If the system made sense, Clinton would be far ahead

Page 2 - Seeking answers? Join the AnandTech community: where nearly half-a-million members share solutions and discuss the latest tech.

spacejamz

Lifer
Mar 31, 2003
10,960
1,657
126
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
It's the republican rules that are screwed up.

are you even watching the same election results that the rest of the country is watching? :confused:



 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: loki8481
it's kind of a moot point... if Hillary had as much experience as she claimed to, she should have been prepared to campaign in clusterfucks like Texas and every unrepresentative caucus.

Come on tonLok, even nostradamus didn't predict Obamamania! :) She's experienced, not clairvoyant. Early last year everyone also was 99% certain McCain was finished, done, over. Politics be krazy this season.

I expect Obama to get the nomination, but given the strong red state support that sealed his victory, states that are in all probability going to remain red in 08, I have doubts as to the outcome of the election, especially against a Republican who is not seen as representative of the radical right. I also expect that if Obama loses, you are going to see major cries of a "racist america unwilling to elect a black man", instead of focusing on the fact that the guy won the nomination by coming in second in solid blue state primaries but won enough delegates in states that were never going to go blue in the general.
 

Rio Rebel

Administrator Emeritus<br>Elite Member
Oct 9, 1999
5,194
0
0
I think Michigan is an example of Hillary's definition of the system "making sense"

 

NeoV

Diamond Member
Apr 18, 2000
9,504
2
81
our entire election process is broken

Every state should be the same - either winner-take-all for delegates, or percentage based - personally I think percentage based is the better way to go.

I would also favor all of these stupid things being on one day - make it a holiday so everyone has no excuse not to vote. The fact that more people vote for American Idol than they do for who they want their next president to be is sad.
 

theeedude

Lifer
Feb 5, 2006
35,787
6,197
126
Democrats will find out in November how much different the real world is from their primary system.
Which is unfortunate, because I was looking to some competent Democrat leadership after 8 years of a party that obviously can't govern controlling the White House.
Of course the Dems will probably nominate Obama, so that won't be happening, barring a last second epiphany by the super delegates.
 

yowolabi

Diamond Member
Jun 29, 2001
4,183
2
81
Obama has more votes, right? How exactly does a system make sense if he would be far behind while holding more votes.
 

jonks

Lifer
Feb 7, 2005
13,918
20
81
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Obama has more votes, right? How exactly does a system make sense if he would be far behind while holding more votes.

You mean like how Clinton had more votes but recieved fewer delgates in Nevada and Texas? Good question.
 

LongTimePCUser

Senior member
Jul 1, 2000
472
0
76
The entire point of the primaries is to choose a candidate who can win the elections. If the primary process is different than the election process then the candidate chosen has not shown the potential to win the election.

Originally posted by: Farang
The similarities between a primary process and the general election process are irrelevant. If you believe they are relevant you need to explain why.

 

EagleKeeper

Discussion Club Moderator<br>Elite Member
Staff member
Oct 30, 2000
42,589
5
0
Originally posted by: sirjonk
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Obama has more votes, right? How exactly does a system make sense if he would be far behind while holding more votes.

You mean like how Clinton had more votes but recieved fewer delgates in Nevada and Texas? Good question.

The states have the right to determine how they want to be represented.

 

1EZduzit

Lifer
Feb 4, 2002
11,833
1
0
Originally posted by: NeoV
our entire election process is broken

Every state should be the same - either winner-take-all for delegates, or percentage based - personally I think percentage based is the better way to go.

I would also favor all of these stupid things being on one day - make it a holiday so everyone has no excuse not to vote. The fact that more people vote for American Idol than they do for who they want their next president to be is sad.

I'd vote for that.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: yowolabi
Obama has more votes, right? How exactly does a system make sense if he would be far behind while holding more votes.

Yep. The OP's premise makes no sense.

Fern
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Winner-takes-all systems unfairly favor more populous states.

Having Texas, California, and New York run everything might be democracy to Texans, Californians, and New Yorkers, but it isn't to the rest of us.
 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Winner-takes-all systems favor more populous states.

:thumbsup:

you guys elected Bush, maybe you need to sit in the corner for an election or two and think about what you did. :p
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Originally posted by: loki8481
Winner-takes-all systems favor more populous states.

:thumbsup:

you guys elected Bush, maybe you need to sit in the corner for an election or two and think about what you did. :p

Actually my state is blue, and my county voted for Kerry in 2004 at the 3rd-highest percentage in the country (after New York and San Francisco IIRC).

Nice try though :roll:

Maybe if you actually read my post, you'd see that I was suggesting that TX, CA, and NY sit in the corner for an election of 2 and think about what they done.


 

nageov3t

Lifer
Feb 18, 2004
42,808
83
91
Originally posted by: Vic
Originally posted by: loki8481
Winner-takes-all systems favor more populous states.

:thumbsup:

you guys elected Bush, maybe you need to sit in the corner for an election or two and think about what you did. :p

Actually my state is blue, and my county voted for Kerry in 2004 at the 3rd-highest percentage in the country (after New York and San Francisco IIRC).

Nice try though :roll:

Maybe if you actually read my post, you'd see that I was suggesting that TX, CA, and NY sit in the corner for an election of 2 and think about what they done.

jesus, isn't pot legal in oregon? lighten up, it was a joke. ;)
 

Vic

Elite Member
Jun 12, 2001
50,422
14,337
136
Nah, not yet legal, just decriminalized. :p

and edit: sorry, but my sarcasm meter must be on the fritz again, because I didn't get the joke after the "you guys voted for Bush" part.
 

ElFenix

Elite Member
Super Moderator
Mar 20, 2000
102,402
8,574
126
Originally posted by: Genx87

Super delegates are an issue. It is as if the party is saying "Our voters arent smart enough to determine who should get the nomination and we reserve the right to determine it for them".

after the candidates the democrats put up between LBJ in 1964 and William Jefferson Clinton in 1992, that is exactly what the party is saying.
 

DrPizza

Administrator Elite Member Goat Whisperer
Mar 5, 2001
49,601
167
111
www.slatebrookfarm.com
Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
The Democratic primary system is just broken. It does not represent what the way the November elections will work.

"If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. "
Salon article

I hate to say this, but the Republican primaries work much more like the November elections than the Democratic primaries. Winner take all. No super delegates. Especially no caucus. In November it is a blind vote. Your boss and your neighbors will not know who you voted for.

You're assuming that if the rules were changed that both candidates would have done the exact same campaigning. It'd be like saying after a football game had a score of 14 to 15 (2 touchdowns vs. 5 field goals) "Well, if it was all or nothing - only touchdowns count, then the team with 14 points would be way ahead." Again, the team that kicked 5 field goals would have done something different under a "no field goals" rule that resulted in more touchdowns for them. Perhaps, even a larger margin of victory.

They're playing by the rules that they've been given to work within. (Well, most of the time.)
 

Pabster

Lifer
Apr 15, 2001
16,986
1
0
Originally posted by: bamacre
In the system we call reality, Obama has the nomination locked up.

A rare moment of agreement and unabashed honesty from you. :thumbsup:
 

Farang

Lifer
Jul 7, 2003
10,913
3
0
Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
The entire point of the primaries is to choose a candidate who can win the elections. If the primary process is different than the election process then the candidate chosen has not shown the potential to win the election.

Originally posted by: Farang
The similarities between a primary process and the general election process are irrelevant. If you believe they are relevant you need to explain why.

You are assuming that there is a correlation between primary results and general election results, which you also need to prove. The two elections are between two different groups of voters, in each state, so the difference in processes is irrelevant.
 

Skyclad1uhm1

Lifer
Aug 10, 2001
11,383
87
91
Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
The Democratic primary system is just broken. It does not represent what the way the November elections will work.

"If the Democrats heeded the "winner takes all" democracy that prevails in American politics, and that determines the president, Clinton would be comfortably in front. In a popular-vote winner-take-all system, Clinton would now have 1,743 pledged delegates to Obama's 1,257. "
Salon article

I hate to say this, but the Republican primaries work much more like the November elections than the Democratic primaries. Winner take all. No super delegates. Especially no caucus. In November it is a blind vote. Your boss and your neighbors will not know who you voted for.

So if the system 'made sense' McCain would be the next President?
 

piasabird

Lifer
Feb 6, 2002
17,168
60
91
OK then just change the general election to be more like the primary then. Either way. I never understood why this winner take all approach was even allowed. It is not even a democratic approach. Under this system people of the minority party are not really represented. We should go to a true national majority. However, we have to accept what we have because that is what we have.

Somehow, the statement, "It has always been done that way!", just does not make sense.
 

Fern

Elite Member
Sep 30, 2003
26,907
174
106
Originally posted by: piasabird
OK then just change the general election to be more like the primary then.
-snip-

That's up to the states. They can use a proportional approach for their electoral college votes if they choose.

Last year there were bills submitted in both NC and CA, IIRC, to do this.

NC is controlled by Dems, but voted Repub in recent Presidential elections. The Dem controlled legislature and governor were going to make NC "proportional" to swing more electoral college votes to any Dem candidate. But then the CA legislature threatened the same thing, but they'd be sending more EC votes to the Repubs. That threat made everybody calm down and table the bills.

Fern