Cochran wins MS GOP primary over Tea Party

[trenchfoot]

n/m

 

[blankslate]

un-off "elections" need to be institutionalized. Instead of voting for one person, voters assign a priory to the entire field of candidates. It keeps cycling through, eliminating one candidate at a time. Your vote counts towards your highest priority, who is not eliminated. This process runs until only two candidates remain and the guy with more than 50% wins.

I'm a big fan of instant runoff voting, it's basically my #1 voter reform that I would implement if I could.

Instant runoff voting would have had interesting effects if one close elections in the past. which countries or states do have it? Sounded like an interesting idea the first time I heard about it. Just never took the time to really look at places that have it.



...

 

[Sonikku]

As always, the Tea Party triumphs as a result of being the one true legitimate voice and spirit of America, but the Dems managed to cheat them through dastardly tactics, as is always the reason when the TP loses.

 

[Cozarkian]

Can we just abolish primaries already?

I think I'll actually agree with you on this one. Why should the government pay to help political parties select their candidate? Let's have one election with no political party identifiers on the ballot. If the Democrats/Republicans want to pay for a candidate to be placed on the ballot, that's fine, but the parties have to find their own way to select the candidate.

 

[fskimospy]

I think I'll actually agree with you on this one. Why should the government pay to help political parties select their candidate? Let's have one election with no political party identifiers on the ballot. If the Democrats/Republicans want to pay for a candidate to be placed on the ballot, that's fine, but the parties have to find their own way to select the candidate.

I think party information should be included. The answer to a better electorate is not in hiding salient information from voters.

I think that everyone who is able to assemble X number of signatures should be on the ballot, in randomized order. Each voter should have an instant runoff ballot that allows them to select say... their top 3 candidates.

 

[xBiffx]

I think party information should be included. The answer to a better electorate is not in hiding salient information from voters.

If it really is salient, then the informed voter would already know it by the time they arrive at the polls so it serves no purpose. I think the inconvenient truth here is that party affiliation is really no longer salient information for the truly informed voter. As far as the uninformed voter, dare I say that they wouldn't even care (or notice) if Mickey Mouse and Captain American were on the ballot. There's no use in catering to the uninformed voter.

Other than that, I agree with your previous post.

 

[fskimospy]

If it really is salient, then the informed voter would already know it by the time they arrive at the polls so it serves no purpose. I think the inconvenient truth here is that party affiliation is really no longer salient information for the truly informed voter. As far as the uninformed voter, dare I say that they wouldn't even care (or notice) if Mickey Mouse and Captain American were on the ballot. There's no use in catering to the uninformed voter.

Other than that, I agree with your previous post.

I'm willing to bet that if you polled Americans as to if they wanted party affiliation to be included on the ballot the answer would be yes, overwhelmingly. I see no need to elect to remove information that the large majority want on the ballot in order to cater to what some people think the requirements for voting should be.

 

[xBiffx]

I'm willing to bet that if you polled Americans as to if they wanted party affiliation to be included on the ballot the answer would be yes, overwhelmingly. I see no need to elect to remove information that the large majority want on the ballot in order to cater to what some people think the requirements for voting should be.

I'm also willing to bet that if you polled those same Americans a majority wouldn't be able to tell you who is running for what in their districts let alone which side they are representing. But they would be able to tell you who go a rose on the Bachelor last night.

Basically, that information is only wanted there because people are too lazy or too stupid and can't be bothered with informing themselves and are ok acting like a trained monkey circling all the D's or R's. Like I said, catering to the uninformed voter is pretty useless and I'd ad its self destructive as well.

 

[fskimospy]

I'm also willing to bet that if you polled those same Americans a majority wouldn't be able to tell you who is running for what in their districts let alone which side they are representing. But they would be able to tell you who go a rose on the Bachelor last night.

Basically, that information is only going to be wanted there because people are too lazy or too stupid and can't be bothered with informing themselves or acting like a trained monkey circling all the D's or R's. Like I said, catering to the uninformed voter is pretty useless and I'd ad its self destructive as well.

I don't view any of that as relevant. Either you trust the people of your country's collective wisdom and have a democracy or you don't. If you don't, and are saying that those whom you view to be uninformed should have their ability to express their preferences diminished I think you're advocating for something else.

The default preference should ALWAYS be towards giving the voter more information, not less.

 

[xBiffx]

The default preference should ALWAYS be towards giving the voter more information, not less.

Then why stop at just party affiliation? If the default should be more information, then why do we limit it to just that?

The answer is simple, expedience. It allows for monkeys at the polls. And in a democracy, the people of the country have a responsibility. They have a responsibility to earn that trust because trust is not just given blindly. That would be the end of the democracy.