Interesting who wrote it, but his conclusion is completely wrong.

As long as primaries are on different days, the earlier states will have more importance. The only solution is primaries all on one day.

And, while we're at it, kill the electoral vote. It's a process firmly rooted in the past, and not necessary any more. It gives unequal weight to each voters voice, for one. (I'm a Californian. If I'd ever vote, it wouldn't really matter)

Somebody remind me why the electoral vote is a good idea in this day and age?

groby: Somebody remind me why the electoral vote is a good idea in this day and age?

There is the small matter of the Constitution.

The electoral vote was initially supposed to be a bunch of learned men who would cast the true votes for the president since the general population was too ignorant to know any better.

I still think that the general population is too stupid to choose the most powerful man in the world. Just look at the last few decades.

Ecch; Karl Rove.

I expected to next see him writing for Bestiality-Bondage Monthly.

submitter: written by the last person you expected to write an insightful op-ed

Dubya?

*looks at tfa*

wasn't far wrong.

clear_prop: Interesting who wrote it, but his conclusion is completely wrong.

As long as primaries are on different days, the earlier states will have more importance. The only solution is primaries all on one day.

This. THIS. THIS. THIS.

THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS

/this

helchose: clear_prop: Interesting who wrote it, but his conclusion is completely wrong.

As long as primaries are on different days, the earlier states will have more importance. The only solution is primaries all on one day.

This. THIS. THIS. THIS.

THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS

/this

Why? They should hammer it out tooth and nail until the convention.

It was an incite-full editorial. Sucks to be Hucked, doesn't it Karl?

timoteo2: Why? They should hammer it out tooth and nail until the convention.

Because in the current system, unless your state is one of the first ones, by the time the primary happens in your state, it doesn't matter, or the candidate you wanted to vote for has dropped out already.

The primaries are pretty front loaded this year, so it will be interesting. I predict that by the end of Janaury, most of the candidates that didn't win Iowa/NH/SC will be dropping out. That is even though they might do well enough in the later states to get enough votes. The conventions aren't until August, so we'll have months of the two winning candidates mudsling each other.

well, let's see

electoral college?
we could change the constitution as to HOW we elect a president

primaries?
these are PARTY elections, why do the states or the feds have anything to do with it?
the parties are NOT bound by ANYTHING which happens during these primaries
they can (and have) just ignore them and nominate whomever they wish
(isnt that what the convention is for?)

fine we are having a primary
and the complaints are:
that the voters just dont know enough
dont have enough time
early states/late states
small states/large states

well the systems has been BROKEN for years ...

let's do what some states do, have runoffs
1) all voting takes place on the same day/weekend
(give the people 48 hours to cast their ballot)

2) so for each party - ANYONE can get on the ballot
list them on the ballot in the descending order of number of signatures received

3) have the first "vote" take place in, say march
make it online (libraries for the poor and homeless)

4) have the top 2 to 4 vote getters have a runoff in, say june

tada
solved all the problems
except it would/could never happen because this would remove the control from the "party" hacks and actually give power to the people

solves early vs late issue
sorry, think the large vs small state issue is bullshiat and should be forgotten about

/sigh - america the worst and best democracy

clear_prop: timoteo2: Why? They should hammer it out tooth and nail until the convention.

Because in the current system...

Maybe he meant just get rid of the primaries and let the votes be done at the conventions.

helchose: clear_prop: Interesting who wrote it, but his conclusion is completely wrong.

As long as primaries are on different days, the earlier states will have more importance. The only solution is primaries all on one day.

This. THIS. THIS. THIS.

THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS
THISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHISTHIS

/this

Agreed. Only rich people with universal name recognition should be able to run for President.

/supports President Hilton
//and Vice President Lohan

kermit the frog?

clear_prop: As long as primaries are on different days, the earlier states will have more importance. The only solution is primaries all on one day.

I disagree, With all the primaries on the same day, candidates will turn their attention exclusively to the delegate-rich states like Florida and California and just advertise in the "Who cares?" states like...Iowa and New Hampshire. Having primaries in random states earlier forces them to put in face time in the states they'd never go to, otherwise.

My solution? Have a "round-robin" style rotation of state primaries on different tiers based on the number of delegates with a schedule not released until 18 months before the election.

Why surp[rised?

Nobody accuses Rove of being un-insightful and un-brilliant, just of being evil.

"The first problem is the overall length"

Am I the only one who guessed Romero?

groby:
Somebody remind me why the electoral vote is a good idea in this day and age?

Talked to any voters lately?

RockIsDead: Talked to any voters lately?

They'll get over it.

...written by the last person you expected to write an insightful op-ed

You fail subby. Rove is an evil genius, forming complete sentences is not beyond him. If the reet who's ass he had his hand stuck up for the better part of a decade wrote it (without eating his crayon), then I would be surprised.

FTFA: It's too late to do anything about 2008, but Americans deserve better next time.

Too funny, coming from Rove's mouth.

Farticle: For the first time, some New Year's partygoers will still be nursing hangovers when they caucus.

Did I miss the meaning of "political party"?

ne2d: There is the small matter of the Constitution.

The Constitution can and occasionally should be amended. This is one of those times.

RockIsDead: groby:
Somebody remind me why the electoral vote is a good idea in this day and age?

Talked to any voters lately?

While the electoral college is doing a much better job? And our politicians in general are smart, well-meaning, and of above-average intelligence?

Excuse me while I have a quick laugh.

Plus, we let the same "dumb" voters elect our senate/house. What, it doesn't matter who's in there? (It actually doesn't much, but that's a shortcoming of the two-party system...)

ne2d: groby: Somebody remind me why the electoral vote is a good idea in this day and age?

There is the small matter of the Constitution.

Which has had 27 Amendments (17 in addition to the Bill of Rights), most recently in 1992. OR we could do it the neocon way and just wipe our collective ass with the Constitution... after all, it is just a "goddamn piece of paper"...

How about a system where all the small states go first, say one a week but not have enough delegates to win the nomination. Then all the big states go on the same day.

Just thought of this so it might not be practical, but it seems like it might work. The small states get a say, but the big states make the real decision. Since the big states have most of the population they should have more say in who gets to be the party candidate. Right now the large states son't have much say at all since their primaries are mostly not until the action is over.

Dave The Slushy: ...written by the last person you expected to write an insightful op-ed

You fail subby. Rove is an evil genius, forming complete sentences is not beyond him. If the reet who's ass he had his hand stuck up for the better part of a decade wrote it (without eating his crayon), then I would be surprised.


"Insightful" isn't the same as "able to speak in coherent sentences."

THIS might be why subby was incredulous at Rove's insightfulness in TFA:


Karl Rove: Giant Douchebag (pops)

ROVE: I'm looking at all of these Robert and adding them up. I add up to a Republican Senate and Republican House. You may end up with a different math but you are entitled to YOUR math and I'm entitled to THE math.

SIEGEL: I don't know if we're entitled to a different math but your...

ROVE: I said THE math.

I saved an MP3 of that testy little exchange, hoping it would prove hilarious after Election Day 2006, and it's still funny shiat. He was being such a dick I knew for certain he was acting that way because he knew the Dems would take over Congress.

How about not having states vote by state? And just having each person have a direct vote for whomever they prefer?

/crazy young idealist
//wants to believe he's a realist

It seems like US Presidential elections go on for 2 years and cost billions. By the time you get too election day everyone is so sick of the process that 50% of them stay home.

By the time we are done with the primarys we will hate everyone involved and want new candidates.

ne2d: groby: Somebody remind me why the electoral vote is a good idea in this day and age?

There is the small matter of the Constitution.

I don't think there's a single mention of politcal parties (a la Democrats or Republicans, or even Whigs for that matter) in the Constitution. It *does* say that each state will send delegates to the Electoral College as the States see fit.

The States could chage how they choose their delegation to the Electoral College....but sadly, the party system is so deeply entrenched people can't even imagine how an election might occur without party machines.

I think the whole system is utterly inadequate and shiatty, and crushes individual politcal thought.

kyleaugustus: How about not having states vote by state? And just having each person have a direct vote for whomever they prefer?

I assume you mean let each state have one vote, and you vote to choose who your state votes for?

The problem with that (if that's what you're suggesting) is that it gives an unequal weight to the votes of people from less populous states.

(For an example: let's say we have two theoretical states, one with 9 people and one with 99, and two candidates A & B.

A only needs to influence 5 people in the smaller state to get one vote, but needs to influence 50 in the larger state. So why would they bother campaigning in the more populous state unless they really really needed to, when the return is much better in the smaller state?)

Of all the examples put forward, I like the round-robin one the best, though I am sure there are problems with it as well.

g026r

No, no. I should have said it differently. I meant a popular vote on a national level so that each person anywhere is of equal say. You know, about 1 voice in tens of millions.

kyleaugustus: g026r

No, no. I should have said it differently. I meant a popular vote on a national level so that each person anywhere is of equal say. You know, about 1 voice in tens of millions.

Like a giant mayoral election? Top two vote getters in round one (in April?) go on to the final in November.

kyleaugustus: No, no. I should have said it differently. I meant a popular vote on a national level so that each person anywhere is of equal say. You know, about 1 voice in tens of millions.

Probably has something to do with the US not being a democracy and stuff..

Bonzo_1116

Like a giant mayoral election? Top two vote getters in round one (in April?) go on to the final in November.

No need to have them on different days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting (new window)

One primary, instant runoff.
One general, instant runoff.

Make both days national holidays (do we need Columbus day?) so more people can vote easily.

Manhigh: Bonzo_1116

Like a giant mayoral election? Top two vote getters in round one (in April?) go on to the final in November.

No need to have them on different days.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Instant-runoff_voting (new window)

One primary, instant runoff.
One general, instant runoff.

Make both days national holidays (do we need Columbus day?) so more people can vote easily.

If you ignore the whole party system, and have instant runoff, you can have the whole thing over in one day. No need for primaries.

I favor the rotating regional approach. Divide the country into five regions of 10 states each, give them month-long gaps between (February, March, April, May, June), and rotate the order so everyone goes in every timeslot once every 20 years.

That way, yes, a candidate will focus on the delegate-rich states within that region. For example, a region that looked like this (I have a map but can't be bothered to post it):

North Dakota, South Dakota, Minnesota, Iowa, Wisconsin, Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky

is going to center on Illinois, Michigan and Ohio. Plus you'd have to go to Iowa a few times to apologize to them and beg forgiveness. But there are some overarching issues that concern that whole region, so while the other seven states might not get as much play, they won't be completely ignored because hey, still seven states, most of which still have weight. And if you really have to go to the Dakotas, Mount Rushmore is a hell of a backdrop for a stump speech.

Why our primary schedule is retarded, written by the last person you expected to write an insightful op-ed

It's not by George W. Bush. Sorry! You lose.

Let's see. Karl Rove, the guy who created the early "flip flopper" campaign against John Kerry before the Republican convention, is complaining about the length of campaign.

Karl, please put something in your mouth. You should be in prison. Maybe you could combine both of those.

Should pass a law that states that no presidential candidate (or president) can come from a political party. This way no one can 'win the primary'. If 15 run for president, we get 15 candidates til they either drop out or we go to the polls.

You know who else wrote insightful op-eds?

FTA
The media will be partly to blame. By next spring (at the latest), journalists will have tired of the candidates and their messages and demand they say or do something new, different and controversial, or they will be made to suffer. The result of all this is that we're putting pressure on candidates to act in ways that have nothing to do with how well they will govern. The purpose of a campaign ought to be the opposite.

Holy cow! Karl Rove writing something that not only isn't wildly partisan, but actually makes sense? I'm impressed.

The "Dean Scream" comes to mind here.

This article got me wondering just what it is about this election that has everyone starting 2 years in advance.

I've come to the conclusion that EVERYONE wants Bush out of office NOW. They just don't want to admit it and so start the elections early as wishful thinking.

Anyone agree?

Subby is an idiot who gets a big FAIL. You might disagree with Karl Rove, you might hate his ideas and policies and think he is evil incarnate. But even his worst enemies acknowledge that the man is a political genius. Of course he has insight into the election process and how it could be made fair...he understands it better than anyone reading this farking thread.

I am not a Karl Rove fan. I believe he succeeded in getting an idiot elected. But that says something about him, and I give credit where credit is due.

Let's see what Karl Rove wrote about "then Texas Governor Bush":

For example, then Texas Gov. George W. Bush spoke early in the primary season about rallying the armies of compassion to confront hopelessness of spirit and condition. This wasn't a "base theme." Rather, it was an appeal to all Americans. His primary opponents criticized his focus on compassion. But Mr. Bush rejected any retreat from the theme, an action that served him well in the general election.

That stick-to-it-iveness you have to admire.
Bush stuck to his theme of compassion all the way to the election.

What a model for all candidates.

aharown: Of course he has insight into the election process and how it could be made fair...he understands it better than anyone reading this farking thread.

If you think Karl Rove really wants elections to be 'fair', I have some elevated transportation infrastructure I'd like to sell you.

Compressing the primary schedule has the effect of squeezing out candidates who are building steam and not yet a leading advertising buyer. It promotes big-spending big-government status quo crap for candidates in our political system.

Karl is a smart guy, but the real question would be ... how would his recommendations lead to a permanent Republican majority? That's what he cares about.

/I guessed Bill O'Rly
//Not too far off I suppose