Ok, we're in bigger trouble than I thought...

Subject: Ok, we're in bigger trouble than I thought...

http://abcnews.go.com/Politics/story?id=4251211&page=1

All right - maybe if I try really hard, I can imagine not being able to figure out a mildly unusual ballot...but this is getting ridiculous. Florida right there in the mix.

okay, people should pay more attention
but it does point out how . . . counter-intuitive our primary system is

I'd prefer a more elegant design, something with a less scattered, more user-friendly interface

I had to double check to make sure I wasn't reading http://www.theonion.com/content/index. :shock:

I think the primaries should all be held on the same day just as the presidential election is in november. This way everyone will get a chance to vote for ever candidate and not just the ones that are left at the end with loads of money after all others have dropped out.

Both elections should be held on a weekend. If it is held during the week it shoud be a national holiday.

Y'all can moan about how wacky the system of primaries and timetables and delegates is in this country, and it is pretty wacky. But I think it's worth pointing something out: among Western democracies, only in the US do the broad populace get any say at all when it comes to picking party candidates at any level. In most political parties in most countries, the process is much more tightly controlled, in the best case by a smaller group of paying members, and more commonly by the party elite.

doctorj wrote: Y'all can moan about how wacky the system of primaries and timetables and delegates is in this country, and it is pretty wacky. But I think it's worth pointing something out: among Western democracies, only in the US do the broad populace get any say at all when it comes to picking party candidates at any level. In most political parties in most countries, the process is much more tightly controlled, in the best case by a smaller group of paying members, and more commonly by the party elite.

it's the same way here
we're just given the illusion of choice
witness how all those voting in the democratic primary will become disenfranchised when the superdelegate party bosses cast their vote

quijibo wrote: [quote=doctorj]Y'all can moan about how wacky the system of primaries and timetables and delegates is in this country, and it is pretty wacky. But I think it's worth pointing something out: among Western democracies, only in the US do the broad populace get any say at all when it comes to picking party candidates at any level. In most political parties in most countries, the process is much more tightly controlled, in the best case by a smaller group of paying members, and more commonly by the party elite.

it's the same way here
we're just given the illusion of choice
witness how all those voting in the democratic primary will become disenfranchised when the superdelegate party bosses cast their vote

there are 796 superdelegates and 3,253 regular delegates (the kind you get by winning primaries and caucuses). (a candidate needs 2,025 delegates to win.) i agree that the use of superdelegates is questionably democratic, but there's no need to overstate the case.

sweet tea wrote: there are 796 superdelegates and 3,253 regular delegates (the kind you get by winning primaries and caucuses). (a candidate needs 2,025 delegates to win.) i agree that the use of superdelegates is questionably democratic, but there's no need to overstate the case.

quijibo wrote: it's the same way here
we're just given the illusion of choice
witness how all those voting in the democratic primary will become disenfranchised when the superdelegate party bosses cast their vote

sweet tea wrote: there are 796 superdelegates and 3,253 regular delegates (the kind you get by winning primaries and caucuses). (a candidate needs 2,025 delegates to win.) i agree that the use of superdelegates is questionably democratic, but there's no need to overstate the case.

My prediction? If the superdelegates don't end up putting in the person who gets the majority of the regular delegates, all kinds of holy hell are going to break loose.

daver wrote: [quote=sweet tea]there are 796 superdelegates and 3,253 regular delegates (the kind you get by winning primaries and caucuses). (a candidate needs 2,025 delegates to win.) i agree that the use of superdelegates is questionably democratic, but there's no need to overstate the case.

My prediction? If the superdelegates don't end up putting in the person who gets the majority of the regular delegates, all kinds of holy hell are going to break loose.

Amen, brother!

daver wrote: My prediction? If the superdelegates don't end up putting in the person who gets the majority of the regular delegates, all kinds of holy hell are going to break loose.

whakindaholyhell? like an Obama/Bloomberg independent run? :shock:

quijibo wrote: [quote=daver]My prediction? If the superdelegates don't end up putting in the person who gets the majority of the regular delegates, all kinds of holy hell are going to break loose.

whakindaholyhell? like an Obama/Bloomberg independent run? :shock:

I don't think American voters would accept their height difference

Don't forget that the superdelgates are mostly Congressmen and Senators, many of whom are up for re-election this year. If they buck the tide of the popular vote in their state, they seriously risk losing their seat this year. I doubt many of them will vote contrary to how the vote in their state went.