but it's that loathing of the intolerable other having even the tiniest say that will make it impossible to pass or survive for more than a honeymoon.
Ignatius M. Meen has issued a correction as of 01:21 on Feb 21, 2016 |
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 01:18
|
|
|
The only downside to the primary system, is that it eventually comes to an end. Every year needs to be a campaign year. The pamphlets need to block out the sun, the air must be filled with the chorus of landline polling. Welcome to hell.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 02:50
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 6, 2024 20:26 |
|
|
Why not do all voting.........at the same time?? It works in Sweden, also get a less rear end backwards voting system overall with the registration crap, etc.
|
|
#
?
Feb 21, 2016 03:28
|
|
