It's how the Democratic party became the Democrat party.

TheConvincingSavant: It's how the Democratic party became the Democrat party.

Yeah, the GOP's "winner take all" is clearly the more democratic approach.

I don't recall mentioning the GOP, but if you like, I don't think they're any better.

So, we're asking to bring in the U.N. monitors over there in Russia, right?

The Democrats do cater to the third world demographic...

Cleaver swore to support Billary a long time ago and is sticking to his word.

He also has a hard time paying property tax.

If a country is "first-world", then they could select their leaders via baby-eating contest with a rape-off for a tie-breaker and the UN would do nothing at all about it.

Kind of arbitrary, but there it is.

Same coin, different sides.

/I voted for Kodos.

I often find myself thinking that 'Western democracies' are actually the most corrupt, but we are just too unwilling/afraid/arrogant to believe it.

No, Emanuel. I don't think so.

/fail

THIS IS THE PRIMARIES, people. Not the general election. Political parties can set up the rules however they like, and if those rules turn out to suck, the MEMBERS of the parties can change them.

Every time someone doesn't like the way the game plays out, they complain about the rules of the game. Never mind that they KNEW the rules going in, and decided they would play anyhow becuase they thought they could win.

Can't please everybody, especially those who support the losing candidate.

So says a Congressman unwavering in his support of Hillary, despite the fact that his district overwhelmingly voted Obama.

TheConvincingSavant: I don't recall mentioning the GOP, but if you like, I don't think they're any better.

Oh? That must have been your wife in all those other threads then..

The Numbers: I often find myself thinking that 'Western democracies' are actually the most corrupt, but we are just too unwilling/afraid/arrogant to believe it.

Or it's too obvious to mention it.

Krymore: TheConvincingSavant: I don't recall mentioning the GOP, but if you like, I don't think they're any better.

Oh? That must have been your wife in all those other threads then..

ZING! 1.2.3.4 I love the Marine Core!

My big idea for streamlining the nomination process:

1) No superdelegates! (Or at least half the current number; just trying to be realistic here.)

2) No caucuses! None!

3) Three "Uber-Tuesdays", one in mid-February, one in late March, one in early May, 6 weeks apart. For each of the three groups of states, the total potential delegate count would work out to be as similar as possible. And here's the kicker: The order of the state groups would ROTATE from election year to election year! What a concept!

4) Convention in mid-June, not the dog-ass-days of August!

I'd like to hear reasons as to why these changes wouldn't be wise or fair or good. Any takers? (I realize on fark this statement is equivalent to "hi, please kick me in the nuts", but I'll take my chances.)

TheConvincingSavant: It's how the Democratic party became the Democrat party.

In the 21st Century, it's logical to call the Republican Party the "Republic Party."

Sounds stupid, non?

we'd ask them to bring in the U.N. monitors."

what, to write angry letters at us?

mercator_psi: My big idea for streamlining the nomination process:

1) No superdelegates! (Or at least half the current number; just trying to be realistic here.)

2) No caucuses! None!

3) Three "Uber-Tuesdays", one in mid-February, one in late March, one in early May, 6 weeks apart. For each of the three groups of states, the total potential delegate count would work out to be as similar as possible. And here's the kicker: The order of the state groups would ROTATE from election year to election year! What a concept!

4) Convention in mid-June, not the dog-ass-days of August!

I'd like to hear reasons as to why these changes wouldn't be wise or fair or good. Any takers? (I realize on fark this statement is equivalent to "hi, please kick me in the nuts", but I'll take my chances.)

#3 sounds good

TheConvincingSavant: I don't recall mentioning the GOP, but if you like, I don't think they're any better.

FarkingSean: THIS IS THE PRIMARIES, people. Not the general election. Political parties can set up the rules however they like, and if those rules turn out to suck, the MEMBERS of the parties can change them.

Every time someone doesn't like the way the game plays out, they complain about the rules of the game. Never mind that they KNEW the rules going in, and decided they would play anyhow becuase they thought they could win.

Exactly. Political parties are organizations that can choose however they want to vote. If the Democratic Party wanted to choose their candidate by throwing a dart at a dartboard or the Republicans decide via a cage match, it doesn't affect whether or not the actual United States general election is constitutional.

You can argue that this limits the voters choices, since the Democrats and Republicans are vastly dominant over the other parties. However, voters are allowed to write in other candidates, and nothing in the U.S. Constitution mandates a Democrat or Republican party.

If you think that your favorite FARKer would make a better president, start raising awareness and money. Get people to write in on the ballot. Make that Farker into a viable candidate. It will be frikkin' hard to bring in any 3rd party candidate, so good luck.

mercator_psi: My big idea for streamlining the nomination process:

No caucuses! None!



I don't think caucuses are that bad actually. It helps to ensure that the people who vote are serious about their politics, not just crossover voters aimed at messing with the other race. It also limits the impact of moron-voters who make their choice based on nonsense issues because they can't be bothered to spend time researching candidates.

mercator_psi:
3) Three "Uber-Tuesdays", one in mid-February, one in late March, one in early May, 6 weeks apart. For each of the three groups of states, the total potential delegate count would work out to be as similar as possible. And here's the kicker: The order of the state groups would ROTATE from election year to election year! What a concept!


Logically good. Realistically bad. Getting away from "retail" politics (particularly Iowa and New Hampshire) would shift the process toward media buys. This plan would have, in my opinion, clearly resulted in a Hillary Clinton versus Rudi Giuliani election this year. Rudi would have won handily. Since I'd rather have any of the current three bozos in office than Rudi, I can't abide by the change.

Serious question:

In this country, why don't we let everyone from every state vote on the same day, then add up all of the ballots and see who got the most votes, then declare that person the winner?

Lawnchair: Since I'd rather have any of the current three bozos in office than Rudi, I can't abide by the change.

The dude abides?

Paul Cinsus: mercator_psi: My big idea for streamlining the nomination process:

1) No superdelegates! (Or at least half the current number; just trying to be realistic here.)

2) No caucuses! None!

3) Three "Uber-Tuesdays", one in mid-February, one in late March, one in early May, 6 weeks apart. For each of the three groups of states, the total potential delegate count would work out to be as similar as possible. And here's the kicker: The order of the state groups would ROTATE from election year to election year! What a concept!

4) Convention in mid-June, not the dog-ass-days of August!

I'd like to hear reasons as to why these changes wouldn't be wise or fair or good. Any takers? (I realize on fark this statement is equivalent to "hi, please kick me in the nuts", but I'll take my chances.)

#3 sounds good

I like idea of rotating the states, but having them condensed into just three election days - not so sure. As a candidate, getting your message out would be a nightmare - too much could depend on controlling the media cycles around election time which would increase the prominence of '3am' style fearmongering ads. Plus I think campaigning would focus almost entirely on the 'big' states, diminishing the importance of others.

I like where Mercator's ideas are going though. Condensing the race more and rotating the states so there aren't shenanigans over dates both seem like winners to me.

The Numbers: I don't think caucuses are that bad actually. It helps to ensure that the people who vote are serious about their politics, not just crossover voters aimed at messing with the other race. It also limits the impact of moron-voters who make their choice based on nonsense issues because they can't be bothered to spend time researching candidates.

Good point, but if someone were to employ shenanigans, it would be easier to subvert a caucus than a primary due to the sheer size difference. I suppose this explains why caucuses still exist.

Lawnchair: Logically good. Realistically bad. Getting away from "retail" politics (particularly Iowa and New Hampshire) would shift the process toward media buys. This plan would have, in my opinion, clearly resulted in a Hillary Clinton versus Rudi Giuliani election this year. Rudi would have won handily. Since I'd rather have any of the current three bozos in office than Rudi, I can't abide by the change.

Okay, also a good point. Maybe keep a few "early-warner" states for January then? Still, it would be nice if they rotated. IA and NH surely must be sick of this crap.

Seeing as he's a congressman from Kansas City, I could totally see sending the UN to his home district to monitor the corruption there and make sure there's enough of it.

Mercator

I think you still need Iowa/NH warmups. Unless you want only the most well-funded candidates to be viable.

mercator_psi: Okay, also a good point. Maybe keep a few "early-warner" states for January then? Still, it would be nice if they rotated. IA and NH surely must be sick of this crap.

Are you kidding? Those farkers love the attention they get every four years.

Lionel Mandrake: Yeah, the GOP's "winner take all" is clearly the more democratic approach.

You do realize the general election is "winner take all".... right?

GoldSpider: Lionel Mandrake: Yeah, the GOP's "winner take all" is clearly the more democratic approach.

You do realize the general election is "winner take all".... right?

Winner take all, whilst by no means perfect, works better in a two-horse race like the general than it does in a multi-candidate race like the nomination processes.

Lionel Mandrake don't let the truth get in the way of a perfectly good "but..but..Republicans!" session.

/typical sheepish Farker

How's this idea? For 50 consecutive (work)days, each state holds their primary in turn, by ascending order of their respective electors.

The Numbers: Winner take all, whilst by no means perfect, works better in a two-horse race like the general than it does in a multi-candidate race like the nomination processes.

Fair enough, but let's pick ONE system. I'm all about states' rights and all, but there's no reason for such an inconsistent and complicated nomination system.

Funny how our elected officials complain about the election process and yet, do nothing about it.

Imagine if an African nation had an election in which the son of a former Prime Minister won an election after sympathetic parties in the judicial system ordered that the counting of votes be halted in a province headed by another son of the former Prime Minister.

Stopheles: Imagine if an African nation had an election in which the son of a former Prime Minister won an election after sympathetic parties in the judicial system ordered that the counting of votes be halted in a province headed by another son of the former Prime Minister.

Are you people still around?? Jesus H. Christ on a pogo-stick!

It's a joke! Haha! I just got it.

"We are all in the same boat. Surely we try to push eachother over the side, but only a madman would make a hole in the bottom."
-- Terry Pratchett

ClayParrot:

So why is it that Americans think they set an example for "democracy" worldwide?

TheConvincingSavant: I don't recall mentioning the GOP

Maybe your wife did.