Jason Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SaysWho? Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 "Except in the unlikely event of a contested convention" seems like a pretty good compromise considering its rarity. This is a good move. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Spawn_of_Apathy Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 @RedSoxFan9 had a better thread title for this. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Massdriver Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 They should be doing the opposite. Voters should have little to no say in the party's nominee. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RedSoxFan9 Posted August 25, 2018 Share Posted August 25, 2018 peak neoliberalism Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
outsida Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 1 hour ago, Massdriver said: They should be doing the opposite. Voters should have little to no say in the party's nominee. Caucuses should be eliminated. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
SuperSpreader Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 with this move: Announcing, candidate Corey Booker!!!! if they don't do it: Announcing, candidate Corey Booker!!! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 I don't give a shit about the continued digs at Bernie, but this is interesting perspective Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
CitizenVectron Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 17 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I don't give a shit about the continued digs at Bernie, but this is interesting perspective If you're going to let the nominee be chosen by party members, then a straight-up popular vote is the way to go. Just do it all at once nation-wide following an inner-party campaign. I think that that is a mistake (allowing people to choose their leader willy-nilly), but if you're going to allow it then that is what should be done, not this nonsense of stretching it out over months and giving more weight to small states. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted August 26, 2018 Author Share Posted August 26, 2018 1 minute ago, CitizenVectron said: If you're going to let the nominee be chosen by party members, then a straight-up popular vote is the way to go. Just do it all at once nation-wide following an inner-party campaign. I think that that is a mistake (allowing people to choose their leader willy-nilly), but if you're going to allow it then that is what should be done, not this nonsense of stretching it out over months and giving more weight to small states. I do think there's something to be said for letting the initial contests being in a few small states with relatively cheap media markets. But it definitely shouldn't be strung out over months, Iowa/NH/Ohio should go and then the rest of the country should go. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 Given the disproportionate strength smaller States have in our presidential election process, there is zero reason to not give them a disproportionate influence in electing the presidential candidate. Until our system changes, you need to work the system and not just wish for an ideal. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted August 26, 2018 Author Share Posted August 26, 2018 7 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: Given the disproportionate strength smaller States have in our presidential election process Largely because of letting them go early in the primary process and then incessantly talk about the "momentum" those states give candidats. If we had a euro-style of no campaigning at all until 30 days before the election is called and then everyone goes at once, they would not get nearly the outsized weight the currently do. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 57 minutes ago, Jason said: Largely because of letting them go early in the primary process and then incessantly talk about the "momentum" those states give candidats. If we had a euro-style of no campaigning at all until 30 days before the election is called and then everyone goes at once, they would not get nearly the outsized weight the currently do. I was talking in the general election tho. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted August 26, 2018 Author Share Posted August 26, 2018 Just now, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I was talking in the general election tho. That's more about the cap on the number of Representatives though. The Senate will always be a sort of de facto gerrymander until we totally overhaul it, but simply increasing the number of Reps would do a lot to get rid of the distorting effect that has on turnout. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
b_m_b_m_b_m Posted August 26, 2018 Share Posted August 26, 2018 12 minutes ago, Jason said: That's more about the cap on the number of Representatives though. The Senate will always be a sort of de facto gerrymander until we totally overhaul it, but simply increasing the number of Reps would do a lot to get rid of the distorting effect that has on turnout. I've been preaching this for years. I fully agree. The Senate needs reduced powers, and more given to the house. Same for the president vis a vi the house. That said, until you can change the system, game the system. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Jason Posted August 26, 2018 Author Share Posted August 26, 2018 3 minutes ago, b_m_b_m_b_m said: I've been preaching this for years. I fully agree. The Senate needs reduced powers, and more given to the house. Same for the president vis a vi the house. That said, until you can change the system, game the system. I can't really say I think I know what specifically needed to be changed to make it work, but it sure does seem like the 17th Amendment changing the Senate to popular state-by-state vote without changing anything else about the Senate really broke the Senate. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.