Super Tuesday

[MrPsychic 1]

Today is the so called "Super Tuesday" when 24 states and protectorates vote in the primary for Democrats and Republicans for the Presidential election later this year.

 

You can check on the results at this site: http://www.cnn.com/ELECTION/2008/primaries...ults/scorecard/

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I'm really finding this election year depressing - almost as much as the 2000 primary season. I've been disappoined for nearly eight years - what's another four.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

You know what really sucks? Someone who isn't even running any more did better than the person I voted for.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

You know what really sucks? Someone who isn't even running any more did better than the person I voted for.

 

Based on California results I guess we know who you voted for. You could start a national campaign for everyone who is unhappy with the two party nominees to settle on a specific write-in in the general election.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

It won't happen.

 

First of all, any effort to find a common candidate those not favoring the eventual primary winners will agree on will fail. Just because someone doesn't agree with their party's choice or even their general platform does not mean they they don't have strong ideologies of their own.

 

Second, I'm still not convinced that a two-party system is so bad. It is better than one, and it does allow for a pooling of support towards a candidate I might not agree 100% on but is close enough to not be an abomination. As it happened my first choice was a longshot by his own admittance (although he did survive longer than some party loyalists) but the person now ahead is someone I can live with.

 

Look at the 3rd parties we have now. Yes they are small and ineffective but at least they have an ideological consistency (even more than Democrats and Republicans). A group that forms around just not liking the major parties will, at most, create some noise in a single election and then will splinter and become ineffective. That is exactly what happened to the Reform Party.

Edited February 6, 2008 by Lt. Van Roy

[Theunicornhunter 2]

Yes, but the parties aren't really interested in my vote so I'm not sure why I should vote for them. I don't like the fact that you have to belong to a party to vote in the primaries - I've lived in some states where you could vote either one or the other but here in Florida you must belong to a specific party - the same is true in CA I believe.

I also really have issues with the winner take all scenario because it gives an unfair advantage to a candidate. If candidates earned proportional delegates we'd have a different front runner in the Republican party and I'm not sure about the Democratic race. I feel the Republican party invalidated my vote so I have no sense of loyalty to them whatsoever.

 

 

So since I don't like either candidate and neither of them are interested in my vote as an independent/moderate - why should I vote for one of them?

 

And yes, the current parties have a stranglehold on the system - but they aren't the two original parties we started out with and change can happen - it would take a lot of determination but it's possible. Paul might have what it takes because more than other candidates he seems to have a strong internet connection and if there is ever going to be anything close to a concensus - it would probably have to be achieved via the internet.

[He Who Shall Not Be Named 2]

Yes, but the parties aren't really interested in my vote so I'm not sure why I should vote for them. I don't like the fact that you have to belong to a party to vote in the primaries - I've lived in some states where you could vote either one or the other but here in Florida you must belong to a specific party - the same is true in CA I believe.

 

Yes and no. The Democrats allow anyone to vote in their primary. The Republicans allow only registered Republicans but you can change your party the day of the election (provided you were already registered to vote).

 

 

I also really have issues with the winner take all scenario because it gives an unfair advantage to a candidate. If candidates earned proportional delegates we'd have a different front runner in the Republican party and I'm not sure about the Democratic race.

 

Don't all elections end up as winner-take-all anyway? Was Bush President 52% of the time and Kerry 48% of the time or whatever the final figures were? I'm confused when you say winner-take-all in the primaries gives a candidate an advantage. The idea behind winner-take-all primaries is to give the *states* an advantage. Otherwise candidates could campaign in 9 or 10 big cities and ignore the rest of the country. Since candidates have to take states in their entirety it forces candidates to pay attention to state issues.

 

And yes, the current parties have a stranglehold on the system - but they aren't the two original parties we started out with and change can happen - it would take a lot of determination but it's possible. Paul might have what it takes because more than other candidates he seems to have a strong internet connection and if there is ever going to be anything close to a concensus - it would probably have to be achieved via the internet.

True, but I think it would happen over the internet because that is the most prevalent medium today. 20 years ago it would have happened via newspaper editorials and op-ed pages. I don't think there is anything inherent a bout the internet per se that would drive it.

[Theunicornhunter 2]

I don't think there is anything inherent a bout the internet per se that would drive it.

The internet gives people all over the country the opportunity to communicate with each other - even people in tiny little rural towns in the middle of nowhere. You may subscribe to a national newspaper and get national news - you may even occasionally get a letter to the editor published; people with money can buy adds (tv or newspaper) - but the internet gives the common masses a voice more than any other medium.

 

I'm confused when you say winner-take-all in the primaries gives a candidate an advantage

 

Example

Candidates A, B, C, D States X, Y, Z all 100 delegates

X A 35%, B 34%, C 20% D 11%

Y A 32 % B 35% C 24% D 13%

Z A 20% B 30% C 35% D 15%

 

Under winner takes all, you have three different "winners"

Under proportional - B has more total votes - representing an appeal to more people even if not winning each state.