|
Source: (consider it)
|
Thread: Purgatory: The political junkie POTUS prediction thread
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
thank you Campbellite. ![[Hot and Hormonal]](icon_redface.gif)
so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.
Alaska is known for being such a "red" state but the votes are always fairly close. you just can't tell from that big splotch of red in the upper left corner of the map.
(and yes, I knew about Wyoming. but our density is thinner!)
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Campbellite
Ut unum sint
# 1202
|
Posted
Sadly, the electoral college is a winner take all system. There have been many attempts to allot votes in accordance with the individual district votes (and the two extra per the overall state vote).
The advantage of this, of course, is that the end vote would more accurately reflect the will of the people. (The outcome of the 2000 debacle would have been different, fer instance.) It would also entice candidates to spend more time and attention to districts within states where they had a chance to win even if they were sure to lose the state as a whole.
Sadly, I say, because it is unlikely to be changed. As long as Party A controls a given state government, no matter how razor thin the majority, it is to their advantage to require all their delegates to vote en bloc. When Party B takes over, the same advantage applies to them.
--------------------
I upped mine. Up yours.
Suffering for Jesus since 1966.
WTFWED?
Posts: 12001 | From: between keyboard and chair | Registered: Aug 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
![[Frown]](frown.gif)
some days I really hate our voting system.
I was raised believing we had the best thing going in the world. perfected democracy, etc.
but now as I learn more about other systems, and feel more and more disenfranchised, I get to really be disgusted with our system.
and that makes me very blue!
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
some days I really hate our voting system.
I was raised believing we had the best thing going in the world. perfected democracy, etc.
but now as I learn more about other systems, and feel more and more disenfranchised, I get to really be disgusted with our system.
and that makes me very blue!
I remember taking a seminar in grad school on American politics. The professor began the seminar by saying "There are very good reasons why the American political system is not adopted by other countries."
To some degree and to make a huge understatement, studying the American political system involves understanding that it sucks, fawning over parliamentary systems like the UK until you realize that those ones suck too, and throwing your arms in the air in resignation for the fact that nothing will change.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
Nothing will change? I will grant you that politics changes sometimes for the worse, but nothing? Hardly. Sometimes I think there is far too much change and thus gridlock between parties is our friend....
Like the whole Bush presidency for example....
I don't care who gets in now, as long as it is changed!
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Janine
The Endless Simmer
# 3337
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mr. Rob:
quote:
Originally posted by Off Centre View:
I've heard that Ron Paul has started to make something of a name for himself ...
Ron Paul now polls somewhere around 1% (One percent) of the national vote
Here's an essay/speech thingie the FG found while trawling around reading up on Ron Paul... It's by Neal Boortz.
Commencement Address
--------------------
I'm a Fundagelical Evangimentalist. What are you?
Take Me Home * My Heart * An hour with Rich Mullins *
Posts: 13788 | From: Below the Bible Belt | Registered: Sep 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
Thanks, Janine.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Another thing about Iowa going first ... the voter turnout at the last two rounds of Iowa caucuses was less than 7%! Fewer than 150,000 people participated in 2000 and 2004. In New Hampshire the turnout is better since they have primaries, not caucuses, but still a very small number of people are making this decision -- fewer than 400,000 in 2000 and fewer than 300,000 in 2004. (See numbers here.)
I never thought to look into the numbers till I heard the low percentages of turnout in Iowa on the radio yesterday, and the more I consider it the more I am simply appalled that such a small number of people, not to mention such a homogenous group, gets to have so much influence. ![[Mad]](angryfire.gif)
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
I gotta say if the polls turn out to be accurate and Obama wins, with Edwards second, I think I'll be disappointed! Hillary is certainly better than Edwards (Edwards, who?) and Obama really does need to be sent back for some more training before we make him Pres. Please?
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
If Obama wins Iowa, with Edwards second and Hillary third, is she finished?
If Bloomberg enters the race as an independent, who does he hurt more: Democrats or Republicans?
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
If Obama wins Iowa, with Edwards second and Hillary third, is she finished?
I'd guess she's hoping for a good showing in NH next week.
And for all the people who don't think an evangelical Baptist can maintain his current traction, watch his performance here; there's a second part also.
IMO this guy can effectively communicate to a significant percentage of the American public: self-effacing, tells a good story, plays on his humble upbringing, is not a hard line conservative... he could be a contender.
[Keep in mind right at half of this country voted for W, twice.]
[ 03. January 2008, 20:23: Message edited by: 206 ]
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
dj_ordinaire
Host
# 4643
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.
Couldn't you just count all the votes each candidate got across the whole country and appoint the person with the most?
--------------------
Flinging wide the gates...
Posts: 10335 | From: Hanging in the balance of the reality of man | Registered: Jun 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
New Yorker
Shipmate
# 9898
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.
Couldn't you just count all the votes each candidate got across the whole country and appoint the person with the most?
That would require a change to the constitution.
Posts: 3193 | From: New York City | Registered: Jul 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
If Obama wins Iowa, with Edwards second and Hillary third, is she finished?
If Bloomberg enters the race as an independent, who does he hurt more: Democrats or Republicans?
I doubt it. Here's some intersting analysis along those lines. Quote:
quote:
Obviously, the Clinton team would rather lose to Edwards than to Obama. Third place would be a near-disaster scenario; second is recoverable. There will be a lot of Friday morning quarterbacking about whether Clinton should have even played in Iowa. It was never a natural fit and because many in the national media know this, there's every chance she'll get a few more primaries to prove herself.
No chance anyone believes she's one or two and done. There's too much history with the Clintons and their ability to come back.
I can't wait until tomorrow! This outta be good.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by New Yorker:
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.
Couldn't you just count all the votes each candidate got across the whole country and appoint the person with the most?
That would require a change to the constitution.
it would be fabulous! ![[Smile]](smile.gif)
but the short answer is, no.
[ 03. January 2008, 21:52: Message edited by: comet ]
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.
Couldn't you just count all the votes each candidate got across the whole country and appoint the person with the most?
Not without having ourselves a Constitutional Convention.
(The prospect of which makes experienced hands like me blench.)
It's pretty rare that the electoral vote winner isn't the popular vote winner, but the last time that happened was pretty recently and the echoes are still resounding.
States can decide for themselves about the electoral vote distribution IIRC; there is a move afoot to do the same in California, although I doubt it will come to much.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Foolhearty
Shipmate
# 6196
|
Posted
Dunno about changing the Constitution for getting rid of the EC, but IMHO it might be a good idea to elect a committee instead of an individual to the POTUS.
Personally, I favor Clintobamwardsonich.
Posts: 2301 | From: Upper right-hand corner | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by dj_ordinaire:
quote:
Originally posted by comet:
so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.
Couldn't you just count all the votes each candidate got across the whole country and appoint the person with the most?
For the November presidential election, this would be a great idea, but it wouldn't do a thing to change the mess that is the primaries.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Here's an interesting bit on the IA caucus.
quote:
Christopher C. Hull: Certainly there's a concern anytime so much money is spent in one state at a single time. There are two ways of balancing the process, in my view.
One is to move in the direction of a national primary - whether that is by compressing states into regional contests or by actually allowing all states to compete at once. My serious concern about that is that it eliminates the winnowing process that currently takes place, during which different states learn about the candidates sequentially.
The other way would be to improve the Caucus' process itself. In the book I recommend tying delegates to the percentages, bringing the state in to regulate the process, and eliminating the Democratic caucuses' silly 15% viability threshold.
The return on investment for America, at that point, is to cull out candidates with little support from the grassroots activists of the party.
That may not address your fundamental concern - but we do need to be careful, it seems to me, not to sacrifice the upsides of the current process in our drive to change it.
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
They've just called the Iowa caucuses: Obama and Huckabee. Turnout is reported to be very high.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manda
Shipmate
# 6028
|
Posted
Yay Obama! The first politician to be really inspiring in a long time, If I lived in the US I'd vote for him on the title of his book alone (Audacit of Hope, not the one about his father) because of what that says abou him.
Hmm, staying up to follow UK election is one thing, staying up to follow US ones ia not good for sleep levels.
--------------------
'Hypnotically fabulous AND twinkly' - The Lad Himself
Posts: 1137 | From: Back in little old Wiltshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
No kidding. Wow.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mamacita
Lakefront liberal
# 3659
|
Posted
Hillary and Edwards are in a dead heat for second place -- too soon to call.
The New Yorker asked above whether Hillary will be done for if she loses in Iowa. The answer is No, too soon to tell. It depends what happens in New Hampshire. Now if Obama won NH too, that would totally shake things up.
In other news: I just saw Howard Dean on TV. Dear God. He's lost, I dunno, maybe 40-50 pounds; his face is now long and narrow instead of round. Makes his nose look bigger. Also, his skin looks funny. I suspect botox and/or a too-recent facial peel. Now back to your regular campaign coverage.
--------------------
Do not be daunted by the enormity of the world’s grief. Do justly, now. Love mercy, now. Walk humbly, now. You are not obligated to complete the work, but neither are you free to abandon it.
Posts: 20761 | From: where the purple line ends | Registered: Dec 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Imaginary Friend
Real to you
# 186
|
Posted
That's not the regular coverage? I must be watching the wrong channel!
I think that there's plenty of time for Hilary to turn around a defeat here, although I guess momentum can be tough to stop. As for the republicans, I must confess I still don't really know who's who (apart from Giuliani).
--------------------
"We had a good team on paper. Unfortunately, the game was played on grass."
Brian Clough
Posts: 9455 | From: Left a bit... Right a bit... | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
![[Yipee]](graemlins/spin.gif) Barack! Woooooo!
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
SeraphimSarov
Shipmate
# 4335
|
Posted
Yay for Barack in the fight to stop the ICE Princess!
![[Overused]](graemlins/notworthy.gif)
and I would be very pleased if GOP ended up nominating Huckabee. It would be their smartest move since Goldwater in '64 ![[Devil]](graemlins/devil.gif)
[ 04. January 2008, 03:00: Message edited by: SeraphimSarov ]
--------------------
"For those who like that sort of thing, that is the sort of thing they like"
Posts: 2247 | From: Sacramento, California | Registered: Apr 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
I'm not impressed by any of the candidates. Barack seems naive in thinking that his "vision" can take on Republican operatives. I expect the first commercial ads making fun of his name to begin around next month.
Hillary can't connect with ordinary people. Giulani's record as Mayor is vastly exaggerated and overstated. John Edwards preaches an easy gospel of populism that hides his own establishment past.
I say, just let Canada invade America and place Dion as president. ![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
I'm not impressed by any of the candidates. Barack seems naive in thinking that his "vision" can take on Republican operatives. I expect the first commercial ads making fun of his name to begin around next month.
I think this could backfire in a huge way -- it could come off as racist. And the Republican operatives aren't looking too good this evening; a lot more Democrats than Republicans turned out to vote, and the guy with the typical Republican organization behind him got beat by a guy who just a few months ago was a long-shot nobody.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Eutychus
From the edge
# 3081
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manda:
Yay Obama! The first politician to be really inspiring in a long time, If I lived in the US I'd vote for him on the title of his book alone
That kind of reassures me given that I would be tempted to vote for Mike Huckabee on the sole basis of his ability to play bass guitar. Pretty good name for a band, too.
--------------------
Let's remember that we are to build the Kingdom of God, not drive people away - pastor Frank Pomeroy
Posts: 17944 | From: 528491 | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
moron
Shipmate
# 206
|
Posted
Big gap between Huckabee and Romney, especially given the latter outspent the former substantially... but assuming it would probably be a mistake to read too much into results from this comparatively middle of the road state I'll go out on a limb and predict things will look differently after the bluer states weigh in. ![[Biased]](wink.gif)
This chart ranks states by 'color'. And FYI:
3 Jan: Iowa caucuses
8 Jan: New Hampshire primary
15 Jan: Michigan primary
19 Jan: Nevada caucuses; South Carolina primary (Rep)
26 Jan: South Carolina primary (Dem)
29 Jan: Florida primary
5 Feb: some 20 states including California, New York, New Jersey
Posts: 4236 | From: Bentonville | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
sharkshooter
Not your average shark
# 1589
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by bc_anglican:
...
I say, just let Canada invade America and place Dion as president.
Why don't we just export him, and you can keep him all to yourself.
--------------------
Let the words of my mouth, and the meditation of my heart, be acceptable in thy sight, O LORD, my strength, and my redeemer. [Psalm 19:14]
Posts: 7772 | From: Canada; Washington DC; Phoenix; it's complicated | Registered: Oct 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
moonlitdoor
Shipmate
# 11707
|
Posted
quote:
originally posted by Comet
so it's standard then, for all of a state's electoral votes to be cast the same way no matter what? we can't have, say, one blue and two red votes? that would reflect the actual votes cast much better.
I believe that Maine and Nebraska cast their electoral college votes as Comet suggests. Not sure why those two as they don't seem very similar states from this distance.
--------------------
We've evolved to being strange monkeys, but in the next life he'll help us be something more worthwhile - Gwai
Posts: 2210 | From: london | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
In less than a week no one will care what just happened it Iowa. It seems about all that happened is that Obama was able to get some folks to show up to vote against Hillary and Huckabee got some folks from church to show up and vote against a Mormon.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
IconiumBound
Shipmate
# 754
|
Posted
This may be somewhat off the subject but... I watched the Iowa caucus on CSPAN (Democrats) and CSPAN2 (Republicans). The Democrats were 375 people plus media coverage crowded into what appeared to be a high school cafeteria. At the signal they were given 3o minutes sorts themselves into bunches around their preferred candidates. The scene confirmed that "democracy is a messy business". After getting a count from each bunch it was determined that Kucinek, Biden and Richardson didn't have enough people in their bunch to be viable. So they were given 15 minutes to resort themselves into the bunches of the three leading candidates; more shuffling and crowding. then another head count and the results were in. They had to elect delegates and alternates after this but then most people were leaving so that part was up to the pols.
The Republican caucus was a controlled affair with paper ballots and the pols in charge. They concluded about an hour before the Democrats and even had time for a patriotic song in the middle.
A very interesting exposition of the politics and polis in heartland USA.
Posts: 1318 | From: Philadelphia, PA, USA | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mad Geo
Ship's navel gazer
# 2939
|
Posted
![[Killing me]](graemlins/killingme.gif)
That is beautiful.
So emblematic of the people that compose each of the parties. Or at least the stereotypes of those people.
--------------------
Diax's Rake - "Never believe a thing simply because you want it to be true"
Posts: 11730 | From: People's Republic of SoCal | Registered: Jun 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
A very interesting exposition of the politics and polis in heartland USA.
That sounds fun if there was free beer on tap.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
tclune
Shipmate
# 7959
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
In less than a week no one will care what just happened it Iowa. It seems about all that happened is that Obama was able to get some folks to show up to vote against Hillary and Huckabee got some folks from church to show up and vote against a Mormon.
And Dodds and my man Biden dropped out of the race...
--Tom Clune
--------------------
This space left blank intentionally.
Posts: 8013 | From: Western MA | Registered: Jul 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
Richardson is still in -- if he's still standing a month from now he'll probably get my vote. That's pretty big "if," though.
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Autenrieth Road
Shipmate
# 10509
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by moonlitdoor:
I believe that Maine and Nebraska cast their electoral college votes as Comet suggests. Not sure why those two as they don't seem very similar states from this distance.
Good question. One common feature is that we're both small: 4 and 5 electoral votes respectively. If a big solidly blue or red state tried to do this, I suspect the traditionally powerful party would put a lot of effort into blocking it. Interestingly, neither Maine nor Nebraska has yet had a split electoral delegation since we/they started this method.
--------------------
Truth
Posts: 9559 | From: starlight | Registered: Oct 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Manda
Shipmate
# 6028
|
Posted
Hey, can anyone who knows about these things tell me if it's true that both parties have excluded/reduced the delegates to their conventions from various states to punish them for trying to be earlier in the primaries?
What's that about? Why do the national parties mind which order the primaries are in. How decides the dates anyway? Seems slightly unfair on the party members in those states to me, though I may have misunderstood.
--------------------
'Hypnotically fabulous AND twinkly' - The Lad Himself
Posts: 1137 | From: Back in little old Wiltshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
RuthW
liberal "peace first" hankie squeezer
# 13
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manda:
Hey, can anyone who knows about these things tell me if it's true that both parties have excluded/reduced the delegates to their conventions from various states to punish them for trying to be earlier in the primaries?
What's that about? Why do the national parties mind which order the primaries are in. How decides the dates anyway? Seems slightly unfair on the party members in those states to me, though I may have misunderstood.
The Democratic party has rules that say no state can hold its Democratic primary before Feb 5 except Iowa, New Hampshire, Nevada, and South Carolina. The idea is to give candidates a chance to concentrate on a few relatively small states and get exposure and thus be able to raise money before they have to try to campaign in the big states. Michigan scheduled its Democratic primary for Jan 15 and Florida scheduled its for Jan 29, so the party has stripped them of their delegates to the Democratic convention, when the delegates cast their votes and the party nominee is thus officially chosen. The primaries are going ahead, but they won't count.
It's not unfair, IMO -- rules is rules. 20 other states are all holding their primaries on Feb 5, and there's no reason why Michigan and Florida should get to go ahead of them.
It really does matter which primaries are held first. California is the most populous state and the third biggest in land area, so it costs an enormous amount of money to campaign here. If we went first, the contest would heavily favor the candidates with the most money. Mike Huckabee was massively outspent in Iowa, but he could campaign in Iowa state-wide without having the money that Romney spent; it wouldn't have worked in California.
[ 04. January 2008, 22:13: Message edited by: RuthW ]
Posts: 24453 | From: La La Land | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
Joan Rasch
Shipmate
# 49
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
<snip>I watched the Iowa caucus on CSPAN (Democrats) and CSPAN2 (Republicans). The Democrats were 375 people plus media coverage crowded into what appeared to be a high school cafeteria. At the signal they were given 3o minutes sorts themselves into bunches around their preferred candidates. The scene confirmed that "democracy is a messy business". After getting a count from each bunch it was determined that Kucinek, Biden and Richardson didn't have enough people in their bunch to be viable. So they were given 15 minutes to resort themselves into the bunches of the three leading candidates; more shuffling and crowding. then another head count and the results were in.<snip>
Interestingly enough, the procedure described above approximates the results that would happen if a proportional vote with single transferable ballot were held. Ie. rank all the candidates 1 to <whatever>. The idea is that everyone can rank their first choice as number one, but a concensus might well develop around everyone's second or third choice. Best case result - a choice that most people can at least live with.
The downside is that proportional voting can be a bit counterintuitive for those not used to it. On the other hand, we've been doing it for years in the Episcopal Diocese of Massachusetts (where I chair the committee in charge of counting votes at our annual Convention) and, so far as I can tell, most people seem content enough with this system.
In the case of a political party primary, the way I would see such a system working, is that delegate candidates would run as committed to a particular candidate, or run on an issues-based platform, with the understanding that anyone who voted for them would be willing to trust that delegate to make an appropriate decision at the time of the party convention.
So the results might be: 10 for candidate A, 4 for candidate B, 1 for candidate C, and 2 delegates who will vote at the convention for which ever candidate is best at that point on issues XYZ.
cheers from Boston - Joan
--------------------
* A cyclist on the information bikepath
Posts: 509 | From: Boston, MA USA | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
Manda
Shipmate
# 6028
|
Posted
Thanks Ruth, now I understand a bit better.
So why would states choose to have their primaries signifcantly after February 5th then? Isn't there a risk that they could end up ignored if a candidate has already got enough delegates? Or are they hoping it's close & they might have the late casting vote & get more attention if their not scheduled with 20 others?
--------------------
'Hypnotically fabulous AND twinkly' - The Lad Himself
Posts: 1137 | From: Back in little old Wiltshire | Registered: May 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
A very interesting exposition of the politics and polis in heartland USA.
That sounds fun if there was free beer on tap.
I heard that serving sandwiches was not allowed under caucus rules, so beer is probably right out.
Punch-n-cookies, however, seem to be legal. Good thing too, it's a long night.
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
Amazing Grace
High Church Protestant
# 95
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Manda:
Thanks Ruth, now I understand a bit better.
So why would states choose to have their primaries signifcantly after February 5th then? Isn't there a risk that they could end up ignored if a candidate has already got enough delegates? Or are they hoping it's close & they might have the late casting vote & get more attention if their not scheduled with 20 others?
The "not wanting to be ignored" is why so many states moved it up, and have been trying to jump ahead of the Feb 5 queue.
California had its primary in June when I started voting. The only time in my memory that it had a significant effect on the primary (beyond, of course, being a Cash Cow par excellence) is when Robert Kennedy got assassinated on Primary Night in 1968 ( ![[Votive]](graemlins/votive.gif) ). It got switched to late March, but that still wasn't early enough this time.
It's gonna be nuts, as we have many elections departments still trying to get themselves reliable voting machines. (I used to work with one. They had to hand count paper ballots last time.)
Charlotte
--------------------
WTFWED? "Remember to always be yourself, unless you suck" - the Gator
Memory Eternal! Sheep 3, Phil the Wise Guy, and Jesus' Evil Twin in the SoF Nativity Play
Posts: 6593 | From: Sittin' by the dock of the [SF] bay | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged
|
|
comet
Snowball in Hell
# 10353
|
Posted
quote:
Originally posted by Amazing Grace:
quote:
Originally posted by Mere Nick:
quote:
Originally posted by IconiumBound:
A very interesting exposition of the politics and polis in heartland USA.
That sounds fun if there was free beer on tap.
I heard that serving sandwiches was not allowed under caucus rules, so beer is probably right out.
Punch-n-cookies, however, seem to be legal. Good thing too, it's a long night.
Charlotte
random tangent - we had the son of a mayoral candidate charged with attempted bribery a few years back when he tried to give an election official a banana late into a hand count.
sounds bizarre, but when the details came forward, it appeared to be a pretty legit claim.
you think he would have at least offered her a burger!
--------------------
Evil Dragon Lady, Breaker of Men's Constitutions
"It's hard to be religious when certain people are never incinerated by bolts of lightning.” -Calvin
Posts: 17024 | From: halfway between Seduction and Peril | Registered: Sep 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Anglican_Brat
Shipmate
# 12349
|
Posted
If Hillary loses New Hampshire, that I seriously don't think she can last. Obama has the momentum, if he carries New Hampshire easily, we are looking at the 2008 Democratic nominee here.
On the Republican side, it is much more up in the air. I don't know if Huckabee is able to carry urban states. New Hampshire might be more hospitable to Romney or Giulani.
--------------------
It's Reformation Day! Do your part to promote Christian unity and brotherly love and hug a schismatic.
Posts: 4332 | From: Vancouver | Registered: Feb 2007
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
While hoping I'm just needlessly paranoid for the man, I am very concerned about Barack Obama's safety. He's a Christian, but it appears he may have been a Muslim at one time. It also appears that the predominant, if not widespread, belief is that those who leave Islam are to be killed. I'm afraid there might be a terrorist operation against him as a demonstration to others considering leaving Islam that even someone with Secret Service protection can be reached. It may be much ado about nothing, but I hope the Secret Service has considered it in the security plans.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Mere Nick
Shipmate
# 11827
|
Posted
I just looked at the Secret Service website looking for contact information and found this faq:
>>How long do former presidents receive Secret Service protection after they leave office?
In 1965, Congress authorized the Secret Service (Public Law 89-186) to protect a former president and his/her spouse during their lifetime, unless they decline protection. In 1997, Congress enacted legislation (Public Law 103-329) that limits Secret Service protection for former presidents to 10 years after leaving office. Under this new law, individuals who are in office before January 1, 1997, will continue to receive Secret Service protection for their lifetime. Individuals elected to office after that time will receive protection for 10 years after leaving office. Therefore, President Clinton will be the last president to receive lifetime protection. <<
I didn't know Clinton signed into law that he would be the last to receive lifetime protection. If he really thinks it's such a swell idea he should have held out for lifetime service for those who are in office before January 1, 1992.
--------------------
"Well that's it, boys. I've been redeemed. The preacher's done warshed away all my sins and transgressions. It's the straight and narrow from here on out, and heaven everlasting's my reward."
Delmar O'Donnell
Posts: 2797 | From: West Carolina | Registered: Sep 2006
| IP: Logged
|
|
Thread closed
Printer-friendly view
