Delagates v. Election (1 Viewer)

Hoyasaint

Banned
Joined
Dec 10, 2004
Messages
4,943
Reaction score
16
Age
17
Location
Mid-City
Offline
Can someone explain to me why we do this crazy delagate system instead of simply having a nationwide 'election' that is open to only members of that party to vote for that party's candidate for president? It seems like it would be much more fair to the states that are after Super Tuesday so that every year their votes would matter, instead of being a rare occurance as it is this year.
 
I don;t want a national primary because candidates with early advantages like money and name recognition will almost always win. The present way makes it possible for an unknown candidate who does not have a large warchest to win some early small states, like Iowa or New Hampshire and get the momentum to move on.
 
I don;t want a national primary because candidates with early advantages like money and name recognition will almost always win. The present way makes it possible for an unknown candidate who does not have a large warchest to win some early small states, like Iowa or New Hampshire and get the momentum to move on.

But doesn't it also put the rest of us in a position where we just don't count? I mean when we had the La. Primaries here just last month everyone was excited because we mattered. That's pretty messed up to never matter.
 
Why does the gov't even spend money helping parites pick their candidate in the first place? If Ralph Nader wanted the gov't to do this for the Green Party, would they?
 
We live in a representative democracy. There is no national election for anything. There are state elections for representatives to the national government. We elect from our state Senators and Congressmen who represent the states in the national legislative body. We elect delegates who vote for president. There is no direct voting for the national government because we are a representative democracy the United States of America.
 
Also, in the primaries, the national political party can influence, but not mandate when a state has its elections. The state chapter of the national political party chooses when it's caucass or election will be held. The national party can penalize the state party by not recognizing some of all of its delegates. (See Florida) Each state wants to go first, because it seems like the early states have more influence. Super Tuesday is the earliest most states can have their elections without being penalized, so many do it on that day.

Honestly, I think a system where each week one state or small cluster of states (new england for example) voted, taking about a half a year to get through all the states would be much better.
 
I don;t want a national primary because candidates with early advantages like money and name recognition will almost always win. The present way makes it possible for an unknown candidate who does not have a large warchest to win some early small states, like Iowa or New Hampshire and get the momentum to move on.

On the other hand, We aren't electing people for their full stated terms, as they are goign through a ridiculously long drown out process full of stupidity, keeping them from doing their real jobs which they were elected to for almost an entire year. for example, we dont elect a pres for 4 years, we get one for 3. Its a total joke.

As far as money goes. I say create a campaign fund pool, set a date. when the date is reached, the money is frozen, and divided up amongst the candidates evenly.
 
We live in a representative democracy. There is no national election for anything. There are state elections for representatives to the national government. We elect from our state Senators and Congressmen who represent the states in the national legislative body. We elect delegates who vote for president. There is no direct voting for the national government because we are a representative democracy the United States of America.


Don't you live in Brazil?? :hihi:
 
It's been a long, long, long time since we've had a party convention that wasn't a predetermined acclamation of a single candidate.

If you think the primaries are messy, a contested convention is virtually a brawl! Most folks on this board have never seen a convention like the one we could see in Denver.

See, the delegates are in no way REQUIRED to vote for the candidate they're sent to the convention to represent.

Yes, after all the primaries and caucuses, after all the hoopla and hype, the delegates can go to the convention and change their allegience or even abstain...rules of order can be written in such a way that entire swaths of delegates get booted out of the convention...backroom deals are the order of the day.

It's very, very American! :hihi:
 
It's been a long, long, long time since we've had a party convention that wasn't a predetermined acclamation of a single candidate.

If you think the primaries are messy, a contested convention is virtually a brawl! Most folks on this board have never seen a convention like the one we could see in Denver.

See, the delegates are in no way REQUIRED to vote for the candidate they're sent to the convention to represent.

Yes, after all the primaries and caucuses, after all the hoopla and hype, the delegates can go to the convention and change their allegience or even abstain...rules of order can be written in such a way that entire swaths of delegates get booted out of the convention...backroom deals are the order of the day.

It's very, very American! :hihi:


Wait, im seeing the framework of a new game/reality show here. Delegate Deathmatch! Quick, call Fox!
 

Create an account or login to comment

You must be a member in order to leave a comment

Create account

Create an account on our community. It's easy!

Log in

Already have an account? Log in here.

Users who are viewing this thread

    Back
    Top Bottom