If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NPR)   Iowa Republicans: OK, you know, maybe Santorum didn't win after all. Fark it, stop asking us, there's still another 47 states to go WE DON'T NEED THIS PRESSURE. Oh, dibs on being first in the nation next time, too   (npr.org) divider line 51
    More: Followup, Iowa Republicans, Rick Santorum, Iowa, 47th state, electoral colleges, elections, Florida Supreme Court  
•       •       •

1495 clicks; posted to Politics » on 20 Jan 2012 at 9:01 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



51 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all
 
2012-01-20 08:54:37 AM  
Go hang that dude, Chad, that was counting the votes, and we will think about it.

You pucker mouthed Lutherens.
 
2012-01-20 08:55:48 AM  
It's all about the money
 
2012-01-20 08:56:03 AM  
You know Republicans, maybe you guys should work on that whole "counting votes" thing before you all go screaming about voter fraud and whatnot.
 
2012-01-20 09:00:24 AM  
Wasn't GWB the Edjamikashun President?
 
2012-01-20 09:03:28 AM  
Yeah, let some other state go first next time. These guys can't be bothered to count.
 
2012-01-20 09:03:36 AM  
If a foreign country's elections were as farked as ours we'd be sending in Jimmy Carter with his caned-and-monocled shock troops to fix things.
 
2012-01-20 09:04:09 AM  
If Iowa didn't come first, nobody would care about anything that happens in that State, and they know it.
 
2012-01-20 09:07:33 AM  
Correction: 57 more states
 
2012-01-20 09:09:44 AM  
What a shiat show.
 
2012-01-20 09:12:52 AM  
I can't remember where I heard this (Nate Silver's Twitter?), but someone had the idea that the order of the primaries should be determined by percentage of registered voters voting in the previous national election.
 
2012-01-20 09:16:00 AM  
Iowa GOP just doesn't want to admit that Santorum topped Romney. Whether because that sounds disgusting or because Romney is the insider candidate, I can't say.
 
2012-01-20 09:19:47 AM  

JerseyTim: I can't remember where I heard this (Nate Silver's Twitter?), but someone had the idea that the order of the primaries should be determined by percentage of registered voters voting in the previous national election.


If I were the Republicans I wouldn't let any state that nominated a losing Presidential candidate in the prior cycle go first. They obviously pick losers.
 
2012-01-20 09:19:58 AM  
What are they, Florida now?
 
2012-01-20 09:21:36 AM  
Flyover state
 
2012-01-20 09:21:43 AM  
Why don't we have a random drawing on which states hold their primary when. I'm tired of this BS and states like PA are always one of the last. I haven't voted in a primary that mattered in years, (even 2008 it was really already over for Hillary, She just didn't know it yet)
 
2012-01-20 09:23:57 AM  
For Christ's sake, 'merikuh! Have your fingers gotten so fat that you can't even use them to count anymore?
Outsource your math to an Asian nation like the rest of your work!

/Maybe racist? I don't know. Hey, it's Friday!
 
2012-01-20 09:26:49 AM  
Ron Paul was winning so we had to lose a few thousand votes...
 
2012-01-20 09:26:50 AM  
Remember, we're counting on a subset of a subset in a lightly-populated state with an agrarian economy primary based on hybrid corn to pick a presidential candidate who best embodies the idea of "science bad! Moar Bibleing!"

It would be a bigger story if, at the end of the day, their pants were UNshat.
 
2012-01-20 09:32:46 AM  
We have 50 states. Why not pick 5 groups of 10 states such that each of the groups has both big states and small states, Reds and Blues, city mice and country mice, instead of doing one here, one there, a bunch on Super Tuesday, usually we have nominees about here, but we'll go on with more primaries here, some more there, the other party's primary from that earlier state here, some more there...

How many nominations have been decided by time South Carolina has a chance? It's usually dead by Super Tuesday, and sometimes well before.

// and god help you if you live in MD or HI or PR
// even in '08 it was pretty well decided by time the Old Liners got a say
 
2012-01-20 09:50:51 AM  

DjangoStonereaver: Wasn't GWB the Edjamikashun President?


www.manhattanstyle.com
 
2012-01-20 09:51:03 AM  

Astralwand: Why don't we have a random drawing on which states hold their primary when. I'm tired of this BS and states like PA are always one of the last. I haven't voted in a primary that mattered in years, (even 2008 it was really already over for Hillary, She just didn't know it yet)


The best idea I've ever heard is to have four early states, followed by four regional primaries (Northeast, Southeast, Midwest, West), separated by about a month each. Have the four early states be one from each region and then rotate the order of the regions every four years. The four regional primaries would make it easier to campaign in blocks, and would also diminish the importance of being the winner of the early states. Still, the early states should be a bellwether, and allow candidates a chance to get their name out without having to raise crazy amounts of money up front.
 
2012-01-20 09:57:42 AM  
First in the nation, massive media coverage, and they "lost votes". Nice. Good system.
 
2012-01-20 09:59:34 AM  
This is normal. They rarely actually bother to count the votes for most Presidential contests. They simply estimate it based on demographics and traditional probabilities. Your vote literally doesn't count, particularly if you vote counter to the normal demographic trends.
 
2012-01-20 10:02:48 AM  

Lost Thought 00: Your vote literally doesn't count, particularly if you vote counter to the normal demographic trends.


No shiat. I would put it around 80% that any individual vote actually gets counted in the election. We certainly put a lot of faith in a backwards, antiquated system that neither side has any interest in seeing work to perfection.
 
2012-01-20 10:06:13 AM  

JerseyTim: I can't remember where I heard this (Nate Silver's Twitter?), but someone had the idea that the order of the primaries should be determined by percentage of registered voters voting in the previous national election.


The idea of a caucus/primary in these tiny sh*t states is to give them some influence and a voice in the primaries, where they would otherwise be drowned out. I don't have a problem with that per se, but I don't see why they don't rotate amongst a varying selection of small states year to year.

NH such a big deal? Why not Vermont next time? And North Carolina instead of South? Start with Arkansas or Kansas instead of Iowa... you'll end up with the same result at the end...
 
2012-01-20 10:09:35 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: If a foreign country's elections were as farked as ours we'd be sending in Jimmy Carter with his caned-and-monocled shock troops to fix things.


Iowa isn't a country. Its a state. And in this country elections are left up to the individual states. Some do it incredibly well (like Minnesota). Some fark it up every single time (see Florida). And this isn't even a real election. Its a caucus. A bunch of people showing up in overalls writing names on a piece of paper and having coffee.
 
2012-01-20 10:15:55 AM  

Mr. Coffee Nerves: If a foreign country's elections were as farked as ours we'd be sending in Jimmy Carter with his caned-and-monocled shock troops to fix things.


Indo-Pak Kashmir has less eventful elections than your primaries do.
 
2012-01-20 10:27:25 AM  
reminds me of the driver who changes lanes at the red light so there's no one in front of him. and then drives slow when the light changes.
 
2012-01-20 10:29:13 AM  
why dont they give some else a shot at it?
 
2012-01-20 10:29:38 AM  
Democracy run by morons,
 
2012-01-20 10:31:07 AM  
We could just have all of the primaries on the same day, but then we'd miss out on months of advertising revenue media coverage and thoughtful political analysis.
 
2012-01-20 10:31:37 AM  
I've lived in Iowa my whole life, and let me say that we're not all conservative retards. Most of the western half of the state is retarded, however.

This whole "Who won?" thing is basically the Evangelical Hypocrite Republican Idiots vs. the Corporate Shill Republican Idiots. Fark 'em both.
 
2012-01-20 10:32:17 AM  

BalugaJoe: DjangoStonereaver: Wasn't GWB the Edjamikashun President?

[www.manhattanstyle.com image 459x300]


That bridge wouldn't be for sale would it?
 
2012-01-20 10:59:21 AM  
How about we quit having primaries completely, let anyone run who can get on the ballot in that state, and use instant runoff elections. Just let them all run.
 
2012-01-20 10:59:25 AM  
I'd say Iowa should be more concerned that they are becoming increasingly irrelevent to the GOP nomination. Their recent history of selecting someone who ISN'T the eventual nominee will lead to the GOP choosing a different state to go first.

In the bigger scheme the disproportionate impact evangelicals have in the Iowa caucus which leads to unelectable candidates is similar to what's happening on a national scale and this is what should really be worrying the GOP. The sooner they wean the party away from wedge issues like gay rights, abortion and other secular beliefs the sooner they can actually present reasonable candidates instead of being stuck with the McCains, Huckabees, Santorums, Bachmanns, and Romneys.
 
2012-01-20 11:03:41 AM  
I thought it was a pretty good point: Iowa constantly touts reasons x, y and z why it's their god-given-right to be first, but if they cannot even count votes properly...
 
2012-01-20 11:08:07 AM  
Ye gods, our election system is stupid and corrupt.

Here's a better idea: get rid of primaries/caucuses outright. Put the top 5 signature getters on a special petition on the ballot. No mention of who is in what party on any ballot. Public funding of all elections. Every voting machine has to have a paper backup for manual recounts.
 
2012-01-20 11:08:48 AM  

PlatinumDragon: First in the nation, massive media coverage, and they "lost votes". Nice. Good system.


Hey, Fark called it when they announced they were moving the vote counting to an "undisclosed location"
 
2012-01-20 11:10:16 AM  
Every state that botches an election should be forced to sit the next one out.
 
2012-01-20 11:12:19 AM  
My plan for a national popular vote primary:

Divide the country into 5 regions.

Region 1 holds its primary on the first week of Jan. Region 2 one and half months later. Region 3 one month later. Region 4 three weeks later. Region 5 two weeks later. Each cycle rotate which region gets to go first.

Delegates are awarded based on popular vote of each region.

Advantages of my system:
-After first vote plenty of time is given for poor performing candidates to regroup. Avoids "snow ball" effect.
-By having states vote in groups ensures primary platforms are diverse and more representative of the general election (having Iowa go first results in months and months of talk about farm subsidies, for example).
-Process accelerates at the end to squeeze poor performing candidates out.
-Everyone gets a turn at being first.
 
2012-01-20 11:16:31 AM  

thornhill: My plan for a national popular vote primary.....


I propose a simpler system that is not only fair, but helps reduce the deficit.

Each candidate shall submit a sealed bid for the chance at the nomination.
Highest bidder wins.
Money goes to the treasury general fund.

It's really not that different from what we have now, just more efficient.
 
2012-01-20 11:24:12 AM  

GoHomeAndGetYourShinebox: Correction: 57 more states


Apparently Antartica is now a state (google it).
 
2012-01-20 11:32:22 AM  
This is the party that wants to put MORE red tape between you and the voting booth.
 
2012-01-20 11:34:09 AM  
She should have went to Drudge? I am confused here.
 
2012-01-20 11:34:59 AM  
Dammit wrong thread!
 
2012-01-20 11:39:48 AM  

JerseyTim: I can't remember where I heard this (Nate Silver's Twitter?), but someone had the idea that the order of the primaries should be determined by percentage of registered voters voting in the previous national election.


I like this a lot.
 
2012-01-20 12:22:37 PM  

PlatinumDragon: First in the nation, massive media coverage, bullying those who support 'weaker' candidates, and they "lost votes". Nice. Good system.


added for truth
 
2012-01-20 01:02:24 PM  
Even after they both lose in the general, this will still be an issue.
 
2012-01-20 01:18:53 PM  

bravian: Mr. Coffee Nerves: If a foreign country's elections were as farked as ours we'd be sending in Jimmy Carter with his caned-and-monocled shock troops to fix things.

Iowa isn't a country. Its a state. And in this country elections are left up to the individual states. Some do it incredibly well (like Minnesota). Some fark it up every single time (see Florida). And this isn't even a real election. Its a caucus. A bunch of people showing up in overalls writing names on a piece of paper and having coffee.


And, on top of that, the parties still aren't bound by the results or necessarily use them to determine who their nominee is. For example, the Democrats have enough "superdelegates" (who are unelected to said position) to comprise about 25% of their total votes.
 
2012-01-20 05:13:20 PM  

JerseyTim: I can't remember where I heard this (Nate Silver's Twitter?), but someone had the idea that the order of the primaries should be determined by percentage of registered voters voting in the previous national election.


Just stop this shiat. New law: The candidates say what they have to say, they run their hundred or so debates, and then all the states have their primaries and cauci or whatever at the same goddamn time.
 
Displayed 50 of 51 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report