quade

Lots of reasons. Even I don't give Obama full credit for it. 1) Drone war is cheaper than boots on the ground war. Who knew? ;) 2) Doing NOTHING is cheaper than actually getting things done. Thanks . . . Congress? I guess? ¯\_(:,)_/¯ I would've preferred spending even less on the military/industrial complex and more on infrastructure so there's also as much blame to go around. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Wouldn't happen in a million years. Imagine for a second that either Clinton or Trump had been picked in a smoke filled room. Do you really believe the party faithful (not even extremists) would refuse to vote simply because their guy was picked in a smoke filled room? Hell, I'd wager a guess that would make them even more acceptable to some people on the fence. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Yep. And guess what it would take to make that happen across the US? quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Right, again, so, if we want to do something like AlanS is suggesting, it would require it because that WOULD be telling them what to do. I don't think people liked the idea of the smoke filled rooms and I don't see us going back to the smoke filled rooms of the past. I think they liked the idea of the voters having a say, which meant the primaries got attached to state elections, which meant shenanigans ensued. Want to change that? Guess what ends up needing to be done. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

I am reasonably certain there are countries which have MUCH tighter election cycles than the US does and somehow also have managed to have greater than two party systems. Our elections would still be held at four year intervals. Parties would still have exactly as long to organize between elections as they do now. Among the reasons 3rd parties have horrible track records is for some ridiculous reason they have a tendency to do almost nothing whatsoever from the general election to until about 12 months before the next one. Meanwhile, I can nearly guarantee the two major parties are already looking at 2020 and beyond. 3rd parties also tend to shoot for the Moon. They really, really, really want to be President, but tend to not give a shit about anything else. That's no way to build credibility. Where are the Libertarian mayors, state senators, governors, US Congressmen? There are a few, but nowhere nearly enough to make even a small dent in reality. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

While I agree with your "ideal" premise, we are talking about Federal elections. It's something that affects the entire country. To me it makes no sense whatsoever that each state has its own primary dates and voting methods, and in some cases those vary from county to county. In any other country's elections, I think we'd question it. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Because as long as the rules allow shenanigans, shenanigans will take place. I'm completely unclear why so many people are against Federal solutions to certain issues. I don't mean they're against Federal regulations in a particular case, but simply as a matter of course. To me, we could eliminate a HUGE amount of duplication of effort if we accepted that certain things are better dealt with at the Federal level. It seems to me that a lot of the same people who rail against "big government" end up arguing in favor of "even bigger government due to duplication of effort." quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

This includes so much such as gerrymandering for instance. And voter suppression; https://www.thenation.com/article/voter-suppression-is-a-much-bigger-problem-than-voter-fraud/?nc=1 I agree with you. I personally think it needs a complete revamp, but as I've been saying today, it really requires a US Constitutional Amendment to make the entire thing fair nation-wide because there's no way you'd ever get 50 states to agree to the same standards any other way. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

No you didn't. Cheese and crackers, buddy. YES, I DID. See post #107. Because it's not solely up to the "private corporations." The states are involved. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Did you read the part where the state of New Hampshire has in its state constitution that it MUST be the first primary state? I specifically linked it. The dates of the primaries are decided by the individual states (not the parties). All of them. It's not a decision of the parties because those primary elections include more than just that decision. If there were to be a nation-wide change in that, it would have to come from the Federal government. In order to do that, it would require a US Constitutional Amendment since currently those primary election dates are "reserved by the states." quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Thanks for completely misrepresenting what I said. Internet points to you? I guess? nonsense - if you can't explain yourself clearly ("go read Alan's post where he proposes a hypothetical for the private parties to move to - for discussion purposes"), then don't blame the 5 other people that have replied the same as I did Consider this statement from AlanS in post #87 of this thread. Source: http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4821736#4821736 Then . . . read this. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Hampshire_primary#Timing Now, please, for the love of God, tell me how what AlanS wants to do can possibly be done without Federal intervention to ensure states (not parties) messing with it? It can't. Not under the current rules. In order to change the rules there would absolutely need to be a change to the US Constitution. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Thanks for completely misrepresenting what I said. Internet points to you? I guess? quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Um, no. There's no way to bring uniformity to the primary process outside of the parties deciding to do it themselves. It is not a government activity. Congress could dictate to the RNC, DNC, and other parties how they run their internal business, but it would almost surely get struck down by the courts. You're just plain wrong about this. You're arguing in favor of my point, yet you don't see it. Again, go back and read what was written in http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4821736#4821736 quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

you are replying talking about the Electoral College to people talking about primaries I'm not talking about just the Electoral Collage. I AM including the primaries. Go back and re-read Post #87 of this thread. There's no way to bring uniformity to the primary process as he is suggesting without some sort of Federal control of the process. http://www.dropzone.com/cgi-bin/forum/gforum.cgi?post=4821736#4821736 quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Why would a private event held by private corporations require any mention in the US Code at all, especially the Constitution? Because you'd be changing the status of that. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Unfortunately, as I've said in this forum several times before, this requires a Constitutional Amendment. As much as I'd love to see it happen, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. I'm not sure how the primary election system evolved. But I'm pretty sure the constitution does not cover it. From out here where I sit it seems to be the way parties select nominees. If there were a strong 3rd party would they have to get in the game? I think primaries are completely optional and any party could opt out and use a different way to select the nominee. No? Correct. It's left up to the individual states, which is why if there was a nation-wide change making the system uniform (and more intelligent), it would require a change to the Constitution. It would instantly be seen as a "states rights" vs "federal government" fight. The smaller states which fight for early primaries reap huge financial gains from the current system (quadrennial influx of cash from advertising and media outlet) would get pissy. It would be ugly fast. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Unfortunately, as I've said in this forum several times before, this requires a Constitutional Amendment. As much as I'd love to see it happen, I don't see it happening in my lifetime. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

More like, "who gives a shit what two people who work far behind the scenes said in 2008?" Date stamp on email, "2008-01-18 19:04" Prove to me how that's relevant today and then we can talk about it. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

I'm not so concerned about the 6th. ;) quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

I think it's more than a little tin-foil hat to think the family and judge colluded to give him a ludicrously short sentence just so they can kill him when he gets out. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

While I agree with much of what you say, I think your analysis has some flaws. The electoral collage generally ends up acting like an amplifier. It tends to make small wins appear like mandates. As of this moment 538 has the national popular as; Clinton 49.7% Trump 43.2% A 6.5% lead by Clinton. While that's a reasonably significant lead, I think the average person (or below average person) might think it's still winnable by Trump. Conversely, look at how that's working out in the Electoral; Clinton (probably) 340 Trump (probably) 196 http://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/2016-election-forecast/?ex_cid=rrpromo I don't think any reasonable person can look at that and even begin to think Trump can still win. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

My understanding is if you move to a deserted island and you're the only person on it you'll be guaranteed to have 100% consensus. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Can somebody help me out here and explain WTF is up in Montana? http://www.npr.org/sections/thetwo-way/2016/10/20/498676414/montana-judge-faces-call-for-impeachment-after-incest-sentencing quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

If you consider "Project Veritas" a credible source of information, one that hasn't already been the subject of numerous investigations for prior pieces involving not just misleadingly edited pieces but also criminal acts just to get the footage in the first place . . . well, there is little I can say to change your mind. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver

Because nearly all western countries do. Because we do. And frankly when it comes to the world's food supply we make more excess than anyone (technically #3 in total production, but the other two countries (China and India) have to eat theirs). We freakin' rule food. We make so much excess food we can barely give it away. quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver