Well Iowans, if nothing else you're entertaining!

beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
Think of it this way. Won't vote for the lessor of two evils.
Truthfully, the way this country does primaries is totally sideways. After a handful of primaries, the decision on who the candidate will be is a done deal. And, add insult to injury, it is always the same states who make those iron clad decisions. Most of the time, most of the states, never get a say. Most voters never even vote in primaries, so the very few are making decision about the two main candidates. Also, we the people don't vote for the president. Since the popular vote of all Americans matters little, what the heck difference does it make?
Given those circumstances, it is not difficult to understand the disconnect Americans have with the presidential voting system in this country. Not unreasonable for voters to feel like their votes don't exactly count. So, instead of using voting power, the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement has evolved. Both are movements fed up and seeking big changes.
The 3rd "party" in this country are the Independents. They are the largest "party" and the largest voting voice as well, which says a lot about what the candidates the other two parties have put out.
If I had a vote, I'd say lets just vote for the best candidate that chooses to run and forget about the party system and all the corruption that goes along with that system. I'd also change the voting system of the electoral college.
 
darthtang aw

darthtang aw

Active Member

Think of it this way. Won't vote for the lessor of two evils.

Truthfully, the way this country does primaries is totally sideways. After a handful of primaries, the decision on who the candidate will be is a done deal. And, add insult to injury, it is always the same states who make those iron clad decisions. Most of the time, most of the states, never get a say. Most voters never even vote in primaries, so the very few are making decision about the two main candidates. Also, we the people don't vote for the president. Since the popular vote of all Americans matters little, what the heck difference does it make?

Given those circumstances, it is not difficult to understand the disconnect Americans have with the presidential voting system in this country. Not unreasonable for voters to feel like their votes don't exactly count. So, instead of using voting power, the Tea Party or the Occupy Movement has evolved. Both are movements fed up and seeking big changes.

The 3rd "party" in this country are the Independents. They are the largest "party" and the largest voting voice as well, which says a lot about what the candidates the other two parties have put out.

If I had a vote, I'd say lets just vote for the best candidate that chooses to run and forget about the party system and all the corruption that goes along with that system. I'd also change the voting system of the electoral college.
i wouldnt change the electoral college...i could list numerous reasons why this would be disenfranchising. but i would change the primaries..and the way debates are decided and money is allocated for campaigns.
 
beth

beth

Administrator
Staff member
If we went with the pop vote and the pop vote got all the electoral votes for the state, then that should really eliminate any concerns about disenfranchising. Right now, the electors of the electoral college can vote for whoever they want, not whoever we want them to vote for. And you wonder why people don't bother going to the polls?
I'm not saying do away with primaries, just make them relevant to all the states. Right now, a handful of states decides who the candidate will be. By the end of the month (Jan) we will pretty much know who the Rep candidate will be, though most states haven't participated in the process yet. This is good democracy?
If you have a different perspective, lets here it.
 
reefraff

reefraff

Active Member
With a popular vote the candidates would only campaign in the population centers and the country would be ran to their benefit. Probably not a good idea.
Primaries are messed up but Carl Rove had a great reason for why you can't just have one or even break in down into two or 3 primary elections. TIME AND MONEY. Under the current system the candidates are mostly scrambling for money from primary to primary. Someone without a lot of dough can do what Santorum did in Iowa. If you had say 18 states voting at a time those with money would have a huge advantage.
I personally think it would make more sense to take the 5 largest states, California, Texas, New York, Florida and Illinois and build 5 regional primaries around them held like two or 3 weeks apart.
 
cipher43

cipher43

Member
I would have given about anything 2 weeks ago just to get Iowa left alone by the freakin politicians. When every 5-7 minutes your phone rings cause "X politician will be talking personally to you if you stay on the line"...... That started sometime in the afternoon and got really annoying after we would get home at 6:00pm and would go on until 8:00 to 8:30..... So I know this sounds really bad but I almost would have voted for Santorum for the pure fact that his group didn't call us even once. I didn't do that but they irritate me so bad when that's all you see/hear.
It makes no since to say your going to help with the deficit and then pay millions for advertisements saying that very thing.
 
N

nihoa

Guest
canada currently has a conservative majority gov with 39% of the pop vote. 61% of the country is being governed by 39%? that makes little to no sense.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top