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?
Originally posted by: Coldkilla
It's the republican rules that are screwed up.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: Phokus
Originally posted by: palehorse74
fixed.Originally posted by: LongTimePCUser
Topic Title: If the system made sense, Bush would be tarred, feathered, and banished from the country.
:laugh:
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.
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.
Winner-takes-all systems favor more populous states.
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.![]()
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.![]()
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.
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".
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.
Originally posted by: bamacre
In the system we call reality, Obama has the nomination locked up.
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.
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.
Originally posted by: piasabird
OK then just change the general election to be more like the primary then.
-snip-