Does Hillary Have a Legitimate Claim to the Most Popular Votes?

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

For the nomination process? None whatsoever.

Why bother having a Presidential election at all then? Why not just appoint the president? It would certainly be more efficient, and only very slightly less fair than what you are proposing.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[lawrocket 3]

Quote

Quote

Don't go changing the rules after the game.

Yeah, because voters actually having a voice is bad. What do those voters think the US is, a democracy/representative republic? How silly of them.

Don't blame the US. This is a Democratic Party Rule.

Please don't confuse the two.

My wife is hotter than your wife.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Don't blame the US. This is a Democratic Party Rule.

Please don't confuse the two.

Yes it is, and it is unjust and supported by Obama, despite his claims to have consistently supported the seating of Florida and Michigan's delegates at the DNC.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

For the nomination process? None whatsoever.

Why bother having a Presidential election at all then? Why not just appoint the president? It would certainly be more efficient, and only very slightly less fair than what you are proposing.

keep puffing the dragon, man. Your hyperbole is amusing.

There's nothing unfair about each party (from Dems to Peace and Freedom) picking their candidate as they prefer. The point for each is to win, not ensure the most democratic selection process of a nominee.

[shropshire 0]

Do you really need another lier in the WHite House?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[likearock 2]

Quote

Do you really need another liar in the WHite House?

That's the bottom line. Hillary's biggest rap is that she bends the truth according to her political needs. The fact that she represents her "wins" in Michigan and Florida completely devoid of their context just feeds into that. It's interesting that many of her "supporters" in this argument are Republicans who are gleeful at the prospect of the Democratic party self-destructing.

Did anyone see O'Reilly last night? He actually got into a debate with Newt Gingrich over this. Newt was spouting the pro-Hillary line about how democracy is imperiled by not seating the two conventions. O'Reilly, to his credit, was taking the pro-Obama position: "you don't change the rules in the middle of the game". Newt was actually shocked that O'Reilly was calling him on his bullshit.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

There's nothing unfair about each party (from Dems to Peace and Freedom) picking their candidate as they prefer. The point for each is to win, not ensure the most democratic selection process of a nominee.

Then why bother with the primaries at all? By ignoring voters, the democratic process is defeated. One cannot claim that the two entrenched parties can "pick" their candidate as they prefer, without respect to the democratic process, and simultaneously claim to support a democratic process to select the President.

It's like Obama claiming that he has consistently supported seating Florida's delegates while simultaneously claiming that the rules are the rules, and that it would be unfair to allow the voters of those two states to have a voice in the process. Clearly, one of his claims is a lie, but no one wants to believe that Obama is another example of the same old thing, politics as usual, say whatever it takes; he's just more charismatic in his attempts to dupe the public.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Do you really need another lier in the WHite House?

There's no other option among the remaining three candidates.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[shropshire 0]

Quote

Quote

Do you really need another lier in the WHite House?

There's no other option among the remaining three candidates.

Then start over... there must be a mechanism for that - surely?

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[rushmc 23]

Quote

Quote

Quote

Do you really need another lier in the WHite House?

There's no other option among the remaining three candidates.

Then start over... there must be a mechanism for that - surely?

If there is, I hope it sows itself soon

"America will never be destroyed from the outside,
if we falter and lose our freedoms,
it will be because we destroyed ourselves."
Abraham Lincoln

[shropshire 0]

The case of Pb .vs. Head should be a precident

(.)Y(.)
Chivalry is not dead; it only sleeps for want of work to do. - Jerome K Jerome

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Then start over... there must be a mechanism for that - surely?

No realistic mechanism exists. There's the option of a write-in, but that option is essentially throwing a vote away. Voting for a third party candidate is another wasted vote in terms of a third party candidate actually having a chance to win.

If there were a landslide victory anticipated (at the state level, in many states), then voting for a third party candidate could increase the chances of future candidates from that party of having a legitimate chance of winning.

The way the current system is set up, we have to choose between a Republican or a Democrat, the two entrenched parties. The primaries work to promote the candidate from each party that has the best chance of winning, not the candidate that is most qualified for the job. Unfortunately, those likely to win are rarely the most qualified. Different skill sets are required.

Neither party is interested in changing the system to something more fair, such as ranked voting, because such a system would make it easier to un-entrench either party. So, in the end, the people lose, and often vote against the candidate they least want in office.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Quote

There's nothing unfair about each party (from Dems to Peace and Freedom) picking their candidate as they prefer. The point for each is to win, not ensure the most democratic selection process of a nominee.

Then why bother with the primaries at all? By ignoring voters, the democratic process is defeated. One cannot claim that the two entrenched parties can "pick" their candidate as they prefer, without respect to the democratic process, and simultaneously claim to support a democratic process to select the President.

I can.
The party leaders can.
Millions of others can.

You're the one that seems to have the problem. You should be bitching about the hundreds of superdelegates that have a much bigger impact than Florida/Michigan. And of course, the evil electoral college that has kept our form of democracy going longer than virtually any nation on the planet (and any significant one). You'd probably be happier with a two party parliamentary system.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

I can.
The party leaders can.
Millions of others can.

You're the one that seems to have the problem.

If you think that's true, then you're not paying attention.

Quote

You should be bitching about the hundreds of superdelegates that have a much bigger impact than Florida/Michigan.

I don't like them much either, but that's not the topic of the thread.

Quote

And of course, the evil electoral college that has kept our form of democracy going longer than virtually any nation on the planet (and any significant one).

I would be interested in seeing that conjecture supported. How has the electoral system kept our form of democracy going, aside from the fact that it allows a greater potential of the loser of the popular election to take office? (That worked out especially well in 2000, BTW.)

Quote

You'd probably be happier with a two party parliamentary system.

Nope, I don't want to see a two party anything. I want candidates in office because the people like what they stand for, not because of their allegiance to a particular party. If political parties are inevitable, then we need at least three major parties to avoid any one party having control of the legislative branch or the judicial branch of government.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

Nope, I don't want to see a two party anything. I want candidates in office because the people like what they stand for, not because of their allegiance to a particular party. If political parties are inevitable, then we need at least three major parties to avoid any one party having control of the legislative branch or the judicial branch of government.

Yeah, because the Italian government is something we should emulate.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

Yeah, because the Italian government is something we should emulate.

I don't remember advocating emulating the government of any other nation. Would you care to expound on your flippant response?

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

you don't want any party to have real control. You want individuals running the show rather than parties.

Great....unless you want anything accomplished.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

you don't want any party to have real control. You want individuals running the show rather than parties.

Great....unless you want anything accomplished.

I think it would get more accomplished, as it would force all the parties to work together. In our two party system, it seems newsworthy when there is a bipartisan effort for anything. I don't see how adding another party could decrease the rate of accomplishment.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

Quote

I think it would get more accomplished, as it would force all the parties to work together.

nothing forces parties to work together, not even need.

[rehmwa 2]

jcd

1 = I agree the primary process is terrible and we should just have candidates and the national election. The parties won't do this because they'll have less ability to stage their own lackey at the top of the tickets

2 = "ranked voting". This is another thread, but horribly a bad idea. It clearly disenfranchises voters as the purpose of it's structure. Some people get a revote, while others don't. It allows very fractured political views more power. etc. It's a terrible idea. Everybody votes - ONCE - the most votes win, even if they are a plurality, but not a majority. Simple enough.

And, we all know why Dems like ranked voting

...
Driving is a one dimensional activity - a monkey can do it - being proud of your driving abilities is like being proud of being able to put on pants

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

2 = "ranked voting". This is another thread, but horribly a bad idea. It clearly disenfranchises voters as the purpose of it's structure. Some people get a revote, while others don't. It allows very fractured political views more power. etc. It's a terrible idea. Everybody votes - ONCE - the most votes win, even if they are a plurality, but not a majority. Simple enough.

I believe you are misunderstanding how ranked voting works. It has different forms in use, such as the Borda count, Instant Runoff Voting, or Single Transferable Vote. While ranked voting is not perfect (an impossibility of any voting system), it does eliminate many of the issues we have with our current Plurality Voting system, which is perhaps the least fair voting system available. Ranked voting (for a single office) reduces the chances of a candidate winning without a majority of votes. It reduces the possibility of a voter's vote not counting because it wasn't cast for either of the two most popular candidates. Ranked voting reduces the likelihood of voters voting against candidates instead of for them.

Ranked voting is used successfully in cities and nations around the world.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

SF went to ranked voting because people were upset that a half dozen fringe leftist candidates couldn't beat a rightist democrat like Willie Brown (the king himself) or Gavin Newsome. Having three choices would let you vote for the communist, the lesbian, and then the union guy, rather than splitting the vote against the guy who gets 45% of the vote, short of the 50% required by the city.

Has it worked? Not yet. It has proven so difficult to count that election results are solid for days after election night.

[jcd11235 0]

Quote

SF went to ranked voting because people were upset that a half dozen fringe leftist candidates couldn't beat a rightist democrat like Willie Brown (the king himself) or Gavin Newsome. Having three choices would let you vote for the communist, the lesbian, and then the union guy, rather than splitting the vote against the guy who gets 45% of the vote, short of the 50% required by the city.

Has it worked? Not yet. It has proven so difficult to count that election results are solid for days after election night.

What method of ranked voting does SF use?

Australia, among other countries, uses ranked voting successfully in national elections. The ability to vote for candidates instead of against candidates also offers potential of higher voter turnout.

Math tutoring available. Only $6! per hour! First lesson: Factorials!

[kelpdiver 2]

I believe it falls under the instant runoff style.