|
|
Post by anxiousmom on Apr 27, 2016 12:42:59 GMT
For years, we have heard grumbling after the elections that the delegates/electoral college don't always represent the people's popular vote. This primary though, the candidates themselves are calling attention to the process-and how it may circumvent the popular vote. (Although I don't agree that it is rigged or somehow corrupt, I do think that they have a point that the system doesn't always involve what the general populous wants.) Do you think it is time to make a change to the system? Get rid of it entirely and go with a count the vote and declare a winner system? Do you think that delegate system for nomination of the primary winner works? Or that the electoral college should mean more than the popular vote? Just general curiosity this morning as I drink my coffee and listen to yet ONE. MORE. ANALYSIS. OF. THE. DELEGATE. COUNT. (I am a little tired of hearing about it. Too much math for the morning.  |
|
valleyview
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,816
Jun 27, 2014 18:41:26 GMT
|
Post by valleyview on Apr 27, 2016 12:54:59 GMT
Interesting question. I'm answering on the fly without pondering over coffee...
I think that we're hearing so much microanalysis, that it's driving us bonkers! That's probably what needs to change.
The state Parties determine their nomination process. The states with super delegates have that so they're not locked into the voters' choice. Party bosses do not want to lose control! This election cycle just brings it more to the open, and wonks are beating us over the head with the info.
Our votes in primaries are not the same as a general election. Whether or not the Electoral College should be changed is different, but, again, the over analysis and gaming of the system makes for a weakening of voter confidence.
|
|
|
|
Post by peasapie on Apr 27, 2016 12:56:40 GMT
I think that we should switch to a popular vote for both the primary and general election. Absolutely.
I also think we need campaign finance reform desperately.
|
|
|
|
Post by **GypsyGirl** on Apr 27, 2016 14:10:38 GMT
I absolutely think that the way delegates are decided, as well as campaign finance and when to begin campaigning need a massive shakeup and reform. Will it happen? Most likely not in my lifetime.  There is too much room in the current system for influencing the votes of delegates with dinners out, trips, etc. What we end up with is a candidate who had the deepest pockets to influence votes, and not necessarily the people's choice. I do commend you for still listening to the news about this. My limit was reached a couple of weeks ago and I now actively try to avoid all news about it. It was driving me bonkers! |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 27, 2016 14:21:51 GMT
I think they're two separate issues and my opinion is different between them. I do not have an issue with the electoral college system. I do not think we should go to a popular vote. I think the country is extremely diverse and prevents the rural states from being voiceless. The delegate system for the nomination is all kinds of screwed up. I highly suggest the parties get their acts together and clean up what is clearly a broken system that allows the voters to be completely and utterly ignored in the process - yes I'm looking at you COLORADO!
|
|
|
|
Post by brina on Apr 27, 2016 14:27:55 GMT
I believe that the electoral college has outlived its usefulness. In a time when the only form of communication was written and even newspapers relied on a person or piece of paper physically getting from one place to another it made sense to have staggered primaries and the electoral college allocating delegates. These two things insured that candidates traveled all over the country and people in all states had the opportunity to hear what the candidates had to say.
Communication technology has advanced and advanced to the point that we all know what every candidate has to say in real time no matter where they are when they say it. We do not need to have the candidates standing in our town center to hear them. As communication has improved candidates have become more likely to drop out of the election after Iowa and New Hampshire leaving large groups of the electorate with no true say in who the candidates will be in the general election. Two such relatively small states should not have that much power.
In my opinion we need a national primary day and a popular vote to decide the candidates and then a popular vote election between them with less of a lag than we currently have.
|
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Apr 27, 2016 16:33:33 GMT
I loathe loathe loathe the thought of Donald Trump getting the nomination. HOWEVER, it is what the majority of Republican voters want. At this point, Hillary is going to win no matter who is chosen for the other side. If anything, both parties need to set a standard for the primaries across *every* state. Primaries need more funding. The Democratic primaries were a mess in my state because the party is so small they didn't have enough places or people to help with the huge turnout. They left it up to both parties to deal with the voting.
|
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Apr 27, 2016 16:35:39 GMT
I believe that the electoral college has outlived its usefulness. In a time when the only form of communication was written and even newspapers relied on a person or piece of paper physically getting from one place to another it made sense to have staggered primaries and the electoral college allocating delegates. These two things insured that candidates traveled all over the country and people in all states had the opportunity to hear what the candidates had to say. Communication technology has advanced and advanced to the point that we all know what every candidate has to say in real time no matter where they are when they say it. We do not need to have the candidates standing in our town center to hear them. As communication has improved candidates have become more likely to drop out of the election after Iowa and New Hampshire leaving large groups of the electorate with no true say in who the candidates will be in the general election. Two such relatively small states should not have that much power. In my opinion we need a national primary day and a popular vote to decide the candidates and then a popular vote election between them with less of a lag than we currently have.  |
|
|
|
Post by lisacharlotte on Apr 27, 2016 16:37:07 GMT
People only want to change it when their guy isn't going to win.
ETA: My guy's not gonna win. My guy's out of the race. As much as everyone bitches about politics, there is a reason we are the place everyone wants to immigrate to.
|
|
|
|
Post by refugeepea on Apr 27, 2016 16:42:04 GMT
People only want to change it when their guy isn't going to win. No, not always. I think all the people running suck. It's choosing the lesser of 2 evils. My vote doesn't matter anyway. It will always go to a Republican. I'm not in a swing state and few electoral votes go to the winner. |
|
|
|
Post by femalebusiness on Apr 27, 2016 16:46:14 GMT
I know that I am old and a cynic but I honestly believe that how we vote and who we vote for has very little to do with who runs this country. The handfull of people who control things will find a way to put whoever they want to into office.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Apr 27, 2016 16:50:43 GMT
|
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 27, 2016 17:19:55 GMT
YES!!!!!! can't we just vote! winner gets the nod?
|
|
|
|
Post by lisacharlotte on Apr 27, 2016 17:48:55 GMT
YES!!!!!! can't we just vote! winner gets the nod? No, because we are a republic. |
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 27, 2016 19:10:07 GMT
YES!!!!!! can't we just vote! winner gets the nod? No, because we are a republic. What? A Republic is... a state in which supreme power is held by the people and their elected representatives, and which has an elected or nominated president rather than a monarch. It has nothing to do with the electoral college... which puts delegates in place to vote for us in the Presidential primary and is antiquated and really needs to be overhauled. Personally I think the primaries should be held on 4 or 6 days between Jan- May starting with small states and increasing to larger states.. so that all states get to equally participate.. but I think the number of votes a candidate receives should determine who the nominee is. |
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 27, 2016 19:11:54 GMT
People only want to change it when their guy isn't going to win. ETA: My guy's not gonna win. My guy's out of the race. As much as everyone bitches about politics, there is a reason we are the place everyone wants to immigrate to. I disagree... I want change and my gal is going to win.  The nomination at least. or so it appears. |
|
|
|
Post by ktdoesntscrap on Apr 27, 2016 19:15:44 GMT
So much of the system is antiquated I would add...
Theoretically 1,000 people could vote in California, for example... and those 1,000 people could determine all the electoral votes for that state.
I think we now have the technology to have one person one vote, and we should move towards it. I think we are headed to a multi party system and one person one votes equalizes the field.
|
|
|
|
Post by Tamhugh on Apr 27, 2016 19:39:33 GMT
Changes I would like to see...
1. Pick a date several months out from the primaries. No announcing or campaigning before that date.
2. Crunch the primaries closer together. Dragging them out for 5-6 months is ridiculous.
|
|
azredhead
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,755 
|
Post by azredhead on Apr 27, 2016 20:19:14 GMT
I have been fascinated by it as well. And seeing how it works. Watching the counties and how they get divided up. They say in some it's supposed to go to the popular vote but the delegates are bound to one canidate or another or just the party. If I understand it right. I don't like the bribes, gifts or whatever it is they wanna call it that the canidates can do. That it's legal. That part is strange and seems like it can get out of hand or one sided.
I agree about the dragging it out too. It does seem like it goes on forever. I can see why but it's LONG!
|
|
|
|
Post by alexa11 on Apr 27, 2016 20:54:28 GMT
I know that I am old and a cynic but I honestly believe that how we vote and who we vote for has very little to do with who runs this country. The handfull of people who control things will find a way to put whoever they want to into office. EXACTLY! |
|
|
|
Post by 950nancy on Apr 27, 2016 21:08:14 GMT
I think they're two separate issues and my opinion is different between them. I do not have an issue with the electoral college system. I do not think we should go to a popular vote. I think the country is extremely diverse and prevents the rural states from being voiceless. The delegate system for the nomination is all kinds of screwed up. I highly suggest the parties get their acts together and clean up what is clearly a broken system that allows the voters to be completely and utterly ignored in the process - yes I'm looking at you COLORADO! I blame the pot. |
|
|
|
Post by pierkiss on Apr 28, 2016 0:27:00 GMT
I think that we should switch to a popular vote for both the primary and general election. Absolutely. I also think we need campaign finance reform desperately. All of this. |
|
AnotherPea
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 2,968
|
Post by AnotherPea on Apr 28, 2016 0:30:13 GMT
I've always been against electoral votes. But the more time I spend with the public, truly spend time with people, listening to their arguments and trying to follow their logic, the more I understand why our government went that route.
|
|
There is too much room in the current system for influencing the votes of delegates with dinners out, trips, etc. What we end up with is a candidate who had the deepest pockets to influence votes, and not necessarily the people's choice. 
The nomination at least. or so it appears.
